[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 113 (Thursday, September 21, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8885-S8933]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2000
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 2796) to provide for the conservation and
development of water and resources, to authorize the
Secretary of the Army to construct various projects for
improvements to rivers and harbors of the United States, and
for other purposes.
The Senate proceeded to the bill which had been reported from the
Committee on Environment and Public Works, with an amendment; as
follows:
(Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the
part printed in italic.)
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.
[[Page S8886]]
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.
Sec. 214. Regulatory analysis and management systems data.
Sec. 215. Performance of specialized or technical services.
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. Red River Waterway, Louisiana.
Sec. 307. William Jennings Randolph Lake, Maryland.
Sec. 308. Missouri River Valley, Missouri.
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. Sagamore Creek, New Hampshire.
Sec. 314. Passaic River Basin flood management, New Jersey.
Sec. 315. Rockaway Inlet to Norton Point, New York.
Sec. 316. John Day Pool, Oregon and Washington.
Sec. 317. Fox Point hurricane barrier, Providence, Rhode Island.
Sec. 318. Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels, Texas.
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.
Sec. 436. Upper Mississippi River basin sediment and nutrient study.
TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Sec. 501. Visitors centers.
Sec. 502. CALFED Bay-Delta Program assistance, California.
Sec. 503. Conveyance of lighthouse, Ontonagon, Michigan.
Sec. 504. Land conveyance, Candy Lake, Oklahoma.
TITLE VI--COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN
Sec. 601. Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan.
SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF SECRETARY.
In this Act, the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of
the Army.
TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS
SEC. 101. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.
(a) Projects With Chief's Reports.--The following 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.--
(A) In general.--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.
(B) Credit.--The non-Federal interests shall receive credit
toward the non-Federal share of project costs for 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.
(17) Chesterfield, missouri.--The project to implement
structural and nonstructural measures to prevent flood damage
to Chesterfield, Missouri, and the surrounding area, at a
total
[[Page S8887]]
cost of $63,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of
$40,950,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $22,050,000.
(18) 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.
(19) 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.
(20) 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.
(21) 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.
(22) Jackson hole, wyoming.--
(A) In general.--The project for environmental restoration,
Jackson Hole, Wyoming, at a total cost of $66,500,000, with
an estimated Federal cost of $43,225,000 and an estimated
non-Federal cost of $23,275,000.
(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.
(23) Ohio river.--
(A) In general.--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 $130,000,000 and an estimated non-
Federal cost of $70,000,000.
(B) Non-federal share.--
(i) In general.--The non-Federal share of the costs of any
project under the program 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.
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.
(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):
[[Page S8888]]
(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) Mines falls park, new hampshire.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Mines Falls Park, New Hampshire.
(11) North hampton, new hampshire.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Little River Salt Marsh, North
Hampton, New Hampshire.
(12) Highland county, ohio.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Rocky Fork Lake, Clear Creek floodplain,
Highland County, Ohio.
(13) Hocking county, ohio.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Long Hollow Mine, Hocking County, Ohio.
(14) Tuscarawas county, ohio.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Huff Run, Tuscarawas County, Ohio.
(15) Central amazon creek, oregon.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Central Amazon Creek, Oregon.
(16) Delta ponds, oregon.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Delta Ponds, Oregon.
(17) Eugene millrace, oregon.--Project for aquatic
ecosystem restoration, Eugene Millrace, Oregon.
(18) Medford, oregon.--Project for aquatic ecosystem
restoration, Bear Creek watershed, Medford, Oregon.
(19) 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;
``(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--
``(1) the Delaware River basin; and
``(2) the Willamette River basin, Oregon.
``(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
[[Page S8889]]
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, a project for navigation, storm damage
protection, shoreline erosion, hurricane protection, or
recreation, 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, 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).
[[Page S8890]]
``(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.''.
SEC. 214. REGULATORY ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS DATA.
(a) In General.--Beginning October 1, 2000, the Secretary,
acting through the Chief of Engineers, shall publish, on the
Army Corps of Engineers' Regulatory Program website,
quarterly reports that include all Regulatory Analysis and
Management Systems (RAMS) data.
(b) Data.--Such RAMS data shall include--
(1) the date on which an individual or nationwide permit
application under section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) is first received by the Corps;
(2) the date on which the application is considered
complete;
(3) the date on which the Corps either grants (with or
without conditions) or denies the permit; and
(4) if the application is not considered complete when
first received by the Corps, a description of the reason the
application was not considered complete.
SEC. 215. PERFORMANCE OF SPECIALIZED OR TECHNICAL SERVICES.
(a) Definition of State.--In this section, the term
``State'' has the meaning given the term in section 6501 of
title 31, United States Code.
(b) Authority.--The Corps of Engineers may provide
specialized or technical services to a Federal agency (other
than a Department of Defense agency), State, or local
government of the United States under section 6505 of title
31, United States Code, only if the chief executive of the
requesting entity submits to the Secretary--
(1) a written request describing the scope of the services
to be performed and agreeing to reimburse the Corps for all
costs associated with the performance of the services; and
(2) a certification that includes adequate facts to
establish that the services requested are not reasonably and
quickly available through ordinary business channels.
(c) Corps Agreement To Perform Services.--The Secretary,
after receiving a request described in subsection (b) to
provide specialized or technical services, shall, before
entering into an agreement to perform the services--
(1) ensure that the requirements of subsection (b) are met
with regard to the request for services; and
(2) execute a certification that includes adequate facts to
establish that the Corps is uniquely equipped to perform such
services.
(d) Annual Report to Congress.--
(1) In general.--Not later than the end of each calendar
year, the Secretary shall provide to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public
Works of the Senate a report identifying any request
submitted by a Federal agency (other than a Department of
Defense agency), State, or local government of the United
States to the Corps to provide specialized or technical
services.
(2) Contents of report.--The report shall include, with
respect to each request described in paragraph (1)--
(A) a description of the scope of services requested;
(B) the certifications required under subsection (b) and
(c);
(C) the status of the request;
(D) the estimated and final cost of the services;
(E) the status of reimbursement;
(F) a description of the scope of services performed; and
(G) copies of all certifications in support of the request.
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 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 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. 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. 307. 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.
[[Page S8891]]
SEC. 308. MISSOURI RIVER VALLEY, MISSOURI.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the
``Missouri River Valley Improvement Act''.
(b) Findings and Purposes.--
(1) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(A) Lewis and Clark were pioneering naturalists that
recorded dozens of species previously unknown to science
while ascending the Missouri River in 1804;
(B) the Missouri River, which is 2,321 miles long, drains
\1/6\ of the United States, is home to approximately
10,000,000 people in 10 States and 28 Native American tribes,
and is a resource of incalculable value to the United States;
(C) the construction of dams, levees, and river training
structures in the past 150 years has aided navigation, flood
control, and water supply along the Missouri River, but has
reduced habitat for native river fish and wildlife;
(D) river organizations, including the Missouri River Basin
Association, support habitat restoration, riverfront
revitalization, and improved operational flexibility so long
as those efforts do not significantly interfere with uses of
the Missouri River; and
(E) restoring a string of natural places by the year 2004
would aid native river fish and wildlife, reduce flood
losses, enhance recreation and tourism, and celebrate the
bicentennial of Lewis and Clark's voyage.
(2) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are--
(A) to protect, restore, and enhance the fish, wildlife,
and plants, and the associated habitats on which they depend,
of the Missouri River;
(B) to restore a string of natural places that aid native
river fish and wildlife, reduce flood losses, and enhance
recreation and tourism;
(C) to revitalize historic riverfronts to improve quality
of life in riverside communities and attract recreation and
tourism;
(D) to monitor the health of the Missouri River and measure
biological, chemical, geological, and hydrological responses
to changes in Missouri River management;
(E) to allow the Corps of Engineers increased authority to
restore and protect fish and wildlife habitat on the Missouri
River;
(F) to protect and replenish cottonwoods, and their
associated riparian woodland communities, along the upper
Missouri River; and
(G) to educate the public about the economic,
environmental, and cultural importance of the Missouri River
and the scientific and cultural discoveries of Lewis and
Clark.
(c) Definition of Missouri River.--In this section, the
term ``Missouri River'' means the Missouri River and the
adjacent floodplain that extends from the mouth of the
Missouri River (RM 0) to the confluence of the Jefferson,
Madison, and Gallatin Rivers (RM 2341) in the State of
Montana.
(d) Authority To Protect, Enhance, and Restore Fish and
Wildlife Habitat.--Section 9(b) of the Act of December 22,
1944 (58 Stat. 891, chapter 665), is amended--
(1) by striking ``(b) The general'' and inserting the
following:
``(b) Comprehensive Plan.--
``(1) In general.--The general'';
(2) by striking ``paragraph'' and inserting ``subsection'';
and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Fish and wildlife habitat.--In addition to carrying
out the duties under the comprehensive plan described in
paragraph (1), the Chief of Engineers shall protect, enhance,
and restore fish and wildlife habitat on the Missouri River
to the extent consistent with other authorized project
purposes.''.
(e) Integration of Activities.--
(1) In general.--In carrying out this section and in
accordance with paragraph (2), the Secretary shall provide
for such activities as are necessary to protect and enhance
fish and wildlife habitat without adversely affecting--
(A) the water-related needs of the Missouri River basin,
including flood control, navigation, hydropower, water
supply, and recreation; and
(B) private property rights.
(2) New authority.--Nothing in this section confers any new
regulatory authority on any Federal or non-Federal entity
that carries out any activity under this section.
(f) Missouri River Mitigation Project.--The matter under
the heading ``missouri river mitigation, missouri, kansas,
iowa, and nebraska'' of section 601(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4143) is amended by adding
at the end the following: ``There is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this paragraph $20,000,000 for each
of fiscal years 2001 through 2010, contingent on the
completion by December 31, 2000, of the study under this
heading.''.
(g) Upper Missouri River Aquatic and Riparian Habitat
Mitigation Program.--
(1) In general.--
(A) Study.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary, through an interagency
agreement with the Director of the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service and in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Act of 1980 (16 U.S.C. 2901 et seq.), shall
complete a study that--
(i) analyzes any adverse effects on aquatic and riparian-
dependent fish and wildlife resulting from the operation of
the Missouri River Mainstem Reservoir Project in the States
of Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, and Montana;
(ii) recommends measures appropriate to mitigate the
adverse effects described in clause (i); and
(iii) develops baseline geologic and hydrologic data
relating to aquatic and riparian habitat.
(B) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress
a report describing the results of the study under
subparagraph (A).
(2) Pilot program.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and
the affected State fish and wildlife agencies, shall develop
and administer a pilot mitigation program that--
(A) involves the experimental releases of warm water from
the spillways at Fort Peck Dam during the appropriate
spawning periods for native fish;
(B) involves the monitoring of the response of fish to and
the effectiveness of the preservation of native fish and
wildlife habitat of the releases described in subparagraph
(A); and
(C) shall not adversely impact a use of the reservoir
existing on the date on which the pilot program is
implemented.
(3) Reservoir fish loss study.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation with
the North Dakota Game and Fish Department and the South
Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, shall complete a
study to analyze and recommend measures to avoid or reduce
the loss of fish, including rainbow smelt, through Garrison
Dam in North Dakota and Oahe Dam in South Dakota.
(B) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress
a report describing the results of the study under
subparagraph (A).
(4) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary--
(A) to complete the study required under paragraph (3),
$200,000; and
(B) to carry out the other provisions of this subsection,
$1,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2010.
(h) Missouri and Middle Mississippi Rivers Enhancement
Project.--Section 514 of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1999 (113 Stat. 342) is amended by striking subsection (g)
and inserting the following:
``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to pay the Federal share of the cost of
carrying out activities under this section $5,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2001 through 2004.''.
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.
[[Page S8892]]
(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.
(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. SAGAMORE CREEK, NEW HAMPSHIRE.
The Secretary shall carry out maintenance dredging of the
Sagamore Creek Channel, New Hampshire.
SEC. 314. 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
economically justified, 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
[[Page S8893]]
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. 315. 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. 316. 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 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' numbers:
(1) Auditor's Microfilm Numbers 229 and 16226 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. 317. 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. 318. HOUSTON-GALVESTON NAVIGATION CHANNELS, TEXAS.
(a) In General.--Subject to the completion, not later than
December 31, 2000, of a favorable report by the Chief of
Engineers, the project for navigation and environmental
restoration, Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels, Texas,
authorized by section 101(a)(30) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3666), is modified to
authorize the Secretary to design and construct barge lanes
adjacent to both sides of the Houston Ship Channel from
Redfish Reef to Morgan Point, a distance of approximately 15
miles, to a depth of 12 feet, at a total cost of $34,000,000,
with an estimated Federal cost of $30,600,000 and an
estimated non-Federal cost of $3,400,000.
(b) Cost Sharing.--The non-Federal interest shall pay a
portion of the costs of construction of the barge lanes under
subsection (a) in accordance with section 101 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211).
(c) Federal Interest.--If the modification under subsection
(a) is in compliance with all applicable environmental
requirements, the modification shall be considered to be in
the Federal interest.
(d) No Authorization of Maintenance.--No maintenance is
authorized to be carried out for the modification under
subsection (a).
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
[[Page S8894]]
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
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.
[[Page S8895]]
(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.
(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 disposed
of by beneficial reuse, by open water disposal, or at a
licensed waste facility, as appropriate; 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--
[[Page S8896]]
(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 (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).
(3) New york and new jersey channels, new york and new
jersey.--The portion of the project for navigation, New York
and New Jersey Channels, New York and New Jersey, authorized
by the first section of the Act of August 30, 1935 (49 Stat.
1030, chapter 831), and modified by section 101 of the River
and Harbor Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 164), consisting of a 35-
foot-deep channel beginning at a point along the western
limit of the authorized project, N644100.411, E2129256.91,
thence running southeast about 38.25 feet to a point
N644068.885, E2129278.565, thence running south about 1163.86
feet to a point N642912.127, E2129150.209, thence running
southwest about 56.9 feet to a point N642864.09,
E2129119.725, thence running north along the western limit of
the project to the point of origin.
TITLE IV--STUDIES
SEC. 401. BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA.
The Secretary shall 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 shall 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 shall 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 shall 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 shall 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 shall 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 shall 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 shall 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 shall 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 shall 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 shall 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 shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of 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 shall 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 shall
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 shall 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 shall 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 shall 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 shall 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
shall 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 shall conduct
a study to determine the
[[Page S8897]]
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 shall 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 shall 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 shall conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of modifying the 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 shall 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 shall 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 shall--
``(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 shall 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 shall--
(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 shall 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 shall 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 shall 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) shall not exceed 25
percent.
(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 shall 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 shall 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 shall 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 shall 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 shall 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 shall conduct a study to
determine the feasibility of providing
[[Page S8898]]
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.
SEC. 436. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN SEDIMENT AND NUTRIENT
STUDY.
(a) In General.--The Secretary, in conjunction with the
Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior,
shall conduct a study to--
(1) identify and evaluate significant sources of sediment
and nutrients in the upper Mississippi River basin;
(2) quantify the processes affecting mobilization,
transport, and fate of those sediments and nutrients on land
and in water; and
(3) quantify the transport of those sediments and nutrients
to the upper Mississippi River and the tributaries of the
upper Mississippi River.
(b) Study Components.--
(1) Computer modeling.--In carrying out the study under
this section, the Secretary shall develop computer models of
the upper Mississippi River basin, at the subwatershed and
basin scales, to--
(A) identify and quantify sources of sediment and
nutrients; and
(B) examine the effectiveness of alternative management
measures.
(2) Research.--In carrying out the study under this
section, the Secretary shall conduct research to improve the
understanding of--
(A) fate processes and processes affecting sediment and
nutrient transport, with emphasis on nitrogen and phosphorus
cycling and dynamics;
(B) the influences on sediment and nutrient losses of soil
type, slope, climate, vegetation cover, and modifications to
the stream drainage network; and
(C) river hydrodynamics, in relation to sediment and
nutrient transformations, retention, and transport.
(c) Use of Information.--On request of a relevant Federal
agency, the Secretary may provide information for use in
applying sediment and nutrient reduction programs associated
with land-use improvements and land management practices.
(d) Reports.--
(1) Preliminary report.--Not later than 2 years after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to
Congress a preliminary report that outlines work being
conducted on the study components described in subsection
(b).
(2) Final report.--Not later than 5 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress
a report describing the results of the study under this
section, including any findings and recommendations of the
study.
(e) Funding.--
(1) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2001 through 2005.
(2) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of
carrying out this section shall be 50 percent.
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.
SEC. 504. LAND CONVEYANCE, CANDY LAKE, OKLAHOMA.
Section 563(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1999 (113 Stat. 357) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``a deceased'' and
inserting ``an''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Costs of nepa compliance.--The Federal Government
shall assume the costs of any Federal action under this
subsection that is carried out for the purpose of section 102
of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
4332).
``(5) Authorization of appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to
carry out this subsection.''.
TITLE VI--COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN
SEC. 601. 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
[[Page S8899]]
(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:
(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--
[[Page S8900]]
(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.--
(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 reuse.--
(A) In general.--On completion and evaluation of the
wastewater reuse 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 reuse 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 reuse 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; and
(iii) ensure the protection of the natural system
consistent with the goals and purposes of the Plan.
(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.
[[Page S8901]]
(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.
(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
applicable 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) Dispute Resolution.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary and the Governor shall
within 180 days from the date of enactment of this Act
develop an agreement for resolving disputes between the Corps
of Engineers and the State associated with the implementation
of the Plan. Such agreement shall establish a mechanism for
the timely and efficient resolution of disputes, including--
(A) a preference for the resolution of disputes between the
Jacksonville District of the Corps of Engineers and the South
Florida Water Management District;
(B) a mechanism for the Jacksonville District of the Corps
of Engineers or the South Florida Water Management District
to initiate the dispute resolution process for unresolved
issues;
(C) the establishment of appropriate timeframes and
intermediate steps for the elevation of disputes to the
Governor and the Secretary; and
(D) a mechanism for the final resolution of disputes,
within 180 days from the date that the dispute resolution
process is initiated under subparagraph (B).
(2) Condition for report approval.--The Secretary shall not
approve a project implementation report under this Act until
the agreement established under this subsection has been
executed.
(3) No effect on law.--Nothing in the agreement established
under this subsection shall alter or amend any existing
Federal or State law.
(j) 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.
(k) 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.
(l) 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 (k) as they relate to socially and
economically disadvantaged individuals and individuals with
limited English proficiency.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I say to my colleagues
that there are amendments under the unanimous-consent agreement by
Senators Torricelli, Warner, Voinovich, and Feingold.
I say to my colleagues who have those amendments, if they could
proceed to the floor, the intention would be to try to get these
amendments offered as soon as possible, knowing that Members do have
airplanes to catch. We are hoping to yield back some of the debate time
in order to get out a bit earlier. That will take the cooperation of
all Members, especially those Members who are offering amendments or
who have asked for time to debate other matters within this timeframe.
With the cooperation of Members, we could wrap it up hopefully by 6
o'clock or 7 o'clock. Without the cooperation of Members, it will go
longer. It will be up to the leader as to how he will proceed with any
votes.
I am very pleased to bring before the Senate the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000.
Amendment No. 4164
(Purpose: To provide a complete substitute)
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I ask unanimous consent we move to the
managers' amendment, accept it, and it be considered original text for
the purpose of further amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Smith] for himself and
Mr. Baucus, proposes an amendment numbered 4164.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I ask unanimous consent reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. The committee has worked very diligently
to reach this point. It was quite a challenge: 99 Senators and me. We
had a lot of projects. We had a lot of differences of opinion and a lot
of things to work through. We worked very hard personally, wherever
possible, wherever I needed to, with my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle, to try to get accommodation for this bill. As it has been done
since the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, the committee used a
strict set of criteria to determine whether or not these projects would
be included. Only those projects that met those criteria were included
in this bill. As we know from many of the
[[Page S8902]]
hearings we had over the last year or so, there is a backlog of Corps
projects which, with the help of Senator Voinovich, Senator Baucus, and
others, we are trying to clear. We stuck to our criteria.
We received over 300 requests on harbor dredging, environmental
restoration, flood control, a number of items in which the Army Corps
would be involved. My colleagues and I drafted a bill that authorizes
22 new projects, containing 65 project-related provisions or
modifications, and authorizes 40 feasibility studies--very complex,
time consuming, a lot of detail, a lot of work at the staff and Member
level to get there.
I appreciate the cooperation of Senator Baucus and his staff
throughout this process, as well as Senator Voinovich on our side. Not
even one-third of those 300 projects made the cut. I am proud of that.
It is a reflection of the strength of the criteria that we worked so
hard to keep in the bill and include in the bill, to stick to those
criteria, trying not to make exceptions, because once you make
exceptions, it opens the door to more and more projects which are not
significant or important.
Our bill does not contain cost share waivers, environmental
infrastructure projects, or authorized projects that are not
technically sound, environmentally acceptable, or economically
justified. Those are the criteria. I am very proud of that. We stuck to
those criteria. We took some heat from some Members, but we thought we
were fair to everyone by sticking to the criteria.
I commend Senators Voinovich and Baucus for their hard work, and
their staffs, and, in addition to Senators Voinovich and Baucus,
Senator Mack and Senator Graham. Senator Graham, of course, is a member
of our committee. Senator Mack is not. But we treated Senator Mack as
if he were a member of the committee. They had full input because of
the Everglades issue which is such an important part of this bill. It
was a pleasure to work with all of them in putting this bill together.
It was very, very difficult.
This was a freestanding bill, the water 2000 provision, to restore
America's Everglades. I introduced it with my colleagues, Senators
Baucus, Voinovich, Graham, and Mack, on June 27, 2000. The committee
favorably reported out our Everglades bill by a bipartisan vote of 17-
1, with an amendment to include the Everglades. It was an
overwhelmingly bipartisan vote. I think we worked through this process
in a bipartisan manner both at the staff level and at the Member level.
In January of this year in south Florida at the Everglades, I made a
promise to the people of that State and to the Nation, with Senator
Graham by my side, as well as Senator Voinovich, that Everglades
restoration would be the top priority of this committee. Speaking for
myself, it would be my top priority as the chairman. It certainly has
been Senator Baucus' top priority as he has worked with me throughout
this process.
Since that markup, the committee, the State of Florida, the
administration, industry groups, environmental groups, and two Indian
tribes impacted by the Everglades restoration have all worked
diligently on the managers' amendment that we all can support. I am
pleased to report that S. 2796 with the managers' amendment is strongly
supported by all vital interests. It is truly bipartisan. It is truly
historic.
A few moments ago, Senator Byrd spoke on the floor about some of the
partisanship. It is out there. We all do it. There is a time and place
for it. But we didn't have it in this bill. Whatever differences we had
with individual Members, they had nothing to do with what somebody had
next to their name.
I will briefly comment on the Everglades issue and then turn it over
to my ranking member, Senator Baucus.
We might ask, Why is Everglades restoration necessary? The Everglades
is the biggest part of this water resources development bill, and that
has been controversial because other Members did not get as much as
Florida. But Florida has a special issue. The Everglades are very
special. It is a very environmentally sensitive region of the country.
It clearly is a treasure. I want my colleagues to understand why we
believe time is of the essence.
This is a national treasure. It is a vast freshwater marsh which once
was connected by the flow of water, a sheet of water, a river of water,
flowing south from Lake Okeechobee all the way into the Gulf of Mexico,
and once covered 18,000 square miles. It is the heart of a unique
biologically productive ecosystem.
But now the Everglades is in peril. It is half the size it used to
be. What happened? In 1948, we had a Federal flood control project, and
1.7 billion gallons of water a day as a result of that project are now
flowing into the sea, totally lost. We asked the Army Corps to do this
because we had flooding. We basically created a dam. On one side of
that dam is the dammed-up water; on the other side essentially is a
desert. That is not what the Everglades ecosystem was designed to be.
So we needed to correct it. The Federal Government, the Congress, and
the administration's direction at the time, in 1948, urged us to do it.
They spent the money to do it. Now I think it is the Federal
Government's responsibility, in conjunction with Florida, to correct
it. That is exactly what this bill does. 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
thousand of lives prior to the project's construction. Unfortunately,
the very success of the Central and Southern Florida Project disrupted
the natural sheet 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.
We are going to recapture that wasted water, store it, and redirect
it, when needed, to the natural system in the South Florida ecosystem.
On July 1, 1999, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers submitted to Congress
a ``Restudy'' of the Central and Southern Florida Project. Called the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, this blueprint provides the
details and layout of the 30-year restoration project.
The bipartisan Everglades legislation approves the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan as the overall framework to restore the
ecological health of the Florida Everglades. The bill also includes
authorization of the initial projects necessary to get restoration
underway. Specifically, the bill includes authorization of 10
construction projects. These projects, which employ already proven,
standard technologies, 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.
If anybody has been in south Florida, been to the Everglades, you
know what the Tamiami Trail is. Basically, that is a dam that blocks
the flow of that water. We will begin the process of punching holes in
that dam and allowing that sheet of water to flow once again.
The bill includes authorization of four pilot projects to test new
and innovative technologies that may be employed in future restoration
projects.
There is a requirement that future components of the plan must have a
favorable Project Implementation Reports [PIR] from the Secretary of
the Army, similar to a Chief of Engineer's report. Future projects will
be authorized through the biennial Water Resources Development Act.
Adaptive management and assessment. 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 is not working right,
through the concept of adaptive management and assessment, we can
modify the plan as new technologies and new methods become
available. Much is made of this and much more will be made of this
issue in the debate. This is a 36-year plan. This is a risk. It is not
a sure thing. We take risks all the time in the money we spend, whether
it is for a weapons system or cancer research. I am sure we would not
say we haven't found a cure for cancer so therefore let's not risk any
more money in research. We are saying if we do not do something to save
the Everglades, we will lose the Everglades. So we have to
[[Page S8903]]
try. We believe, on the best science we can find, that we have
reasonable expectations here to invest approximately $4 billion over 36
years. That is a can of Coke a year for every American. That is not a
lot of investment. I think we would be willing to do that so our
grandchildren can see alligators and wading birds and enjoy the
Everglades as I have with my children on many, many occasions.
So we have adaptive management. It is a great concept. If it doesn't
work, we stop and we try something else. We are not locked into
something for the next 36 years. We are going to perfect our
techniques. If something isn't working right, we are going to modify
it.
We have ``assurances'' that the environment will be the primary
beneficiary of the water made available through CERP. The overarching
object of the Plan is to restore, preserve, and protect the south
Florida ecosystem, while meeting the water supply, flood protection,
and agricultural needs of the region. These assurances also protect
existing water users, such as the Seminole Tribe of Florida's water
compact.
This bill has unprecedented broad, bipartisan support. My colleague
Senator Graham has compared our feat to achieving peace between the
Hatfields and the McCoys. This truly is a remarkable accomplishment
that deserves recognition by the Senate in the form of swift passage.
Every major constituency involved in Everglades restoration has
written us a letter of support and I will later ask unanimous consent
that these letters be printed in the Record. Also, in addition to the
bipartisanship, I think we should give a lot of credit to the State of
Florida. The State of Florida certainly, along with the legislature, in
a bipartisan unanimous vote set aside money for this project. Gov. Jeb
Bush has been fantastic in his support, as has Senator Graham and
Senator Mack, and the entire congressional delegation. Presidential
candidates Gore and Bush have also been supportive and expressed their
support.
I think there is an understanding here, that this is a huge treasure
that we must do something quickly to protect and preserve.
In addition to Senators Voinovich, Baucus, Graham, and Mack; the
administration; Florida Gov. Jeb Bush--I already mentioned them--the
Seminole Tribe of Florida and the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians support
this, as do Industry Groups: Florida Citrus Mutual; Florida Farm
Bureau; Florida Home Builders; The American Water Works Association;
Florida Chamber; Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association; Southeast
Florida Utility Council; Gulf Citrus Growers Association; Florida Sugar
Cane League; Florida Water Environmental Utility Council; Sugar Cane
Growers Cooperative of Florida; Florida Fertilizer and Agri-chemical
Association; and Environmental Groups: National Audubon Society;
National Wildlife Federation; World Wildlife Fund; Center for Marine
Conservation; Defenders of Wildlife; National Parks Conservation
Association; the Everglades Foundation; the Everglades Trust; Audubon
of Florida; 1000 Friends of Florida; Natural Resources Defense Council;
Environmental Defense; and the Sierra Club.
I also have a set of colloquies and I will later ask unanimous
consent that these colloquies be printed in the Record.
Garnering the support of these vast interests was not easy. Long
hours of intense negotiations since the time the committee reported
this bill has resulted in this broad coalition of supporters. They are
not the only ones who recognize a good, effective bill when they see
it. Newspaper editorial boards across the country have called for
Congress to swiftly enact Everglades restoration legislation this year.
On September 13, the New York Times ran an editorial, ``Congress's
Obligation to Nature.'' This editorial calls on Congress to approve two
vital conservation bills, one of those being the Everglades bill. The
New York Times had run an initial editorial in support of our
Everglades bill on July 13, 2000.
On July 7, 2000, the Washington Post ran an editorial lauding
restoration of the Everglades.
Just last week, on September 6, the Baltimore Sun ran an editorial,
as well which summed up what we face now: absent action, the unique
ecosystem will be lost.
Numerous Florida-based papers have also voiced strong support for the
Everglades bill. On September 7, a Miami Herald editorial, ``Pass the
`glades bill,'' so correctly states:
more delay serves no interest--not federal, state, tribal,
regional, or local. Let this Congress authorize restoration .
. .''
On July 23, a Tampa Tribune-Times editorial titled, ``Noble effort to
rescue Everglades'' recognizes that:
the long-term survival of the Everglades National Park,
which belongs to all Americans, depends upon restoring a
natural flow to the Glades . . . Congress should adopt this
noble plan to rescue one of the nation's genuine natural
wonders.
On June 30, the Sun Sentinel ran an editorial, ``Restoring the
Everglades: Bill on the right track'' which stated that:
Everglades restoration will require a massive, sustained
commitment . . . but it is worth it.
And if I could indulge in one more, on June 28th, the Palm Beach Post
editorial, ``Give Florida a lifeline'' summed it up:
Florida and the feds need to get started.
It is clear that these major national and Florida newspapers agree:
the bill is strong and the time is now. This Senate, this Congress and
this administration must pass Everglades restoration before the
conclusion of the 106th Congress.
If you care about the environment, if you care about this national
treasure, you must join me, Senators Voinovich, Baucus, Mack, and
Graham, and help us move WRDA, with Everglades, forward. The Everglades
cannot afford to wait. We have worked too hard to build this coalition
of support and the Everglades has waited too long for Congress to
notice and act upon its demise. Each day that we are delayed, we
jeopardize the chances of realizing restoration. Each day that we are
delayed, we come closer to losing this unique ecosystem. Each day that
we are delayed, vital habitat is lost and we threaten the species that
are already in peril. Each day that we are delayed, the Everglades come
closer to sure extinction.
I am afraid too often people forget that the Everglades is a national
environmental treasure. We need to view our efforts as our legacy to
future generations. Many years from now, I hope that this Congress will
be remembered for answering the call and saving the Everglades while we
still had the chance. Mr. President, I strongly encourage my colleagues
to support passage of the WRDA, with the Everglades title intact. With
that, I will only add that I hope we can finish this bill
expeditiously.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the managers' amendment is
agreed to and the committee substitute is agreed to. The bill as thus
amended is the original text now for the purpose of further amendment.
The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to join my good friend and chairman
of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Smith, in
supporting S. 2796, the Water Resources Development Act of 2000. I will
say a few words about the bill and a couple of words about some
projects in Montana, and finally wrap up with further comments about
the Everglades restoration.
This bill authorizes projects for a lot of different areas. It is
really quite a sweeping bill: flood control, for one, navigation, shore
protection, environmental restoration, water supply storage, and
recreation.
It also modifies some existing projects and directs the Corps to
study other proposed projects. All projects in this bill have the
support of a local sponsor, somebody at home willing to share the cost
of the project.
Even a brief review of the projects will demonstrate the importance
of passing this bill. A number of the projects are needed to protect
shorelines along oceans, lakes, and rivers.
Several of the navigation projects will ensure that our ports remain
competitive in an increasingly global marketplace. The studies
authorized in the bill will help us make informed decisions about the
future use and management of our water resources.
Each project in this bill has been reviewed by the Army Corps of
Engineers and has been found to be in the Federal
[[Page S8904]]
interest, technologically feasible, economically justified, and
environmentally sound. These projects have also been reviewed in
accordance with applicable standards and also with our own committee
criteria; in other words, they are worthy of support.
Let me mention two that are very important to my State of Montana.
First is the authorization for a fish hatchery at Fort Peck. This fish
hatchery will make good on a long-awaited promise on the Fort Peck
project; namely, to create more opportunities for people in communities
like Sidney, Malta, Lewistown, Billings, and, of course, Glasgow, and
all across Montana.
Fort Peck Lake, one of the greatest resources that exists in our
State, not only plays a major role in power production, water supply,
but it is an increasingly important center for recreation. Not just for
Montanans; people from all around the world--believe me, that is true,
all around the world--come to Fort Peck Lake, MT, for our annual
walleye tournaments. Hundreds of boats and probably 1,000 or more
anglers participate in these events. It is amazing. I was there last
summer. It is truly a sight to behold, all these boats taking off for a
major national fishing tournament. The local community really puts its
heart and soul into these tournaments.
Local folks have also collaborated on raising a lot of money for the
matching share of the feasibility study for the fish hatchery, from
Sidney, Malta, Glasgow, all across northeastern Montana. There are not
a lot of people in northeastern Montana, but there is a lot of spirit
and spunk and a lot of wide open spaces.
Fort Peck Lake is very important to these communities, in some sense
it is almost the heart and soul of the northeastern part of our State.
So, these communities have come together, they have raised the funds,
and they have pitched in to support the fish hatchery project.
The State legislature also passed a special warm water fishery stamp
to help provide additional financial support for the hatchery.
This hatchery will help ensure the continued development of
opportunities at Fort Peck Lake, and it will represent a major source
of jobs and economic development for that part of our State.
Another provision of the bill that affects my State of Montana is the
one that affects cabin sites that are leased by private individuals on
Federal land at Fort Peck Lake. The lake is huge. It is surrounded by
the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, but there are a lot of
private in-holdings in this refuge.
This provision will allow cabin leases to be exchanged for other
private land within the refuge that has higher value for, say, fish,
wildlife, and recreation. By consolidating management of the refuge
lands, the provision will reduce the cost to the Corps associated with
managing these cabin sites. It will also enhance public access to the
refuge lands.
This exchange is modeled on a similar project, of which I am very
proud, near Helena, MT, which Congress authorized in 1998. It
represents a win-win-win solution--a win for the public, a win for the
wildlife, and a win for the cabin site owners.
I also want to mention another landmark provision in this bill
referred to at some length by my good friend, Senator Smith, chairman
of the committee. In addition to the usual project authorizations
contained in the water resources bill, this bill also affords a
historic opportunity. Title 6 of the bill is known as the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan.
Restoration of the Everglades has been many years in the making. For
example, in the 1970s, the State of Florida became concerned that the
previously authorized central and south Florida water project was doing
too good a job. Why? Because it was draining the swampy areas of the
State and was, in fact, draining the life out of the Everglades.
Under the leadership of our current colleague from Florida, Senator
Graham, who was then Governor Graham, the State recognized that the
health of the entire south Florida ecosystem, including the Everglades,
was in serious jeopardy and that a major effort was needed to restore
it.
Ever since, Senator Graham has worked tirelessly to achieve that
goal. I can testify to that personally. The comprehensive plan to
restore this valuable ecosystem that is contained in the bill before us
is the culmination of his work.
The Everglades is clearly a national treasure. I know it holds a
particularly special place in the hearts of Senator Graham and Senator
Mack. Senator Mack joined Senator Graham to make Everglades restoration
a key part of their agenda for the State of Florida. Both of them
worked very hard in a bipartisan way to make this provision a reality.
The administration, under the leadership of the Corps of Engineers
and Army Assistant Secretary for Civil Works, Joe Westphal, with the
cooperation of the Department of Interior and the Environmental
Protection Agency, are also committed to bringing all the affected
parties together to develop a plan that will work for the State of
Florida, the ecosystem, and the Everglades.
The committee has worked with all the stakeholders in South Florida
and with the administration to develop the consensus contained in this
bill. There are provisions to review the progress of the plan, to make
sure it is working, to require Congress to approve steps along the way,
and to assure the water will be where it is needed, when it is needed.
We cannot wait for the Everglades to die. We have to begin now to
restore it. This project is the largest environmental restoration
project in the Corps' history, and it will reverse the decline of the
Everglades. It is the right thing to do. I know my colleagues will join
us with in supporting this section of the bill and the Water Resources
Development bill generally.
I have one final point. I pay special commendation to the chairman of
our committee, Senator Smith. The first committee hearing he held as
chairman of the committee was in Florida on the Everglades. It was
there he saw the need to restore the Everglades, and it was there he
made his pledge to the people of Florida, and to the Nation, to restore
the Everglades. That is the hallmark of the very balanced, solid, far-
reaching, and perceptive way in which he has handled the chairmanship
of the Environment and Public Works Committee.
We are here today, in many respects, not only because of the Senators
from Florida, Senators Graham and Mack, and others, but also because of
Senator Smith's farsighted work as chairman of the committee. I thank
him, as well as the others, for what they have done for a true national
treasure.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I thank my colleague for those remarks.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I yield whatever time he
may consume to my colleague, the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator
Voinovich.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I congratulate the chairman of the
Environment and Public Works Committee and his staff, and the ranking
member and members of his staff for their terrific work. I also thank
Senator Graham and Senator Mack for their patience as we worked through
some of the problems we had with the Florida Everglades restoration
project.
This Water Resources Development Act of 2000 is a product of months
of hard work by the Environment and Public Works Committee. The bill
provides authority for the Secretary of the Army to carry out 24
projects for water resources development, conservation, and other
purposes, substantially in accordance with the Chief of Engineer
reports referenced in the bill language.
In addition to the projects authorized by WRDA 2000, there are a
number of significant policy provisions in the bill, including a
provision to enhance the Corps' ability to accomplish multiple
jurisdiction watershed studies, a provision to extend the ability-to-
pay provisions to all types of projects, and a provision to accelerate
project deauthorizations, which is very important.
The bill also provides for a facilitated role for the Corps to
partner with non-Federal interests in implementing
[[Page S8905]]
small environmental restoration projects on a regional basis including
the Ohio River, the Puget Sound region, New England, the Great Lakes
region, Chesapeake Bay, and the Illinois River.
There are some who may question the need for a WRDA bill this year
since Congress passed a WRDA bill just last year. In reality, last
year's bill was actually unfinished business from 1998, and if Congress
is to get back on its 2-year cycle for passage of WRDA legislation, we
need to act on a bill this year. The 2-year cycle is important to avoid
long delays between the planning and the execution of projects, and
also to meet Federal commitments to State and local government partners
who share the costs with the Federal Government.
While the 2-year authorization cycle is extremely important in
maintain efficient schedules for completions of important water
resources projects--as I explored in a hearing I conducted in May of
this year--efficient schedules also depend on adequate levels of
funding. Unfortunately the appropriations for the Corps; program have
not been adequate to meet the needs that have been identified.
I would like to direct my colleagues' attention to Chart No. 1. This
chart dramatically illustrates what has occurred. Chart No. 1 shows our
capital investment in water resources infrastructure since the 1930s,
shown in constant 1999 dollars, as measured by the Corps of Engineers
Civil Works construction appropriations. You can see the sharp decline
from the peak in 1966 of a $5 billion appropriation, and appropriations
through the 1970s in the $4 billion level, to the 1980s, and then to
the 1990s, where as you can see, the annual Corps construction
appropriations have dropped substantially. Corps projects have averaged
only around $1.6 billion during this period of time.
Another dramatic thing has happened, as illustrated in the next two
charts. We are asking the Corps of Engineers to do more with less.
These two charts show the breakdown by mission area for the Corps'
construction appropriation in FY 1965 and FY 1999.
If we look at the FY 1965 chart, you will see that in FY 1965, most
of the money went for flood control, navigation, and hydropower.
Then we come to 1999. We find that the Corps' mission has expanded
into many, many other areas: Shore protection, environmental
infrastructure. So we have asked the Corps to take on a lot more
responsibility than it ever had before.
As the FY 1999 chart shows, there is a dramatic mission increase with
environmental restoration as a significant mission area, and two new
mission areas: environmental infrastructure, and remediation of
formerly used Government nuclear sites. Environmental infrastructure,
as contrasted with environmental restoration, includes such work as
construction of drinking water facilities and sewage treatment plants.
What is the point of all this?
If you recall the chart, the Corps construction appropriations have
been falling since 1965, and its falls sharply in the 1990s. At the
same time, the Corps' mission has been growing.
The result is today's huge backlog of over 500 active projects that
will cost the Federal Government some $38 billion to complete. Think
about it--$38 billion.
These are worthy projects with positive benefit-to-cost ratios and
capable non-Federal sponsors. The projects in the backlog that are
being funded for construction are being funded under spread out
schedules that result in increased construction costs and delays in
achieving project benefits.
I recognize that budget allocations and Corps appropriations are
beyond the purview of this Water Resources Development Act. But the
backlog issue impacted very fundamentally the way we approached WRDA
2000 by highlighting the importance of adhering to three important
criteria in putting together the bill.
We adhered to these criteria which made many of our colleagues
unhappy because many of the projects they wanted did not fit into the
criteria we laid down.
First, we controlled the mission creep of the Corps of Engineers.
WRDA 2000 addresses national needs within the traditional Corps mission
areas: needs such as flood control, navigation shore protection, and
the emerging mission area of restoration of nationally significant
environmental resources such as the Florida Everglades.
The second thing we did in WRDA 2000 is make sure that the projects
we are authorizing meet the highest standard of engineering, economic
and environmental analysis.
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 this calendar year before projects are authorized for
construction. That is a requirement.
Finally, we have to preserve the partnerships and cost-sharing
principles of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. WRDA 1986
established the principle that water resources projects should be
accomplished in partnerships with State and local governments and that
this partnership would involve significant financial participation by
the non-Federal partners.
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.
It doesn't matter if it is 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 were enforced in this WRDA bill.
I am very proud of the discipline that the Environment and Public
Works Committee exercised in putting together this bill Chairman Smith
should be congratulated. I recognize, though, that not everyone, as he
said has been satisfied, but I believe that our authorization actions
must reflect the fiscal realities of the Corps national program.
Without a doubt, the centerpiece of WRDA is the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan. I want you to know, I have spent a lot of
time in the Everglades on a number of different occasions. I want my
grandchildren and their grandchildren to have the same experience as I
have had in enjoying this wonderful national treasure.
Our Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Bob Smith and his
staff deserve enormous credit for making this Everglades provision a
reality, particularly in the very difficult area of assuring that the
benefits to the natural system are realized while the interests of
other water users are adequately protected.
As Senator Baucus said, this is not only the largest restoration
project the Corps has undertaken, but it is the largest restoration
project ever undertaken in the world. So this is really quite an
undertaking.
My role in putting together the Everglades title has been to assure
that we moved the Everglades Restoration Plan forward while achieving
consistency with the criteria that applied to all the projects in this
WRDA bill. The Everglades Restoration Plan is extremely important but
there are other critical water resources needs reflected in this WRDA
bill. I believe the playing field should be level for the consideration
of all projects.
I want my colleagues to know that we spent a great deal of time
making sure that the Florida Everglades restoration plan does fit into
the criteria we have establishes for other projects.
Originally, the administration's Everglades legislative proposal
deviated substantially from Corps of Engineers and Environmental and
Public Works Committee policies for other water resources projects, and
would have set precedents which would have been very damaging to
preserving effective Congressional oversight of the Corps of Engineers
program. Our goal was to hold the Everglades project to the same
standards that apply to other projects. This is really important.
We have accomplished a great deal in meeting this objective. I would
just like to mention a few of them to give comfort to my colleagues.
First, we have reduced the level of programmatic authority for
restoration projects that can be accomplished without congressional
review. That is very, very important. The levels we have set are
applicable to other parts of the Corps program.
We have required that two primarily land acquisition projects have
been
[[Page S8906]]
earmarked to be accomplished under other programs. That was in this. We
are saying, No. Those will be done someplace else.
We have expressed concerns about advanced wastewater treatment and
indicated that more effective ways of providing additional water must
be explored.
We have eliminated the provision that would have allowed
reimbursement to the State of Florida for the Federal share of work
accomplished by the State. However, we have retained the ability of the
State to receive credit for work in-kind for up to 50 percent of the
work but only as this work is accomplished proportionate to Federal
expenditures based on appropriations. In other words, they cannot move
ahead of Federal appropriations.
We have added an incentive to encourage the completion of the
modified water deliveries to the Everglades project which is essential
to many aspects of Everglades restoration.
I think our most important accomplishment was in assuming that
individual Everglades projects receive the same level of congressional
review as other water resources projects. The administration
recommended 10 projects for authorization at a total cost of $1.1
billion without a traditional feasibility report level of detail and
without individual project justification.
These projects would have been authorized without congressional
review of the detailed information normally associated with a Corps
feasibility report and required of every other large Corps of Engineers
project as a condition of authorization.
I am pleased to have been able to add a requirement to the Everglades
section of the bill that no appropriation shall be made to construct
any of the 10 projects until the Secretary submits the Project
Implementation Report on the individual projects. Such reports will be
presented to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the
Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the
House of Representatives, and each committee will be able to approve
the projects by resolution.
This assures that the Everglades projects will get a similar level of
congressional oversight as other Corps projects.
I believe we have accomplished a great deal in making this Everglades
Plan acceptable to all parties. The only question I have is the
question of the operation and maintenance costs. I will be discussing
that later in an amendment.
As a final item, let me turn to the redevelopment of the former
Homestead Air Force Base and its relationship to the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan.
In December of 1999, the U.S. Air Force and the Federal Aviation
Administration released a draft supplemental environmental impact
statement, EIS on the disposal of 1,632 acres of the former Homestead
Air Force Base. About 870 acres of the Homestead Air Force Base has
been retained as the Homestead Air Reserve Station.
This draft supplemental EIS presents as its proposed action the
redevelopment of portions of the Homestead Air Force Base as a regional
airport with a projected 150,000 annual air operations by 2015, and an
estimated 231,000 air operations at maximum use. As a point of
comparison, Reagan National Airport has about 300,000 air operations
and Miami International Airport has over 500,000 air operations.
The draft supplemental EIS presents three mixed use development plans
and a commercial spaceport as alternatives to the regional airport. The
draft supplemental EIS was circulated for public comment in December
1999. The Air Force is currently evaluating the comments on the EIS and
plans to make a final decision on conveying the property later this
year.
If we look at this map, here is the Homestead Air Force Base in
Homestead, FL. Ten miles away is the Everglades National Park, 2 miles
away from that is Biscayne National Park, and about 10 miles away is
the National Marine Sanctuary. This is the Everglades project. We can
see that the use of this base will have a large impact on this very
fragile area of Florida we are trying to restore.
I agree with the assessment of the Natural Resources Defense Council
and eight other national and local environmental groups, that the
information generated in preparing the draft supplemental EIS does not
support the proposed action of regional airport development.
This information reinforces what common sense would dictate: the
Homestead base is an inappropriate site for the proposed commercial
airport. Indeed airport development would have a number of different
adverse impacts:
It would significantly increase the noise in Everglades and Biscayne
Parks, potentially affecting wildlife and detracting from the
experience of visitors. At places within Everglades Park, the amount of
time that aircraft noise would be above the ambient sound levels would
increase more than two hours. Portions of Biscayne Park would
experience similar increases up to 2 hours.
The proposed airport would be an air pollution source equivalent to a
large power plant, with increases of emissions to about 392 tons per
year in nitrogen oxides by 2015.
The secondary and cumulative impacts of commercial airport
development would result in residential and commercial growth in the
surrounding area that would frustrate planned Everglades restoration
activities, specifically, the Biscayne Coastal Wetland feature of the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan.
Private environmental groups are not alone in raising objections to
the commercial airport development. Federal and State environmental
agencies have also raised strong objections.
The Department of the Interior, commenting on the EIS, indicated that
the development of a commercial airport near Biscayne and Everglades
National Parks could have a series of negative consequences on these
nationally and internationally recognized resources including
significant noise impacts, increased contaminants in Biscayne Bay and
impacts on the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Secretary of
the Interior Bruce Babbitt also has publicly expressed his personal
opposition to the airport development.
The Environmental Protection Agency has serious environmental
objections to the airport proposal.
The National Marine Fisheries Service does not recommend the
commercial airport development because of the loss of buffer areas
between the airport and Biscayne Bay.
The Florida Department of Environmental Protection is opposed to this
development. They say it poses a threat to the protected terrestrial
and marine environment within the Florida Keys' Area of Critical State
Concern.
The South Florida Water Management District is concerned about the
impacts of off-site growth generated by the airport redevelopment plan
on 40,000 acres of wetlands owned and managed by the Management
District.
I recognize the argument that the City of Homestead has made
regarding the economic boost that the airport would provide to the city
and surrounding area. When I was a member of the Ohio legislature,
these same kinds of economic arguments were advanced in pressing for my
support of oil and gas exploration leases in Lake Erie.
However, I believed that the environmental health of Lake Erie was
more important in the long run to the economic health of Ohio than the
short term revenue from oil and gas exploration.
I believe the same is true of redevelopment of Homestead Air Force
Base. The environmental health of Biscayne Bay, the Everglades National
Park and the Florida Keys are much more important to the long term
economic future of Homestead than any airport proposal. There are
alternative uses of the base property that are compatible with South
Florida environmental restoration--uses that would also make
significant contributions to the economy of the region.
Clearly if it was my decision to make, I would not redevelop the
Homestead Air Force Base as a commercial airport. We are approving a
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan which will involve Federal
and State expenditures of $7.8 billion. I believe it would be
irresponsible to approve an investment of billions of dollars in the
restoration of the south Florida ecosystem, while at the same time
ignoring a re-use plan for Homestead Air Force Base that is
incompatible with the restoration objectives.
[[Page S8907]]
My preference would have been to elevate the decision on Homestead
redevelopment from the Secretary of the Air Force to the Secretary of
Defense to make the decision in conjunction with the Department of
Interior, the EPA, and the Department of Commerce.
This approach was not acceptable because of perceptions that it would
interfere with the process and cause a delay in the decision. I have
agreed instead--and it is in this bill--to a sense-of-the-Senate
provision that conveys the concern of the Senate about potential
adverse impacts of Homestead redevelopment and about the need for
consistency in redevelopment and restoration goals. This approach was
endorsed by environmental interests, and it is my hope that it will
make a difference in the ultimate decision on Homestead.
I know that through all of this I have been sometimes categorized as
an opponent of Everglades Restoration. Nothing could be further from
the truth. I believe my efforts have helped assure that this effort can
move forward. I look forward to passage of WRDA 2000 and the
opportunity to get started on the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration
Plan and the other critical water resources projects contained in the
bill.
I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I recognize that the senior Senator from
Massachusetts is going to address the Senate for about an hour. It is
my understanding, with his courtesy, that he will allow the Senator
from Virginia to send to the desk an amendment and ask for its
consideration, with the understanding that it will be laid aside for
such period of time as the senior Senator from Massachusetts desires.
Am I correct in that?
Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct.
Mr. WARNER. I thank my good friend and colleague, the senior Senator
from Massachusetts.
I send to the desk, on behalf of myself and my colleague Senator
Voinovich, an amendment. In two or three sentences, the amendment
simply does the following: Since 1986, the Senate has operated under a
law whereby projects built by the Corps of Engineers, pursuant to the
process of authorizing projects, are then, upon completion, carried by
the States--the financial burden of the operation and maintenance of
those projects.
The current legislation along the Everglades--and I am going to vote
for the Everglades provision--changes that law by virtue of setting a
precedent whereby the Federal taxpayer will pay half the cost of
operation and maintenance for the life of the project.
Now, with due respect to my distinguished chairman and good friend,
Senator Smith, and others, who have written this legislation, I cannot
understand any valid reason for changing a law that has been in effect
for 14 years and served this Nation so well for this single project. My
colleague from Ohio shares these concerns. That is the purpose of this
amendment--to strike only a few words, providing the exception for this
particular Florida project, and saying the Florida project will be
treated just as all the other projects that have been authorized by the
Congress in the past 14 years and presumably in the future.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). The Senator from Massachusetts is
recognized.
Mr. KENNEDY. I understand that under the agreement I have up to an
hour, is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
ISSUES THE SENATE SHOULD CONSIDER
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this afternoon we are considering
legislation on the preservation of our water resources. That is an
important issue and it should be debated, but in the short time
remaining in this session, we also must answer the call of the American
people for real action on key issues of main concern to working
families. We still must raise the minimum wage. We must pass a
Patients' Bill of Rights--a real Patients' Bill of Rights. We must
enact a prescription drug benefit as a part of Medicare. We must invest
in education in ways to make a real difference to our children. We must
strengthen our laws against hate crimes. We must adopt sensible gun
control to keep our communities and our schools safe.
But the Congress has done little more than pay lip service to these
concerns of working families. In fact, this year, we have done little
work at all. By the time this Congress is scheduled to adjourn only 2
weeks from now, the Senate will have met for only 115 days. That is the
lowest number since 1956. It is only 2 days shy of the record set by
the famous do-nothing Congress in 1948.
We know what the Senate leader has said about how he wanted to spend
the last few weeks of this Congress, and that we would work day and
night to get the business done. We were supposed to work on legislation
by day and on appropriations bills by night. Specifically, Senator Lott
said, on September 6:
We will focus the greatest time commitment on four other
priorities. The four worthy are the permanent trade relations
with China, completion of the 11 remaining appropriations
bills for the fiscal year that begins October 1, raising the
annual limits for protected savings in 401(k), individual
retirement accounts, and the elimination of some unfair taxes
like the telephone tax.
In a letter to GOP Senators, Senator Lott wrote:
The Senate will focus on the completion of the remaining
appropriations, the China trade bill, and on the votes to
override the President's vetoes of our bipartisan bills to
end the marriage penalty and the death tax.
There was no mention of key priorities such as prescription drugs,
Patients' Bill of Rights, or the minimum wage.
Senator Lott said:
When we return to session after Labor Day, there will be
long days, but we will do our best to keep Senators advised,
after communicating with leadership on both sides of the
aisle, on what the schedule will be.
The Senate is still waiting for an answer to our unmet priorities,
and so are the American people.
H-1B High-Tech Legislation
Mr. President, I'm pleased that the Senate is finally taking steps to
debate and vote on the H-1B high tech visa legislation. Our nation's
economy is experiencing a time of unprecedented growth and prosperity.
The strong economic growth can, in large measure, be traced to the
vitality of the highly competitive and rapidly growing high technology
industry.
I'm proud to say that Massachusetts is leading the nation in the new
high tech economy, according to a recent study by the Progressive
Policy Institute. Thanks to our world-class universities and research
facilities, Massachusetts is a pioneer in the global economy of the
information age. We are home to nearly 3,000 information technology
companies, employing 170,000 people, and generating $8 billion in
annual revenues.
With such rapid change, the nation is stretched thin to support these
new businesses and their opportunities for growth. Nationally, the
demand for employees with training in computer science, electrical
engineering, software, and communications is very high.
In 1998, in an effort to find a stop-gap solution to this labor
shortage, we enacted the American Competitiveness and Workforce
Improvement Act, which increased the number of temporary visas
available to skilled foreign workers. Despite the availability of
additional H-1B visas, we have reached the cap before the end of the
year in the last two fiscal years.
We need to be responsive to the nation's need for high tech workers.
We know that unless we take steps now to address this growing workforce
gap, America's technological and economic leadership will be
jeopardized. I believe that the H-1B visa cap should be increased, but
in a way that better addresses the fundamental needs of the American
economy. Raising the cap without addressing our long-term labor needs
would be a serious mistake. We cannot count on foreign sources of labor
as a long-term solution.
These are solid, middle class jobs that Americans deserve under the
H-1B program. The median salary for H-1B high tech workers is $45,000.
Approximately 57 percent of H-1B workers have earned only a bachelor's
degree. More than half of these workers will be
[[Page S8908]]
employed as computer programmers and systems analysts. These are not
highly specialized jobs. They do not require advanced degrees or years
of training. American workers are the most productive workers in the
world. It makes sense to demand that more of our workers be recruited
and trained for these jobs.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, I am happy to yield.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for the comments he is
making. I ask him if he would draw a historical parallel to the
situation we faced in the late fifties, when the Russians launched
Sputnik and we, as a nation, decided to devote resources into a
National Defense Education Act, so that we would have the scientists
and engineers to be able to compete then with the Russians in the space
race. President Kennedy followed on with our exploration into space.
Aren't we facing a similar challenge today regarding whether we will
be able to compete in the 21st century with the scientists and
engineers and skilled employees with all the other nations competing
for the very best jobs?
Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is exactly right. That is why, when we do
have the measure before us, we will offer amendments to try to develop
the support in the Senate, and also in the House, for the funding of a
program that will help ensure that this deficit, in terms of the highly
skilled who are being addressed by the H-1B visa, will be eased. We
will utilize very effective services. For example, the National Science
Foundation, which has a good deal of skill and understanding and
awareness in giving focus and attention to encouraging highly
specialized vocations and support for these types of programs.
We will welcome the opportunity to join with my friend from Illinois
in bringing this to the attention of the Senate when we actually have
the measure before us. We are very hopeful that we will have the
opportunity to address it and not have steps taken in the Senate that
will foreclose both the debate and discussion on this issue.
The fact is that the great majority of these H-1B jobs have good,
middle-income salaries, and they are the kinds of jobs that would
benefit any family in America. For a number of reasons, which I think
many of us are familiar with, we have not developed the kinds of
training programs and support programs for the development of the
skills in these areas that we need. But the question that will be
before us is, Should we throw up our hands and say we won't do that and
we will depend upon a foreign supply of these workers in the future?
I think not. I think we should take the steps now to make sure this
provision actually becomes an anachronism.
Perhaps we will also need opportunities for those who have the very
highly specialized skills to come here and to benefit and fit into some
aspect of either industry or academia. We ought to recognize that. But
to rely on the kind of jobs where only 57 percent of H-1Bs earned a
bachelor's degree and the average income is only $45,000--this is a
long way from those. I think most Members of the Senate and I certainly
think most Americans would say H-1B is a superscientist that is going
to go to a very specialized company or that will generate thousands of
jobs. That may be true for very few that are included. But the fact is,
for the most part, these are the kinds of jobs that can be filled with
American labor if they have the right kind of skills, and we ought to
be able to develop that effort as we go into this program.
We also hear countless reports of age and race discrimination as
rampant problems in the IT industry. The rate of unemployment for the
average IT worker over age 40 is more than 5 times that of other
workers. Just when we should be doing more to bring minorities into
technology careers, we hear that organizations in Silicon Valley cannot
get companies to recruit from minority colleges and universities, or
hire skilled, educated minorities from neighboring Oakland. The number
of women entering the IT field has also dramatically decreased since
the mid-1980s. If the skill shortage is as dire as the IT industry
reports, we can clearly do more to increase the number of minorities,
women and older workers in the IT workforce.
Any credible legislative proposal to increase the number of foreign
high tech workers available to American businesses must begin with the
expansion of high-skill career training opportunities for American
workers.
Now more than ever, employer demand for high-tech foreign workers
shows that there is an even greater need to train American workers and
prepare U.S. students for careers in information technology. As
Chairman Alan Greenspan recently stated,
The rapidity of innovation and the unpredictability of the directions
it may take imply a need for considerable investment in human capital .
. . The pressure to enlarge the pool of skilled workers also requires
that we strengthen the significant contributions of other types of
training and educational programs, especially for those with lesser
skills.
When we expanded the number of H-1B visas in 1998, we created a
training initiative funded by a visa fee in recognition of the need to
train and update the skills of members of our workforce. Today, as we
seek to nearly double the number of high tech workers, we must ensure
that legislation signed into law includes a significant expansion of
career training and educational opportunities for American workers and
students.
I propose that we build on the priorities in current H-1B law. The
Department of Labor, in consultation with the Department of Commerce,
will provide grants to local workforce investment boards in areas with
substantial shortages of high tech workers. Grants will be awarded on a
competitive basis for innovative high tech training proposals developed
by workforce boards collaboratively with area employers, unions, and
higher education institutions. Annually, this program will provide
state-of-the-art high tech training for approximately 50,000 workers in
primarily high tech, information technology, and biotechnology skills.
More than ever, today's jobs require advanced degrees, especially in
math, science, engineering, and computer sciences. We must encourage
students, including minorities to pursue degrees in these fields. We
must also increase scholarship opportunities for talented minority and
low-income students whose families cannot afford today's tuition costs.
We must also expand the National Science Foundation's merit-based,
competitive grants to partnership programs with an educational mission.
Equally important, closing the digital divide must be a part of our
effort to meet the growing demand for high skilled workers.
The only effective way for Congress to responsibly ensure more high
skill training and scholarships for students is to increase the H-1B
visa user fees. High tech companies are producing record profits. They
can afford to pay a higher application fee. According to public
financial information, for the top twenty companies that received the
most H-1B workers this year, a $2,000 fee would cost between .002% and
.5% of their net worth. A $1,000 fee would cost them very little.
Immigrant families with very modest incomes were able to pay a $1,000
fee to allow family members to obtain green cards.
The H-1B debate should not focus solely on the number of visas
available to skilled workers. It should also deal with the professional
credentials of the workers being admitted. It makes sense to expand the
number of H-1B visas to fill the shortage of masters and doctoral level
professionals with specialized skills that cannot be easily and quickly
produced domestically. We should insist that a significant percentage
of the H-1B visa cap be carved out and reserved for individuals with
masters or higher degrees.
In the days to come, we will have the opportunity to debate these
issues and pass legislation that meets the needs of the high technology
industry by raising the visa cap and also by ensuring state-of-the-art
skills training for American workers. Clearly, however, the immigration
agenda is not just an H-1B high-tech visa agenda. Congress also has a
responsibility to deal with the critical issues facing Latino and other
immigrant families in our country. To meet the needs of these
immigrants, my colleagues and I have introduced the Latino and
Immigrant Fairness Act.
[[Page S8909]]
The immigrants who will benefit from this legislation should have
received permanent status from the INS long ago. These issues are not
new to Congress. The Latino community has been seeking legislation to
resolve these issues for many years. The immigrant community--
particularly the Latino community--has waited far too long for the
fundamental fairness that this legislation will provide.
This measure is also critical for businesses. All sectors of the
economy are experiencing unprecedented economic growth, but this growth
cannot be sustained without additional workers. With unemployment
levels at 4 percent or even lower, many businesses find themselves
unable to fill job openings. The shortages of highly skilled, semi-
skilled and low-skilled workers are becoming a serious impediment to
continuing growth.
Information technology companies are not the only firms urging
Congress to provide additional workers. An equally important voice is
that of the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition, a consortium of
businesses and trade associations, and other organizations, including
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, health care and home care associations,
hotel, motel, restaurant and tourism associations, manufacturing and
retail concerns, and the construction and transportation industries.
These key industries have added their voices to the broad coalition
of business, labor, religious, Latino and other immigrant organizations
in support of the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act. Conservative
supporters of the Act include Americans for Tax Reform and Empower
America. Labor supporters include the AFL-CIO, the Union of Neeletrades
and Industrial Textile Employees, and the Service Employees
International Union.
All of the major Latino organizations support the bill, including the
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the National
Council of La Raza, the League of United Latin American Citizens, and
the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials.
Religious organizations include a broad array of American Jewish
groups, the U.S. Catholic Conference, and Lutheran Immigration and
Refugee Services.
The Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act includes parity for Central
Americans and Haitians. In 1997, Congress enacted the Nicaraguan
Adjustment and Central American Relief Act, which granted permanent
residence to Nicaraguans and Cubans who had fled their repressive
governments. The act provided other similarly situated Central
Americans and Haitians with the opportunity to apply for green cards
under more difficult and narrower standards and more cumbersome
procedures.
It is unfair not to provide the same relief for all immigrants
seeking safe haven in the United States. Fairness requires that we
address this grave injustice. As Congresswoman Carrie Meek said on the
floor of the House of Representatives ``Nicaraguans, Cubans,
Guatemalans, and Salvadorans . . . live next door to each other in some
of our communities [but] one will get a green card and the others
cannot. One could seek citizenship after 4 to 5 years; the others
cannot. Is that fair? My answer is no, it is not fair.''
Senator Mack, Senator Abraham, and others said, ``Last year, we
adopted legislation to protect Nicaraguans and Cubans. But Haitians
were unfairly excluded from that bill. The time has come for Congress
to end the bigotry. We must remedy this flagrant omission and add
Haitians to the list of deserving refugees.''
There it is, Mr. President, those who have reasonable access: Cubans
and Nicaraguans; those who have unreasonable access, Salvadorans,
Guatemalans, Haitians, Hondurans, and immigrants from Eastern European
countries. We have the support from the Chamber of Commerce and from
the AFL-CIO to bring this in. With H-1B legislation we are looking out
for the high tech industry; why not look out for other industries, as
well? We had a strong indication of support by two Republican Senators
last year when this was passed. Yet we are being denied the opportunity
by the Republican leadership to bring this matter before the Senate. We
are being denied the opportunity by the Republican leadership to have a
vote on it. We will agree to a time limit. They are denying even the
chance to bring it up. That is wrong. That is unfair. It is unjust.
We are going to do everything we possibly can to remedy that through
other parliamentary means. The idea that we are bringing up one
particular proposal to look at high tech--and I am all for those
provisions, and stated my support for them--and saying we should be
able to deal with this issue and expand the job opportunities for other
Americans, while on the other hand, saying absolutely no, we are going
to set up a parliamentary situation where we are absolutely denied the
opportunity to bring that up. It is supported by the religious and
business communities, and has had the support of Republican Senators,
but we are being denied the opportunity to bring it to the floor for a
vote. It is wrong. It is unfair. The American people ought to
understand it.
Not only are we failing to deal with some of the key issues which are
at the heart of the American families' concerns, but we are refusing to
be fair on this issue with regard to the Latino and Immigrant Fairness
provisions. The Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act will create a fair
and uniform set of procedures for all the immigrants from the region
who have been in this country since 1995.
It is important to remember the recent history of why people in
Central America and Haiti fled from their homes. In Guatemala, hundreds
of so-called ``extra-judicial'' killings occurred every year between
1990 and 1995. Entire villages ``disappeared.'' Most of the villages
were probably massacred. In El Salvador, an end to 12 years of civil
war has not meant an end to violent internal strife. Ironically, the
death toll in 1994 was higher than during the war. In Honduras, the
Department of State's Human Rights Report cites ``serious problems,''
including extra-judicial killings, beatings and a civilian and military
elite that has long operated with impunity. Haiti has been ruled by
dictators for decades. In September 1991, Haiti's first democratically-
elected government was overthrown in a violent military coup that was
responsible for thousands of extra-judicial killings over a three-year
period.
The idea that we have discriminatory provisions in our immigration
laws is nothing new. I remember in 1965 when we passed the Immigration
Act, which eliminated the Asian Pacific triangle, a provision that went
back to the old Yellow Peril days. In 1965, we permitted only 125
Asians to come into the United States. We effectively excluded Asians
from their ability to immigrate here. We gave preferences to others.
Who did we give preference to? To those who qualified under the
national origin quota system that was based upon the ethnic
requirements.
The immigration laws in our country historically have been filled
with these inequities, and we have been battling to try and make them
fair and just. Now we are refusing to eliminate one of the most glaring
discriminatory aspects that has ever existed in our immigration laws,
and we are being denied that opportunity on the floor of the Senate by
the Republican leadership. That is fundamentally wrong.
Providing parity for immigrants from countries in Central America and
Haiti will help individuals such as Ericka and her family. In 1986,
when Guatemala was in the midst of a civil war, Ericka's father was
abducted and disappeared. He is presumed dead. The rest of the family
fled to the United States for safety. When Ericka joined her mother in
1993, she was a minor and could be included in the family's asylum
application. Her family now qualifies for permanent residence under
NACARA. However, because Ericka is 21, she no longer qualifies under
this law and will therefore remain in legal limbo--or worse, be
deported back to Guatemala.
This is happening every single day. She lives in fear of being sent
back to the country where her father was killed. Her life here is in
limbo. She graduated from high school and has dreams of going on to
college. But without permanent residence, she cannot qualify for
scholarships. Passage of the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act will
enable her to remain in the United States with her family and continue
her education.
[[Page S8910]]
The Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act will also provide long overdue
relief to immigrants, who because of bureaucratic mistakes, were
prevented from receiving green cards long ago. That is one aspect of
the bill. Listen to this and wonder why we can't address this aspect of
the law.
In 1986, Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act,
called IRCA, which included legalization for persons who could
demonstrate that they had been present illegally in the United States
since before 1982. There is a one-year period to file. However, INS
misinterpreted the provisions in IRCA, and thousands of otherwise
qualified immigrants were denied the opportunity to make timely
applications.
Several successful class action lawsuits were filed on behalf of
individuals who were harmed by these INS misinterpretations of law. The
courts required the INS to accept filings for these individuals. One
court decision stated:
The evidence is clear that the INS' . . . regulations
deterred many aliens who would otherwise qualify for
legalization from applying.
They went to court. The court found for them. We are talking about
300,000 individuals. The court found for them and said: You are
qualified, you got misinformation from the agency that was supposed to
administer this. We apologize. Go ahead and apply.
Then what happened? The ink was not even dry and in 1996, the
immigration law stripped the courts of the jurisdiction. The Attorney
General ruled that the law superseded the court cases. As a result of
these actions, this group of immigrants have been in legal limbo and
fighting government bureaucracy over 14 years.
We are denying them the opportunity to make the adjustment of their
status. Our bill will alleviate this problem by allowing all
individuals who have resided in the United States prior to 1986 to
obtain permanent residency, including those who were denied
legalization because of INS' misinterpretation, or who were turned away
by the INS before applying.
Consider Maria. Maria, who came to the United States 18 years ago,
has been living in legal limbo with temporary permission to work, while
courts determine whether she should have received permanent residence
under the 1986 legalization law. Maria now has a U.S. citizen son who
suffers from a rare bone disease that confines him to a wheel chair. As
a result of the changes in the 1996 immigration law, Maria has now lost
her work permit. Her father recently passed away in El Salvador, but
her tenuous legal status did not permit her to return there to pay her
last respects. All Maria wants to do is legalize her status and
continue to work legally to support her family and pay her son's
medical bills. Without the passage of this legislation, Maria faces an
uncertain future.
This bill will also restore section 245(i), a vital provision of the
immigration law that permitted immigrants about to become permanent
residents to apply for green cards while still in the U.S. for a $1,000
fee, rather than returning to their home countries to apply.
Section 245(i) was pro-family, pro-business, fiscally prudent, and a
matter of common sense. Under it, immigrants with close family members
in the U.S. are able to remain here with their families while applying
for legal permanent residence. The section also allows businesses to
retain valuable employees, while providing INS with millions of dollars
in annual revenue, at no cost to taxpayers. Restoring Section 245(i)
will keep thousands of immigrants from being separated from their
families and jobs for as long as ten years.
America has historically been open and welcoming to immigrant
populations seeking to build new lives, free from the fear of
persecution and tyranny. The Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act builds
on that tradition, by restoring fairness to the immigrant community and
fairness in the American legislative process. This legislation will
regularize the status of thousands of workers already in the U.S.,
authorize them to work --that is what this is all about, obtaining a
Green Card so they can work, pay taxes--and create a policy that is
good for families and good for this country. It will correct past
government mistakes and misdeeds that have kept hard-working immigrant
families in bureaucratic limbo for far too long.
This is legislation that cannot wait. Families are being torn apart
because we have failed to take the necessary steps to pass the Latino
and Immigrant Fairness Act. Before the August recess, Democrats
attempted to bring this legislation before the Senate, but the
Republican leadership objected. Just last week, Democrats were prepared
to debate and vote on this legislation as part of the high-tech visa
bill, but our Republican colleagues were unwilling to bring this
measure to the floor and take a vote. They prefer to talk about their
support for the Latino community, rather than take tangible steps to
benefit immigrant workers and their families.
Few days remain in this Congress, but we are committed to doing all
we can to see that this legislation becomes law this year. Passage of
this bill will be a victory for all who believe in justice, fairness,
and the American dream.
There may be individuals who want to take issue with those
observations I have made. We would be glad to debate them. We had,
under the Democratic leader's proposal, indicated a willingness to
limit amendments to, I believe, five amendments and to have short time
agreements on all of those. We could have disposed of this whole
legislation and done it in a way that would have expressed the will of
the Senate. Instead, we are spending all week on it. We are spending
virtually the whole week. With 3 weeks left, we are spending a whole
week on this legislation and are still failing to deal with the
fundamental issues of fairness which are within the legislation,
although we will have an opportunity to deal with it, and that is the
Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act.
I hope we will have that chance. I am confident Senator Daschle will
give us that opportunity. We look forward to debating these issues. But
we ought to be able to do that in the sunshine on the open floor of the
Senate. Maybe there are those who differ, who believe this is not an
issue of fairness. Maybe there are those who say we ought to have a
dual standard, one standard for the high-tech industry and a different
standard for those who basically track their heritage to Spanish
tradition.
I cannot speak about what the reservation is, but I fail to be
persuaded by any of the arguments I have seen so far about why we
should not have fairness, the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act, as we
are having fairness in the H-1B. Maybe there are those who will want to
engage in that discussion and debate. I will look forward to
participating in that as well.
Mr. President, I wanted to take a few moments now of the remaining
time--I will only take 15 more minutes.
In addition, I want to mention briefly my sense of what, we ought to
be addressing in the Senate. We are constantly reminded that we do not
set the agenda, that it is the other side that sets the agenda. We have
certainly learned that over the period of this year. But we want to let
the millions of Americans who are out there, who care about these
issues, know that there are Members in the Senate who are deeply
committed to these areas of public policy and who want to take action
and think action can be taken in the areas of education, education
reform; in the area of prescription drug and prescription drug reform;
in the area of patients' rights and patients' rights reform. I spoke
yesterday about the importance of the minimum wage.
On the issues of education, what is of enormous concern to me is--I
read earlier, into the Record, what was going to be the calendar
established by the Republican leader. But I also want to read this, so
we have a good idea of what the Republican leader has said on other
occasions about education. This is the majority leader's promises on
education.
On January 6, 1999:
Education is going to be a central issue this year. . . .
For starters, we must reauthorize the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act. That is important.
It is important for this reason: This will be the first time in 35
years--the first time in 35 years, if we do not reauthorize the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, that we have failed to do so.
Maybe there is a good reason for that. Maybe there are other higher
priorities. But when the Senate spends 16
[[Page S8911]]
days debating the issue of bankruptcy, with 55 amendments, and then has
a 6-day debate on education, and of the seven rollcall votes, three of
them were virtually unanimous--we have not had the real debate and
discussion the American people want.
Nonetheless, we have these promises, promises on education. This is
what was said:
Remarks to U.S. Conference of Mayors Luncheon, January 29,
1999--But education is going to have a lot of attention, and
it's not going to just be words. . . .
Press conference, June 22, 1999--Education is number one on
the agenda for Republicans in the Congress this year.
Remarks to U.S. Chamber of Commerce, February 1, 2000--
We're going to work very hard on education. I have emphasized
that every year I've been majority leader. . . . And
Republicans are committed to doing that.
Speech to the National Conference of State Legislatures,
February 3, 2000--We must reauthorize the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act. . . . Education will be a high
priority in this Congress.
Congress Daily, April 20, 2000--. . . Lott said last week
his top priorities in May include an agriculture sanctions
bill, Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization,
and passage of four appropriations bills.
Senate, May 1, 2000--This is very important legislation. I
hope we can debate it seriously and have amendments in the
education area. Let's talk education.
Press Stakeout, May 2, 2000--
Question: Senator, on ESEA, have you scheduled a cloture
vote on that?
Senator Lott. No, I haven't scheduled a cloture vote. . . .
But education is number one in the minds of the American
people all across this country and every state, including my
own state. For us to have a good healthy, and even a
protracted debate and amendments on education I think is the
way to go.
Senate, May 9, 2000--
Senator Kennedy: As I understand, . . . we will have an
opportunity to come back to [ESEA] next week. Is that the
leader's plan?
Senator Lott: That is my hope and intent.
Then on July 10:
I, too, would very much like to see us complete the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I feel very strongly
about getting it done. We can work day and night for the next
3 weeks.
Then finally, July 25:
We will keep trying to find a way to get back to the
legislation and get it completed.
The reason we are not having a debate is because the majority thought
there might be an amendment dealing with limiting the opportunity for
children to obtain guns in school areas. That kind of outrageous
question, about whether we were going to try to make our schools safer
and more secure, once that was even mentioned, the word went out and we
effectively found there was not going to be any more debate and
discussion.
However, in 1994, under Republican leadership, the Republican leader
actually cosponsored a weapons amendment. At that time, no one on that
side of the aisle said: Oh, no, we are not going to consider it. That
is not relevant to education. We want to make sure we are not only
going to have smaller class sizes, better trained teachers, afterschool
programs, modernization of schools, more technology available, greater
accountability, preschool help and assistance for our children, but we
want our children to be safe and we want them to be secure.
I think parents understand that and support it.
We are denied the opportunity to even vote on that. It used to be
around here, years ago in the Senate--and also not that long ago--when
people had differences, you settled them through debates and by votes.
Now you settle them by not even bringing them up.
That is where we are: Nowhere, on the issues of education.
This is in spite of the fact we know that student enrollment will
continue to rise in the foreseeable future. According to the U.S.
Department of Education's 2000 Baby Boom Echo Report, between 1990 and
the year 2000, growth in the K-12 student population has gone up by 6.6
million students, from 46.4 million to 53 million. And, even beyond the
next ten years, the number of school-age children will continue to
increase steadily. Between the year 2000 and the year 2100, the total
will rise from 53 million to 94 million children, 41 million more
children are going to be going to schools in this country.
Does anyone believe the education issue is going to go away? Does
anyone think by not calling it up or giving it attention it is going to
disappear? We used to debate these issues and then have resolution.
This is against the background that in more recent times, since 1980
to 1999, the Federal share of education funding has declined from 11
percent to 7.7 percent for elementary and secondary education, and 15
percent to 10 percent for higher education. I know there are Members
who do not want any funding in elementary and secondary education.
I was here in 1994 when the new Republican leadership took over. The
first thing they did was decrease funding for programs under the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act. That was the first major
debate. I know they have been in favor of abolishing the Department of
Education. I am aware of that. Most parents think we ought to have a
partnership and that we ought to move ahead.
I would like to mention just one other fact. More students today are
taking advanced math and science courses. This is very encouraging
since these rigorous classes provide the foundation that students need
to acquire solid math knowledge. In precalculus, the percent who are
taking advanced placement courses has increased from 31 percent to 44
percent; calculus, 19 percent to 24 percent; physics, 44 percent to 49
percent.
SAT math scores are the highest in 30 years. Modest, gains have been
made, but the upward trend lines are very important, and they have
consistently flowed upwards. This is important. We ought to be debating
this. We ought to know what schools are doing to achieve that success.
We ought to benefit from those schools' successes. We ought to give our
support to those successful efforts. We ought to give flexibility to
the local community to make sure their schools are successful.
Why can't we debate this? We have more children taking the SATs than
have ever taken them before. All of these SAT math scores--for males
and females--are following an upward trend.
But, our work is far from over. In spite of this promising news, the
results so far are not enough. Now is not the time to be complacent. We
still have enormous problems. We have them in my State and in many of
our largest cities. In so many of these areas, we have teachers,
parents, communities, business leaders, and workers who are prepared to
do something. In my city of Boston, we had a net day. We were 48th out
of 50 States in terms of access to the Internet. We had net days around
our State. Now we are tenth, and it was all done voluntarily.
The IDEW in Boston laid 450 miles of cable and did it voluntarily. We
had contributions from the software industries of tens of millions of
dollars. Many helped the teachers in training programs. They were
delighted to do it. They wanted to work on it. Things are happening. We
are not saying we are the only solution, but what we are saying is
let's find ways we can be supportive. We are not given that
opportunity.
Finally, I want to mention two other areas. One is on the issue of
the Patients' Bill of Rights. It has been just over a year since the
House passed good Patients' Bill of Rights legislation--the bipartisan
Norwood-Dingell bill. The Senate passed another bill that failed to
meet these requirements.
I remind the American people, there is not a single medical
organization that supports the Republican proposal. Not one. I have
said that a dozen times. I have challenged the other side to come up
with a single medical organization in this country that supports their
proposal. There isn't any. Three hundred support ours. Every children's
group, every women's group, every group representing the disabled,
every medical group of every stripe has supported ours--North, South,
East, and West. We still cannot get it. If the Republicans would let us
vote on this again, we would have a majority of the Members of this
body support the bipartisan proposal that passed the House of
Representatives. The American people ought to know that the Senate
leadership is keeping this bottled up.
This chart shows the particular protections and where they came from.
I am not going to take the Senate's time now to read all of them. If
one is looking at where these protections came from, access to
emergency care was recommended by the Committee on the
[[Page S8912]]
Patient's Quality Commission, based of Democrats and Republicans. It
was a unanimous recommendation. It is also from the insurance
commissioners, the Association of Health Providers, plus it is already
in Medicare. Every one of these protections has been out there one way
or the other. We should be about the business of ensuring that the
American people are going to get all the protections.
I see my good friend from the State of Florida who is doing such an
important service to the Senate in bringing a historic perspective to
the importance of a prescription drug bill, and the emotional and day-
to-day reality that exists without these protections.
We still have a chance to vote on these issues. We have two different
proposals that are basically before us. The one that Senator Graham
will introduce and support and that has broad support will ensure that
individuals benefit from a prescription drug benefit program that lets
doctors decide what is in their best interest. It can go into effect a
year from now. That is enormously important.
The proposal that has been recommended on the other side consists of
block grants that go to the States, in which 28 million American
seniors will not participate because they will not be eligible. We will
also have to wait until the money is actually appropriated by the
Congress to those States.
States will need enabling legislation to provide those prescription
drugs, and then sometime after 4 years, if there is a modernization
program under Medicare, there can be a prescription drug benefit. If my
colleagues want to take their chances and roll the dice, that is the
way to go. If they want to have a dependable, reliable, stable,
predictable benefit program, it should be under Medicare. The seniors
understand that. They have confidence in it. They want it strengthened.
We have a responsibility to do that. We can build on that program for a
sound and effective future.
I will be glad to yield the remaining time to the Senator from
Florida.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The Senator from Massachusetts
wanted to be notified when he had 15 minutes.
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield the floor, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Utah.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, it is my understanding there is an hour
reserved under the control of Senator Thomas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. BENNETT. It is my understanding further, Mr. President, and I
inform the Chair, that with Senator Thomas' permission, I am here to
claim that time. Is there objection to my doing that?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. L. Chafee). Without objection, the Senator
has the time.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Florida, I want
to respond briefly to the comments of the Senator from Massachusetts
and then perhaps respond to the Senator from Florida.
The Senator from Massachusetts has touched a number of issues in this
debate. I am not sure I can keep up with him in terms of the volume of
subjects he has brought before us, but I will try to respond to some
that I think need response.
I will start with the H-1B issue, which is the issue with which he
started. He told us at great length how much he supports the H-1B
program and described the high-tech activity in Massachusetts, his home
State, which is dependent on our doing something about the H-1B
problem. He did not tell us that he was one of two Senators--and there
were only two--in the committee who voted against reporting out the H-
1B visa bill about which we are talking. So it is clear his support is
conditional on a number of things.
He outlined those on the floor. And he is certainly entitled to his
conditions and to his attitude with respect to them. But I will point
out a few things with respect to H-1B which those Senators who are
primarily responsible to the AFL-CIO, in their political lives, do not
seem to talk about.
We talk about jobs. The Senator from Massachusetts said: Many of the
jobs for H-1B visas are filled by people who do not require very high
academic standards, so those can be filled by Americans. We should only
have the H-1B visas for people with master's degrees and doctorates. He
talked about a screening program that would be set up by the Federal
Government to determine, on the basis of academic credentials, who
could get in and who could not get in on the H-1B system.
I spent a good portion of my life in the private sector. I found that
experience to be tremendously valuable to me when I came to the Senate.
At one point in my young life, I fantasized about the possibility of
coming here as a very young Senator, taking a seat maybe in my thirties
or even forties. Now I am very glad that I did not do that because that
would have meant I would have spent all of that time in the
governmental orbit and not learning some very fundamental lessons in
the private community.
The first lesson I learned in the private community--and learned it
again and again and again whenever the situation came up--was that the
marketplace rules. I have said here before that if I could control what
we carve in marble around here, along with the Latin phrases, which are
inspiring and wonderful and historic, I would carve another slightly
more practical phrase in marble, to keep it before us so we never
forget it, and it would be: ``You cannot repeal the law of supply and
demand.'' We try that every once in a while. We try to repeal the law
of supply and demand with congressional mandates. This is what,
frankly, the Senator from Massachusetts would be up to if he had his
way on the H-1B visa issue.
Why is there an H-1B visa issue? Because there is a gap between
supply and demand. It is as simple as that. There is an enormous demand
for certain kinds of jobs in this country. Currently it is running
somewhere between 350,000 and 400,000. That is the demand. For whatever
reason, the American educational system cannot supply the workers to
fill that demand. There is a pool of skilled workers who can fill that
demand worldwide, and that pool of supply will meet that level of
demand. The only question is: Where?
We held a high-tech summit in the Joint Economic Committee, of which
the senior Senator from Massachusetts is a member. He came to that
summit and heard the executives of the high-tech companies speak to us.
I am not sure whether he was there when one particular statement was
made, but it made a strong impression on my memory, and I would remind
the Senator from Massachusetts, and others, of what one particular man
said.
He said: ``Senators, understand, this work''--he was referring to the
demand--``will be done by these people''--referring to the supply.
``The only question is, whether they will do it living in the United
States or living abroad.''
In today's high-tech world, in today's world of the Internet, the job
can be sent electronically to the worker living in India, or Pakistan,
or some other country; and the results of the work can be sent
electronically back to the corporate headquarters in Silicon Valley, or
Route 128 in Massachusetts, or Utah Valley, or Salt Lake Valley, or the
Dulles Corridor, or any other high-tech center you might want to
identify.
I cannot understand why it is not recognized in this Chamber almost
universally that it would be better for the United States to have
highly skilled, highly motivated, immediately qualified individuals
living in the United States, paying taxes in the United States, adding
to the economic activity of the United States, while they do this work,
instead of having them live abroad and paying their taxes and making
their contributions to the economy of other countries.
Yet the restrictions that would be put on H-1B visas, primarily at
the behest of the AFL-CIO, would have the effect of saying, you can't
do this work in the United States. And to have the Government screen
those who can get H-1B visas on the basis of the Government's criteria
of what constitutes the appropriate educational level, is to deny
clearly the impact of the market.
No one is going to hire someone on the basis of anything other than
that person's ability to do the work. I do not want to say to Hewlett-
Packard or Intel or Novell, or any other high-tech
[[Page S8913]]
company you can name: You can't hire this worker because we in the
Government have decided that he does not have the appropriate
educational credentials.
I want Hewlett-Packard to make that decision. They might not make it
right. But it is the shareholders of Hewlett-Packard who pay the price
if they make a mistake. That is the way the entire American economy has
been built from the very beginning, and that is the way it will
flourish in the future.
But no, we have from the Senator from Massachusetts an outline of the
restrictions that the Government should put on the hiring practices of
American companies. And we have from the Senator the statement that the
Government should decide who is qualified to come in under an H-1B visa
to fill one of these high-tech jobs.
Whenever the Government gets involved in trying to change the law of
supply and demand, you get one of two things--I said this yesterday
when we were in the debate on the minimum wage; I repeat it today--
whenever the Government interferes with the law of supply and demand,
you either get a shortage or you get a surplus.
Let me expand on that a little. As I reread my remarks from
yesterday, I was not as clear as I usually like to be.
Right now, we have an example of the Government dictating how many
foreign nationals can come in to work in the high-tech industry. They
set the amount below that for which there is demand. What is the
result? A shortage. Interfering with the law of supply and demand, the
Government says, we will only allow this many, when, in fact, the
requirement is for that many; and the result is we have a shortage of
these workers.
A flip side of this, where surpluses are created, is where the
Government sets a price higher than the market would. If I can go back
historically to a time that is impressive to the Western U.S., the
Government said: We will buy silver at a set price for our coinage.
They set the price of silver higher than the market price. What
happened? Everybody went out to find any kind of silver in their
mountains, or any sort of mining operation, and the Government acquired
a huge surplus of silver. The price was set higher than the market
would set and it created a surplus.
In the case of skilled workers, the quantity is set lower than market
demands, and we get a shortage.
So once again, engraved in marble on the walls: ``You cannot repeal
the law of supply and demand''--and recognize that every time you try,
all you do is create either an artificial surplus or an artificial
shortage.
As I said, with respect to H-1B visas, the work will get done either
in the United States or abroad; and it will get done by the same people
either in the United States or abroad. The only question we have to ask
ourselves is, Do we want the people who are doing this work, getting
paid by American corporations, drawing salaries with which they support
their families, to be living in the United States and spending those
salaries in the United States, contributing to the tax base of the
United States, adding to the economic benefits of the United States, or
do we want them living abroad?
Obviously, the American companies that seek to hire these individuals
want them here because it is more efficient for them to be here. It
would mean higher costs for them if they had to do the work abroad, but
they will absorb those higher costs because they have to do the work.
If they don't, America will lose its technological lead. America will
lose its edge over the rest of the world, and we will see the
technology world begin to disappear.
We have recaptured it. There was a period of time when people said
the future lies in Japan, that America's great day of technological
advance is behind us, that the Japanese have taken over. I remember
those debates. I remember those speeches. It is not true. There is no
country in the world that is close to the United States in our
technological edge.
But to maintain that technological edge, not rest on our oars and
coast into the future, we have to have a skilled workforce that can
keep things moving forward. It is not available in this country. We
have to let those companies hire on a worldwide basis so that the edge
can be maintained here.
People say, well, they are taking jobs from Americans. Again, Mr.
President, the statistics are clear. There are 350,000 to 400,000 high-
tech jobs going begging right now because there are not people
qualified to fill them. Companies are paying bounties to their
employees who bring in a potential employee. In many companies in
Silicon Valley, an existing employee will be paid thousands of dollars
if he can introduce another prospective employee to his company who
gets hired. Bounties are being paid to find people with these skills so
that the companies can maintain their technological skills.
It is not a matter of saying, well, there are Americans who will be
shut out if the H-1B visa program passes. It is not a matter of saying
there are American graduates from American universities who will be
denied jobs if we let these other people in. No. It is a matter of jobs
going begging, jobs that have to be performed if this country is to
maintain its technological edge, people who are capable of filling
those jobs being allowed to come into this country and perform them.
Now there is one other aspect to this that I will highlight and
discuss. That is the importance of maintaining America's edge. I have
referred to it already, but I want to expand on it a little bit.
It used to be that in the industrial age, when a company was
established and momentum was created in the marketplace, you could
expect the momentum of that company to carry it forward not only for
years but probably for decades. In today's world, a technology company
can disappear virtually overnight if somebody else gets the edge on
them and produces something better quickly. The most important factor
in today's economy is speed, the speed with which you get your product
to market, the speed with which you move ahead of your competitor. That
means, once again, qualified people. That means, once again, being able
to fill those particular assignments.
Now the Senator from Massachusetts says, well, what we really need to
do is spend money increasing training. We look at the bills that are
before the Appropriations Committee, and there is an enormous amount of
money being spent to increase training in the United States to try to
close this educational gap. I would be more than thrilled if we could
say that there were already 400,000 American graduates from American
universities ready to fill these jobs, that we don't need any visas for
high-tech people abroad.
One of the ironies of that, however, that applies to the H-1B visa
issue, is this: a large percentage--indeed, in some universities it is
close to 50 percent--of the high-tech graduates of these universities
are foreign born. They hold foreign passports. We give them visas to
come to this country to gain the best education that is available
anywhere in the world in these high-tech skills. Then when they
graduate, we say to them: Thank you very much; you cannot stay because
we can't give you an H-1B visa.
The American taxpayers--in the State of Utah, it is my State
taxpayers--are subsidizing those universities. Why? Because we want the
product that comes out of them in the form of qualified graduates. So
we have ourselves in the interesting and ironic situation of saying,
because we believe in education, we will appropriate money for higher
education on both a Federal and State level; because we believe in
education, we will do everything to make the American university system
the very best in the world, which it is; and because we believe in
opportunity, we will allow students from all over the world to come to
these schools.
But when they have been here and partaken of that tax subsidy and
have obtained that education, we say to them: Now you can't work here.
You have lived here for 4 years, 5 years, 6 years, with a graduate
degree, maybe you have been here 7 or 8 years. You have become
assimilated into American culture. You have become comfortable with
hamburgers and pizza (which is more of an American food than it is
Italian food, I have discovered). You feel comfortable in all of this.
You are ready to find a job. You can't find a job in the hotbed of
technological advancement, which is the United States of America. You
have to go home. We won't give you an H-1B
[[Page S8914]]
visa after we have subsidized your education at taxpayer expense.
I have a hard time understanding how that makes any sense, that these
students from our best universities, who have received the taxpayer
subsidy giving them the best degrees, then have to leave because of the
artificial barriers created by the attempt, once again, of Government
to try to repeal the law of supply and demand.
When we talk about Americans filling these jobs, talk about graduates
of American universities filling these jobs, let us understand that
many of those graduates are themselves the very people who will benefit
from the H-1B visa program that is included in this bill.
Now a few other comments, and then I will yield the floor.
I was interested to hear the Senator from Massachusetts talk about
the fact that there are jobs going begging in this good economy and how
difficult it is for employers to fill jobs. He was speaking at this
time not about the H-1B visa and the high-tech kind of jobs, he was
speaking about very ordinary jobs. He was speaking on behalf, he said,
of immigrants who he wanted to come in to fill these jobs. He said
these jobs are going begging and we need to pass his particular bill in
order to make it possible for these immigrants to take these jobs.
I am not a member of the appropriate committee, so I cannot comment
in detail on the bill he was pressing, but I would like to go back to
our debate of yesterday when the senior Senator from Massachusetts was
demanding that we raise the minimum wage. We have raised the minimum
wage. We do that periodically. But he is demanding that we raise the
minimum wage again.
To me, there is an interesting gap between the rhetoric of yesterday
that says these people cannot support themselves on their wage and the
Government must interfere, once again, with market forces that set
their wages, to push those wages up, and then the rhetoric of today
that says there are a bunch of low-level jobs going unfilled.
If the jobs are going unfilled, why is it? It is, once again, because
there are not people qualified to take them. I told the Senate
yesterday about the experience I have in my home State. When I talk to
employers, they say their biggest problem is finding workers. They
can't get anybody to fill the jobs.
I ask them: Do you offer more than the minimum wage?
The answer is always: Yes, we are offering more than the minimum
wage.
The problem is not that the Government hasn't mandated a high enough
wage in order for these people who are just subsisting at minimum wage
to get by; the problem is they do not have the skills that will allow
them to return enough value to the employer so they can command the
jobs that are open in this economy.
The Senator from Massachusetts answered his rhetoric of yesterday
with his rhetoric of today. I hope he can connect the two so that we
can realize that the challenge for people who are living at poverty's
edge, the working poor who are getting by on just the minimum wage, is
not Government intervention to artificially demand that they be paid
more and, thereby, in some cases, run the risk of being priced out of
the market for the skills they have. The challenge is to see that their
skills are improved. That is where training money should go. That is
where many American corporations are spending their training money, and
that is where the educational challenge becomes most obvious.
American corporations are spending billions of dollars to teach
employees how to read and write. That is correct--billions of dollars
to teach basic skills that should have been learned in public schools
and were not.
Now we get to the next issue that the Senator from Massachusetts
talked about in his presentation, which is education. I was lured back
into public life by the issue of education. I was very happy being the
CEO of a comfortable and profitable company.
I got a phone call one day saying: Would you be willing to serve as a
member of the strategic planning commission for the Utah State Board of
Education and address our education issue?
I said: Yes, that sounds like a proper kind of citizen thing to do.
Then I got a phone call a few days later and they said: By the way,
we want you to be the chairman of that commission.
Thus, I found myself dragged in a little further and a little deeper
than I had originally planned.
I immersed myself in education issues and came out of that experience
absolutely convinced of several things:
No. 1, education is our No. 1 survival issue. Now that the Soviet
Union is no more, nothing threatens the future of America, long term,
so much as the educational challenge that we face. I am sure that the
Senator from Massachusetts would agree with me on that.
No. 2, nothing is more high bound and determined not to change than
the educational institution in this country. And we have seen that in
the debate on this floor. We have seen that in the educational
initiatives that have been offered on this floor. The Republicans have
brought forth proposal after proposal after proposal that would bring
fresh air, new opportunities, new experimentation into the educational
establishment. Some of them passed, some of them were filibustered.
Those that were passed were vetoed. And always we were told the
solution to education is to put more money into the present system.
Now, there is a cliche that we have in the business world that says,
``If you want to keep getting the result you are getting, keep doing
what you are doing.'' If we want to continue the educational crisis and
challenge that we have in this country, then we should keep funding
education as we are funding it. But when the Senator from Washington
proposes allowing 10 States to experiment--if they want to--with a
greater degree of local control over Federal dollars, we are told: No,
that threatens public education as we know it. We can't do that. That
is risky, that is dangerous.
We keep reminding our friends on the other side that if the State
doesn't want to do that, they don't have to. We are not mandating this
kind of change. We are just making it an opportunity. No, they
filibuster against that. They say the President will veto that. They
say we can't consider that.
I am not one of those who thinks that a voucher program constitutes a
silver bullet that is going to solve every educational problem. I know
some on my side of the aisle do believe that. I don't; I think there
are serious problems with vouchers. But I am willing to experiment with
them to find out whether or not in certain circumstances vouchers can
help. I am willing to try and get a little data. The data we have with
respect to vouchers is quite encouraging--sufficiently encouraging that
Robert Reich, a former Secretary of Labor in the Clinton
administration, a man not known for his right-wing proclivities, wrote
a piece in the Wall Street Journal that said that the data is in and
vouchers work. I was stunned when I read that. I thought, gee, the
experiment is over and we know that it works. He had a most
interesting, most creative kind of further proposal to test the
implication of vouchers.
But, once again, we heard again and again: No, no, we can't
experiment with that. It will threaten public education as we know it.
And here are their key words, which test very well in a poll, and they
work very well in a focus group: If you try the Republican experiment
in education, you will drain money away from the public schools.
There is an answer to Robert Reich in the Wall Street Journal
recently, where Governor Hunt says: No, no, no; you can't do this
because what you are doing is taking money away from the public
schools.
Well, Mr. President, as I say, I spent most of my life in the private
sector. I think I understand money and the movement of money. This is
the way I understand it. Let me walk through it and see if someone can
help me realize how it takes money away from public schools to run one
of these experiments.
Let's say that a school district is spending $7,000 per year on a
child. There are many public school districts in this country that
spend more than that. We happen to spend less than that in Utah for a
variety of reasons. We spend considerably more than that here in the
District of Columbia.
Let's take that as a number, for the sake of this illustration. The
school district is spending $7,000 per child.
[[Page S8915]]
Along comes a Republican opportunity to try something with that child,
and we follow the Robert Reich formula that says this is only with low-
income children. We will not subsidize a Member of Congress who wants
to send his children to private schools, as many Members of Congress
have done--as the Vice President has done. No, we won't subsidize them.
We will say that only low-income people who otherwise could not even
conceive of going anyplace else will be eligible for this program. That
is Robert Reich's proposal. OK. Let's take $5,000 and say to this
child: You can take $5,000 and go someplace else.
As I say, in the private world where I have spent most of my time,
$5,000 subtracted from $7,000 leaves $2,000. It seems to me that if you
do that, you are saying to that school district you have an extra
$2,000 per child for every child to whom you give a voucher, and you
can use that $2,000 per child to spend on the children who stay. You
can increase spending per child in the public school system if you
adopt a voucher program such as the one Robert Reich has endorsed.
I do not ever hear that when we hear the rhetoric about education.
You are taking money away from the public school system. In the
aggregate, yes; you probably are. But we don't teach in the aggregate.
We fund and we teach per child. If you are going to make your
calculation on the basis of the amount of money available per child,
you want as many children on vouchers as you can possibly get because
you are going to make an extra $2,000 for every two grand on every one
of them. That extra $2,000 is available for the kids who stay in the
public system.
I would be very interested to have anyone on either side of the aisle
explain to me why that math doesn't work. Explain to me why the reality
of those numbers doesn't add up because they always add up every time I
do the calculation. Every time I run through the examples, it always
ends up being more money per student less in public education if you
try one of these experiments.
I repeat again that I do not believe that vouchers represent a silver
bullet. I have spent enough time examining them that I think there are
some serious problems with them. I think it needs to be checked and
rechecked. We need to be very careful before we endorse any kind of
massive movement towards vouchers as some of my fellow Republicans have
done.
But I ask those who do not even want to experiment: What are you
afraid of finding? Are you afraid of finding that it might work? I am
not afraid of finding that it fails. I am willing to admit that it was
wrong, once we have some actual data. As I say, Robert Reich decided
the data demonstrates that it works. The city of Milwaukee has been
doing it longer than anyone else. They endorsed it and say it is
working there. The driving force behind it was an inner-city black
single mother named Polly Williams who serves as a liberal member of
the Democratic State legislature. She says: The private system is
failing my child. It is failing our children.
Interestingly, when you do the polls, support for this kind of
experimentation is perhaps highest in the minority community--not the
white, middle-class soccer moms in the school districts where the
schools do a pretty good job, but in the inner-city minority schools
where the children are being left behind,
Ultimately, this is the solution to the H-1B visa problem. It is
fixing American education so that we have enough Americans to fill
those 400,000 high-tech jobs. But it will not be done in the way that
the Senator from Massachusetts wants to do it.
I repeat: If you want to keep getting the results you are getting,
keep doing what you are doing. That is basically what he has offered
us--keep putting more and more money into the present system, and don't
even think about experimenting with it. When the Republicans say, let's
try giving more control to the local school board, we are told, No.
That would threaten the present system. When the Republicans say, let's
experiment in the District of Columbia with some vouchers and see what
happens, we are told, No. That would threaten the present system.
I believe we are trying to act responsibly with respect to the
education situation. I am afraid there are some others who are trying
to act politically and respond to the teachers union and other parts of
the educational establishment for whom the only thing better than
things the way they are is things the way they were. They don't want to
try anything different. They don't want to experiment in the way the
late Senator from Georgia tried--it was vetoed; the way the Senator
from Washington tried, it was vetoed; the way Robert Reich suggested we
try, and it was filibustered.
I think we should say to the Senator from Massachusetts: What are you
afraid of? What are you afraid of in terms of experimentation? Don't
filibuster; don't tell the President to veto. Let us have some of this
experience, and then we will see if we can't move in the direction
which will give us the graduates from American universities who will
fill the 400,000 high-tech jobs.
One final comment: The Senator from Massachusetts talked at great
length about problems with the INS and the problems with aliens here on
an undocumented status who would like citizenship--that we must pass a
law in order to solve their problems. Again, I am not a member of the
committee, and I don't know the details of the law. I might very well
end up in favor of it. But I would say this to the Senator from
Massachusetts: If he makes a phone call to the White House, the chances
are it will be returned more rapidly than if I do.
I will share with him my experience as a Senator, which I think is
not atypical. We spend more time in our offices in Utah dealing with
INS problems than any other single issue. More people come in with
heartrending stories about their difficulty in dealing with the INS.
I have ridden along with the Salt Lake Police Department. They told
me their No. 1 problem has to do with the INS and the way the INS
handles undocumented aliens.
In the city of Salt Lake, 80 percent of our drug arrests and 50
percent of our murders are committed by undocumented aliens. They come
across the border, go past the border States, and come into Utah where
they think they are free from INS supervision because INS is located
most heavily in the border States. And they have set up the drug turf
wars. They control the drug traffic. They fight to protect their turf.
The police tell me that 50 percent of the murders come from that.
Interestingly, once the cocaine is gone--they bring it with them--
they will go back for more, and then come back again with another
stash. Interestingly, the chief of police told me that for some reason
there was a shortage of cocaine south of the border and that month all
they had in Salt Lake was heroin. They brought a different drug with
them, and they stayed until that shipment was gone. Then they went back
and another group came--80 percent of the drug crimes; 50 percent of
the murders.
Naturally, I spend time with the INS trying to get their assistance
to deal with this. My point is this: If the Senator from Massachusetts
is concerned about INS problems, he is not alone. But the problems, it
appears to me, lie with the administration of the INS in this
administration rather than with the underlying legislation that deals
with it.
I was stunned to discover that there are people in my State who have
been waiting for a green card so long that their 5-year visa
opportunity will expire before they get it. And the answer as to why
they are waiting so long has nothing to do with their qualifications
but with the backlog that has been built up in the way the INS
processes applications for green cards. We are not going to solve that
problem by passing a visa piece of legislation that the Senator from
Massachusetts wants.
But I think if he made a phone call to the President, if he made a
phone call to the Attorney General, and he started with the same fervor
and volume and excitement that he demonstrates from time to time on the
Senate floor to berate them about the way the INS is administered and
managed, those who need intelligent handling by the INS in my State
would start to get some relief. I don't think they will get relief with
the passage of this legislation. But I think they can get relief if we
can get the attention of the INS, and the managers, the bureaucrats,
the
[[Page S8916]]
political appointees--call them what you will--in the Clinton
administration who have been handling this for the last 8 years.
I am one who would vote for increased appropriations for the INS if I
were confident the management of that agency were capable of handling
it because I recognize the seriousness of the problem. I see day to
day, from the people who come into my office, how wrenching it is in
terms of their relationship with their families, but this is something
the executive branch should get together first and foremost before they
come to the legislative branch for the passing of a piece of
legislation that makes everybody feel good.
That is the best I can do on this short notice to respond to the
issues the Senator from Massachusetts has raised. I enjoy the exchanges
that seem to come about now as the Senator from Massachusetts, the
Senator from Minnesota, the Senator from Illinois, and others
repeatedly come to the floor to raise these issues. I and other
Senators on this side will repeatedly come to the floor to respond. I
am grateful to the Senator from Massachusetts for giving me the
opportunity.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, my understanding is at this time the
Senate will proceed with the matter before it relating to the Florida
Everglades and the bill submitted by the distinguished chairman of the
Environment and Public Works Committee; am I not correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. WARNER. The pending business is an amendment submitted by the
Senator from Virginia with my principal cosponsor, the Senator from
Ohio; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment has not been recorded.
Amendment No. 4165
(Purpose: To require payment by non-Federal interests of certain
operation and maintenance costs)
Mr. WARNER. I send the amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for himself, and
Mr. Voinovich and Mr. Inhofe, proposes an amendment numbered
4165.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 196, strike lines 1 through 7 and insert the
following:
(4) Operation and maintenance.--The operation, maintenance,
repair, replacement, and rehabilitation of projects and
activities carried out under this section shall be consistent
with section 528(e)(3) of the Water Resources Development Act
of 1996 (110 Stat. 3770).
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the clerk. I asked the amendment
be read because this is a technical amendment. It clearly strikes the
provision which, if left, changes the law that the Congress and the
executive branch have operated under for 14 consecutive years. It
changes it for this project, and it establishes a precedent that every
Member of Congress in the future will have to grasp as he or she
advocates their next project in their State. I think that is ill
advised.
For 14 years, we have had a body of law that has served well
regarding the most complicated and very expensive series of programs to
take care of needed situations in our country--floods, saving lives,
navigation, promoting commerce. We can go on and describe these many
projects that each year the Congress considers working with the Corps
of Engineers and the executive branch to obtain.
All of a sudden, we are going to quietly, with one short sentence,
take off the law books the provision which has established that the
States have the responsibility for operation and maintenance when these
projects are completed with taxpayer money and some cost-sharing
formula by the States. I think that is wrong. I see no justification.
I support this project. I will vote for it. It is a very important
part of America. Indeed, it is shared, although in Florida the benefits
are shared by all Americans. I point out regarding the Chesapeake Bay,
for years I have advocated, with some success, and with the help of
many colleagues, the cleanup and the restoration of that great national
asset. That has been in progress for a dozen years. Each year, we get a
few million dollars to do it, just a few million here and there, to
improve this magnificent estuary serving a number of States on the east
coast.
All of a sudden, we come along with the romance of the Everglades,
and the administration has some idea--and I cannot find any
justification clearly in the Record--and says do away with 14 years of
practice and legislation that has been in effect by the Congress.
I say to every Member voting, be prepared to go back home and explain
to your constituents why they must continue to pay the full 100 percent
O&M for their projects in the last 14 years, and all of a sudden
Florida gets a cost sharing of 50-50. Be prepared to go back home and
answer that question. My amendment simply restores, preserves, the law
as it has been for 14 years.
Very interestingly, in 1996 I, as I have for 14 years, served on the
Environment and Public Works Committee. I happened to be subcommittee
chairman when we considered the Florida Everglades and wrote the
initial legislation to get this project underway. I am addressing the
Water Resources Development Act of 1996, Public Law 104-303, October
12, 1996. I refer to the following, 110 Stat. 3770:
Operation and Maintenance.--The operation and maintenance
of projects carried out under this section shall be a non-
Federal responsibility.
So Congress, just 4 years ago, reiterated in this Everglades project
that it shall be non-Federal for operations and maintenance.
What is the mystery about this project that first induced the
administration, then the Environment and Public Works Committee in
reporting this bill out--what induced them to change the law which was
very succinctly and expressly stated just 4 years ago, a law that had
been in effect since 1986?
I will vote for this. It is a good project. However, I succinctly
say, let's adhere to the law that has served this Nation well. I
guarantee no Member of this body or the other body can bring to the
attention of their colleagues the need for something to be done in
their State without having this same cost-sharing formula in the years
to come.
To do otherwise would be unfair to your constituents. So all I am
trying to do is preserve equity and fairness--equity and fairness for
what has been done in the past and what shall be done in the future.
By requiring the States under the 1986 law, and as repeated under the
1996 law, to bear the burden of operation and maintenance puts a burden
on the States to examine the projects brought forth by the Members of
Congress to determine is this worthy, in fact, of the support of the
taxpayers of that State for the life of the project. It is a joint
decision at that point.
Now with the stroke of a pen in this statute we are requiring the
Federal taxpayers to pay 50 percent of the lifetime of this enormous
project. This is one big project.
You say, Senator, what do you mean such a big project? Look at the
budget. Just look at the budget of the Corps of Engineers for the past
few years. It has averaged around $1.4 billion for the whole of
America, for the 50 States--$1.4 billion. In this bill alone we are
authorizing $1.1 billion for 10 of perhaps 50 to 60 projects of this
one restoration of the Everglades.
Let me repeat that: $1.1 billion for Florida, and that is
construction costs. The O&M costs for these first 10 is estimated,
total for these 10 projects, somewhere between $10 and $40 million a
year. And as you look at the next 10 and the next 10 and the next 10
and the next 10, to where you get to the 50 or 60 total projects for
the restoration of the Everglades, that O&M figure becomes quite
considerable. This project is going to suck the lifeblood out of
projects all across America, not only in terms of the construction
costs but, if the Congress were to adopt this, 50-50 cost sharing.
Paul Revere called out, ``The British are coming.'' I call out:
Folks, this is coming. I forewarn you. This is coming. You better go
back home and talk to your constituents and say this one is going to be
in competition with what I had planned this year and next year, or next
year, for our State. Is the Congress ready to take the Corps of
Engineers' budget averaging $1.4 billion and double it and triple it?
If you look at
[[Page S8917]]
the statistics, this budget of the Corps has been coming down through
the years. Today, the Corps has insufficient funds to meet the
requirements that existed prior to 1986.
Let me point that out. Prior to 1986, we did have a cost sharing on
O&M for projects. It is still the obligation of the Federal Government
to live up to the O&M expenses for the project prior to 1986. Yet the
Corps is short funds to meet its obligations under law prior to 1986.
So I am anxious to hear from our distinguished chairman, a very valued
and dear friend of mine of many years.
I see both the distinguished Senators from Florida are going to
participate at some point in this debate. I just come back to something
very simple. What is it about the mystique and the romance of the
Florida Everglades that justifies changing a body of law that has
served this Nation well for some 14 years, and that was specifically
reiterated and put into law in 1996 when we addressed the first, very
first pillars, the foundation for the Everglades project which we
address here today?
Mr. President, I would like to return to this subject, but I know my
colleague from Ohio, who is joining with me on this, and my
distinguished colleague from Oklahoma--both of whom serve on the
Environment and Public Works Committee--are desirous of speaking to
this issue. For the moment, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Warner amendment.
In my dissenting view on S. 2797, the ``Restoring the Everglades, An
American Legacy Act,'' I outlined my concerns with this legislation. I
would like to submit my dissenting view for the Record.
While I recognize the Everglades as a national treasure, S. 2797 sets
precedents, which I cannot, in good conscience, condone.
I would also like to reiterate my objection to the marriage of the
Everglades and WRDA legislation. I know many advocates of this plan
argue that the Everglades should be a part of WRDA 2000. However, the
Everglades plan is hardly a typical WRDA project. Because of the scale
and departure from existing law and policy of the Everglades
legislation, it should be considered as a stand alone bill--not a
provision in the Water Resources Development Act of 2000. This is a
precedent setting bill. With other plans of this nature in the works,
the Everglades will be a model for how we handle these enormous
ecological restoration projects in the future. We are entering new and,
in my opinion, dangerous territory.
No. 1. This legislation violates the committee policy concerning the
need for a Chief of the Army Corps of Engineer's report before project
authorization. This legislation authorizes 10 projects at a cost of
$1.1 billion with no reports of the Chief of Engineers on these
projects. Since 1986, it has been the policy of the Committee on
Environment and Public Works to require projects to have undergone full
and final engineering, economic and environmental review by the Chief
of Engineers prior to project approvals by the committee. This process
was established to protect taxpayer dollars by ensuring the soundness
of all projects. While I understand that, under this legislation, no
appropriation can be made until a ``Project Implementation Report'' is
submitted by the Corps, this legislation is still breaking committee
policy--it is authorizing projects without a Chief's report.
No. 2. Everglades restoration is based on unproven technology. I have
serious concerns about the wisdom of a federal investment in unproven
technologies--particularly a $7.8 billion investment. The project
approval process, described above, was established to prevent exactly
what is happening with this legislation--a gamble with the American
taxpayers' money.
No. 3. The open-ended nature of costs of this project. The total cost
of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan is estimated at $7.8
billion over 38 years. This is the current estimate. I have serious
concerns about this potential for cost over runs associated with this
project. GAO agrees with me. In a report--released today--GAO stated,
``Currently, there are too many uncertainties to estimate the number
and costs of the Corps projects that will ultimately be needed . . .''
As with almost all federal programs, this project will probably cost
much more at the end of the day. For example, in 1967, when the
Medicare program was passed by Congress, the program was estimated to
cost $3.4 billion. In 2000, the costs of the program are estimated to
$232 billion. No one could have foreseen this exponential growth! The
future cost of projects of this magnitude must be taken into
consideration by Congress before we pass legislation. Once projects
like these get major investments, they are funded until the end--no
matter what the cost. There should be a cost cap on the entire
Everglades project--not just on portions.
No. 4. This legislation sets a new precedent which requires the
federal government to pay for a major portion of operations and
maintenance costs. The Warner amendment will remedy this problem.
Since 1986, water resource projects, including environmental,
navigation, flood control, and hurricane restoration are financed
partially by the federal government and partially by the local and
state governments. And all of the costs of operations and maintenance
of the projects has been the non-federal entities--usually state or
local governments responsibility. We should not forget that this
critical cost-share policy was a key factor in breaking a 16 year
stalemate on water resources development authorization legislation.
This Everglades legislation splits the cost of operations and
maintenance of the Everglades--\1/2\ to the federal government and \1/
2\ to the State of Florida. The O&M expenditures for these prematurely
authorized projects is expected to cost $20 million, and, according the
Corp, when the Everglades project is completed, O&M costs are projected
to be in excess of $170 million a year.
At the end of FY 2000, there will be a $1.6 billion backlog of
federal O&M costs nationwide of which $329 million is considered
``critical'' because, if O&M is not performed on these facilities, they
will not be able to maintain current performance. In the Tulsa
district, which includes Oklahoma, there is a $80 million backlog in
O&M. The $170 million needed for O&M of the Everglades--which is almost
half of the this year's critical backlog--will drain resources--
creating a larger backlog around the rest of the nation. How can we
fund local O&M expenses when we can't fund federal O&M expenses.
States and localities have enormous backlogs of operations and
maintenance costs due to lack of funding. The precedent, which the
Everglades legislation sets, could open a pandora's box--having the
Federal Government take on expenses for the operations and maintenance
of many projects. There are a number of Oklahoma projects that could
use federal funds for operations and maintenance costs. My hometown of
Tulsa pays in excess of $3 million a year in O&M costs.
The Everglades legislation is also unfair because the Corps will be
conducting annual inspections on all flood control projects turned over
to the local sponsors for 100 percent O&M. Though they try very hard,
many localities, which cannot afford O&M costs, will not be able to
keep their projects properly maintained. When it comes time for more
Federal projects, they will not be favorably looked upon. the Federal
Government will say, well, if the local sponsor cannot afford the
current cost-share agreement, how could they afford a new one--even if
the community desperately needs the new project. How can the Federal
Government fund Florida's Everglades O&M bill; while other community's
projects are denied because they can not afford proper O&M and we will
not help them? How is this fair?
Again, I recognize the Everglades as a national treasure--as I do
many treasures in Oklahoma. As Congress considers the Everglades
restoration legislation, all I ask is that Congress play by the rules.
Mr. President, to reiterate, I commend the Senator from Virginia for
bringing to our attention what is happening here. I am concerned. This
is a major piece of legislation. As I said yesterday in committee, it
would be my preference not to have it as part of the water bill but to
have it as a stand-alone bill. Because of the size, the magnitude, and
nature of it, it should be. It is true what Senator Warner has said
about how this violates both the letter
[[Page S8918]]
and the intent of what we decided in 1986. I remember when it happened.
But it is not just in this area. Let me mention briefly three other
areas where we are having the same problem.
First of all, this legislation violates the committee policy
concerning the need for the Chief of the Army Corps of Engineer's
report before project authorization. This was decided back in 1986. To
my knowledge--and I had my staff research this--we have not gone
forward with any other projects that have not had a recommendation and
a report completed by the Chief of the Corps of Engineers.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I checked that
out. This is part of the statement I am putting in the Record. Clearly,
it was not done. That is a second area where it is deviating from the
longstanding practice of the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. INHOFE. I can see what is going to happen after this because
every time something comes up they are going to say: Wait a minute, you
didn't require it then. They are overworked. So why should we require
it now?
We have two right now in the State of Oklahoma, in my State, awaiting
those reports.
The second thing is the unproven technology. If you go back to 1986,
repeated again in 1996, we said we will only use proven technology when
these projects are authorized. Admittedly, during the committee meeting
they said--in fact even the chairman of the committee said--we know a
lot of this technology is not proven.
The third thing is it is open ended. I want to mention we are talking
about $7.8 billion over 38 years. Yesterday, the GAO came out, and
after pressing on this, said it could be higher. How much higher? It
could be as high as $14 billion. I am old enough to remember--I think
there are a couple of us in this Chamber who might remember, too--back
in 1967 when we started out on the Medicare program. They said at that
time it was going to cost $3.4 billion. I suggest to you this year it
is $232 billion. I do not like these open-ended things. They say we are
only talking about the first year. Once you start, you are committed.
The last thing, of course, is what this amendment addresses. I
believe very strongly that when we open up the O&M accounts, the
operation and maintenance costs will be borne by the Federal
Government. It is not just going to be that on future projects that
come up we will say we don't have to worry about O&M accounts because
50 percent of it can be provided by the Federal Government; there is
now a precedent for it. Not only that, I can see right now coming back
on existing projects and saying: Look, we are undergoing that as a
State expense. Why should we do that when we are not doing it for this
particular project?
I think the amendment is very good, but I think the amendment should
be broadened to cover these other violations of both the intent and
letter of the 1986 law.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, before the Senator yields the floor--we
served on the Environment Committee for 14 years--I have to bring to
the attention of the Senate another project. It is called the Central
Artery in Boston. There are those who affectionately refer to it as
``the big ditch'' which our late, highly respected and beloved Speaker
of the House, Tip O'Neill, initiated. I went back and checked the
record, I say to my friend from Oklahoma. I bear some of the
responsibility because I was on this committee at this time.
The first estimate for the big ditch was $1 billion. It is still
unfinished. We have expended about $7 or $8 billion and the GAO
estimate to finish it is $13.5 billion, underlining the importance of
getting that chief engineer's report, which has been the law and the
precedent of our committee for these many years. I thank the Senator.
Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise to support the Warner-Voinovich-
Inhofe amendment regarding operation and maintenance of the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan.
I join my colleagues in rejecting the current language contained in
the legislation which unfairly grants the State of Florida a 50-percent
non-Federal and 50-percent Federal cost share on the operation and
maintenance of the Everglades project. I note this is even more
generous than the administration's bill which provided for a 40-percent
Federal share.
This amendment is an issue of equity among all of the 50 States,
where, to date, operation and maintenance has been a State and local
responsibility. I remind my colleagues that the recommendation of the
Chief of Engineers was that the operation and maintenance of the
Everglades restoration project be 100-percent non-Federal, consistent
with WRDA 1986 and national policy, as pointed out by my colleague from
Virginia.
The annual operation and maintenance costs for the construction
features of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan currently
contained in S. 2796 are $172 million per year.
These operation and maintenance costs would be shared on a 50-50
basis, which means the Federal share of these costs would be almost $90
million. The current operation and maintenance appropriation nationally
is about $1.8 billion. This means the Everglades operation and
maintenance responsibility of the Corps could represent 5 percent of
the total current national appropriation for operation and maintenance.
The stark reality is that the Corps of Engineers is in no position to
assume a large additional maintenance burden. By 2001, the Corps will
have a backlog of critical maintenance nationwide of $450 million.
Chart 1, which I have before the Senate, shows a breakdown of that
backlog by project purposes. As my colleagues will note, 61 percent of
the maintenance backlog is in navigation, both inland navigation on our
rivers and maintenance dredging of our coastal harbors. The Corps is
not meeting its critical needs today for the infrastructure we depend
on for our increasingly trade-based economy.
My colleagues should realize these unmet needs are in each of our
States, not only in Florida but throughout the United States. Further,
my colleagues can also see that maintenance of the flood control
projects that are essential in protecting lives and property makes up a
significant part of the backlog at 18 percent.
Finally, I want to highlight recreation which is especially important
to my colleagues from the West. The Corps is second among Federal
agencies in recreation visitation to the land and water resources it
manages. Many people associate the Corps with its lake projects, and
yet the Corps does not have the resources it needs to meet its
maintenance responsibilities at these projects.
This next chart shows the maintenance shortfall by State as a
percentage of the maintenance backlog. As one can see, California has
the largest, followed by Florida and Louisiana. It is ironic to me that
Florida is among the States already most severely impacted by the
maintenance backlog whose situation is likely to become much more
severe if the Corps takes on a larger portion of the operation and
maintenance responsibility for the Everglades. I ask my colleague,
Senator Graham, how do you believe the Corps will be able to meet the
maintenance needs in Florida, such as dredging its harbors, maintaining
its waterways, and operating portions of the central and south Florida
project while taking on this additional $90-million-a-year maintenance
burden?
This last chart I have before the Senate shows a few examples of
maintenance needs that are not being addressed in some of the other 49
States.
The reason I bring these charts to my colleagues' attention is that
this maintenance problem is not in a few States; it goes across the
United States of America. Every Senator in some way is impacted because
we do not have enough money for paying for the operation and
maintenance on these projects.
Operation and maintenance activities to accommodate the large influx
of recreation visitors to Corps projects along the route of the Lewis
and Clark exploration during its bicentennial celebration is
underfunded. It deals with the Missouri River basin--the Dakotas,
Montana, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska.
How about the dredging in New York Harbor? That needs to be done.
[[Page S8919]]
How about seismic studies on projects throughout the New England
States which are not able to be done because we do not have enough
money?
How about recreation facilities in Oklahoma or flood protection in
North and South Dakota?
The point is, it is not a Florida issue. Adding to a maintenance
burden that the Corps already cannot meet will impact all of us who
have Corps-managed resources in our States.
This is a matter of equity. The Senator from Virginia has spoken to
that eloquently. We had it right in WRDA 1986. The operation and
maintenance responsibility for new Corps of Engineers investments must
rest with the non-Federal sponsors. We cannot afford at this time to
deviate from principle.
This is my first term in the Senate, but I have been here long enough
to know that if we begin to make exceptions, there will be no end to
it. We must stick to our principles, and that is why I am asking my
colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield for a moment? I want to clarify,
the charts of the Senator from Ohio are pre-1986 projects done by the
Corps.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Yes.
Mr. WARNER. That is the point. In other words, all of that magnitude
of money, which was a $451 million shortfall last fiscal year, is for
projects done prior to 1986. Since 1986, the States have paid for it
and that is existing law. If you fail to maintain a project, a dam or a
waterway, what happens? It deteriorates. The cement crumbles, the silt
fills in, and it begins to degrade and begins to impact the safety of
the citizens who rely on those projects for protection or navigation.
This is a very serious program my distinguished colleague brings to
the attention of the Senate, and I am so glad that the Senator clearly
reiterated my message: It is not a Florida situation; it is all 50
States.
When my colleagues vote, bear in mind how that vote affects this year
and for years to come your State projects.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from New
Hampshire.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I yield such time as he may consume to
the distinguished Senator from Florida, Mr. Graham.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I thank my colleague
and chairman of Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, who
has given outstanding leadership to this entire legislation, the Water
Resources Development Act of 2000, and has been a particularly
thoughtful student of the Everglades restoration.
I rise in strong opposition to the amendment proposed by my colleague
from Virginia. To put what we are about in some context, we are talking
about a unique partnership between a State and the Federal Government
for the protection of one of the world's treasures. The Florida
Everglades has been designated by the United Nations as a world
heritage site, one of the few places on the planet that has been
designated such because of its unique features, features that have a
global importance.
Everglades National Park, which is just a small portion of the
overall Everglades system, is the second largest national park in the
continental United States. This restoration program will be the most
significant and the most expensive environmental restoration project
ever attempted anywhere in the world.
This is going to be a world laboratory for how we will restore
damaged environmental systems, both within the United States and
elsewhere on the globe.
This has been a bipartisan effort. It has been an effort that has now
been underway for the better part of three decades --bipartisan in the
sense that it has been supported by Republican Presidents and
Governors, Congresses, and State legislatures; and Democratic
Presidents, Governors, Congresses, and State legislatures.
It is a proposal that is much in the nature of a marriage. It is a
relationship in which both partners must respect each other, pledge to
work through their challenges together, and, thus, build a strong and
sustaining relationship.
The legislation before us today offers a balance between the partners
of that marriage. It requires the State to pay 50 percent of the
construction cost of this project. It requires the State to pay 50
percent of the $7.8 billion, which is the estimated cost of
construction of this project over the next 30 to 40 years.
It requires the Federal Government to pay 50 percent of the operation
and maintenance costs of the project as it is completed.
Cost sharing for operation and maintenance represents a responsible
action by the Federal Government to protect the Federal taxpayers'
investment in the restoration of the Everglades.
Why is this a responsible action? It is a responsible action and is
also a recognition of a reality which differentiates this project from
other Federal public works projects; that the major beneficiary of this
project is the natural system, and the natural system is owned in large
part by the Federal Government.
To repeat, the principal beneficiary of this project will be enormous
Federal land tracts in the affected area. Thus, the Federal Government
has an ongoing interest; and we suggest, as does the committee of
jurisdiction, the administration, and the State of Florida, that that
large Federal investment and responsibility warrants an ongoing
Federal-State shared role in the operation and maintenance of the
project once it is completed.
Some of the projects that are in this plan, such as the wastewater
reuse projects, which have some of the highest estimated cost of
operation and maintenance, are included primarily for the benefit of
Biscayne National Park, Florida Bay, a significant part of Everglades
National Park, and the National Marine Sanctuary. The perspective that
I share is not mine alone or not parochially Florida's alone.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two letters on this topic
be printed in the Record immediately following my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Mr. GRAHAM. The first letter is signed by a broad coalition of
national environmental groups, including the National Audubon Society,
the National Parks Conservation Association, the Natural Resources
Defense Council, the Sierra Club, the World Wildlife Fund, as well as
environmental groups within Florida.
This letter states:
In addition, approval of the [Warner] amendment would . . .
severely jeopardize the likelihood of enacting Everglades Restoration
legislation this year. . . .
The second letter is from a broad coalition of agricultural and
industrial representatives. It states:
The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan is primarily
a plan to restore and protect Federal properties.
It also states:
The coalition of Florida agriculture, water utilities, and
homebuilders is convinced that without Federal participation
in the costs of operation, maintenance, repair, replacement,
and rehabilitation activities associated with the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Everglades
restoration will never be implemented.
My colleague, Senator Mack, will soon be inserting into the Record a
letter from Florida's Governor, Jeb Bush, which will state, in part:
Not only is this partnership formula fiscally and
politically prudent, it is also critical to maintaining the
diverse and broad-based support that the bill before you has
earned.
Mr. President, you and others in this body may ask why there is near
unanimous agreement that operation and maintenance costs must be a
shared cost of this project. What is it that differentiates this
project from other public works projects?
Let me suggest the following. First, to quote from the bill itself:
The overarching objective of the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan is the restoration, preservation, and
protection of the South Florida ecosystem while providing for
other water-related needs of the region.
Let me read a portion of that again:
The overarching objective of the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan is the restoration, preservation, and
protection of the South Florida ecosystem. . . .
What is that system that we are about to protect and preserve? It is
essentially a Federal system.
[[Page S8920]]
First, it is an enormous marine sanctuary that runs from the lower
part of the Florida peninsula to some 150 miles to the Dry Tortugas, an
area with the only living corral reef area in the continental United
States.
It is also four units of the National Park System: The Everglades
National Park, which I indicated earlier is the second largest national
park in the continental United States; Biscayne National Park; the Dry
Tortugas National Park; and the Big Cypress Natural Preserve. Those
great Federal ownership areas are going to be primary beneficiaries of
the restoration of the Everglades; finally, 16 national wildlife
refuges in the area that will be affected by the Everglades
restoration, from those at the upper edges of the Everglades system to
those throughout the Florida Keys.
Once constructed, this project will be operating, in large part, for
the benefit of the natural system, which is in Federal ownership.
As the primary beneficiary of this project, the Federal Government
should have a continued interest and financial role in seeing that its
goals are achieved through appropriate implementation.
Once the Federal Government is a full and equal partner in the cost
of operating this project, it will also be able to assure that the
project continues to be operated for the benefit of the natural system
in Federal ownership.
Without this participation in operation and maintenance, the Federal
Government would be, in effect, abdicating its responsibility to the
American taxpayers to protect the investment which they are going to
make in restoration of the Everglades, which they have already made in
the acquisition of these enormous Federal interests.
Another important fact, in reviewing Senator Warner's proposal, is
the cost-sharing for the Everglades restoration project. I did not hear
this very significant fact mentioned by any of the three previous
speakers.
The traditional Federal public works project is financed 65 percent
by the Federal Government, 35 percent by the local sponsor, whoever
that might be.
There are several and significant environmental and ecosystem
restoration projects which contain that very cost sharing in the bill
that we have before us, the Water Resources Development Act of 2000.
I draw your attention to page 118, line 7: A project for
environmental restoration at Upper Newport Bay Harbor in California;
65-percent Federal, 35-percent local sponsor.
On page 121, line 23, there is a project for ecosystem restoration at
Wolf River in Memphis, TN; 65-percent Federal, 35-percent local
sponsor.
On page 122, line 3, there is a project for environmental restoration
at Jackson Hole, WY, 65-percent Federal, 35-percent local sponsor.
I point out these examples in this very bill that is before us today,
not because they are unusual but because in fact they are the norm.
Sixty-five percent is the normal share that the Federal Government pays
for a project in the Water Resources Development Act.
But for this project, one of the largest projects of its type in our
Nation's history, the State of Florida is paying 50 percent--not 35
percent, but 50 percent--of the cost of construction.
To my knowledge--and I ask the proponents of this amendment if they
have information to the contrary--I know of no other local sponsor for
an environmental restoration project who is paying 50 percent of the
cost of the project.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if the Senator would yield, I would be
happy to reply.
Mr. GRAHAM. I am glad to yield.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, my amendment goes to the operation and
maintenance, which from 1986 on was 100-percent State responsibility.
That is the amendment. The Senator, of course, quite properly is
addressing, by way of background, the construction. And there are
various formulas for cost sharing on construction. But he points out
that they are paying 50 percent versus the 35 percent on the
construction allocation of the State. But in fairness, the reason they
are paying the higher is that there are some other than environmental
projects here. This whole thing goes from Orlando to the tip of
Florida. This is enormous. This is over half the State's length; is
that correct?
Mr. GRAHAM. That happens to be the size of the Everglades system.
This project encompasses the Everglades system, an integrated
environmental system, the totality of which creates the environments
that sustain all of these great Federal investments.
Mr. WARNER. I am trying to draw some parallel for the average Member
of Congress who deals with a dam or a waterway which is in a small
portion, relatively speaking, of his or her State. This covers over
half the State; isn't that correct?
Mr. GRAHAM. No.
Mr. WARNER. All right. What percentage, from Orlando to the tip?
Mr. GRAHAM. From Orlando to the tip of Florida would be approximately
35 to 40 percent.
Mr. WARNER. Thirty-five to forty. I was off 10 percent. I say to my
good friend, the reason you go to 50 percent and not 35 is you are
covering non-Federal and part of municipal water supplies. There are a
whole lot of municipal water supplies that are benefited.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would appreciate the opportunity to
complete my remarks, and then I would like to respond specifically to
the statement relative to the nature of the projects, the Federal
purposes that they will play, and the appropriateness of the overall
arrangement of a 50-percent State share in construction and then a 50-
percent Federal share in operation and maintenance.
Mr. WARNER. Certainly, I did not wish to invade. But the Senator
invited questions: Does any other Senator know of projects other than
35 percent? I am pointing out, yes, because he is including a lot of
municipal water supply, treatment plants for runoff water, and a lot of
other things that most States pay for back home.
I thank the Senator.
Mr. GRAHAM. I will return to discuss the specific issue of municipal
water. Let me complete the arithmetic of the analysis I was doing.
On an annual basis, the difference between the State of Florida
contributing 50 percent as opposed to the norm of 35 percent is
approximately a $35-million-a-year savings during the construction
period of this project, some 30 to 40 years, for the Federal
Government. If the Federal Government were to take that $35-million-a-
year savings and invest it, even at a conservative rate of interest of
5 percent, over the period of this project, that would produce a total
of approximately $1.8 billion. That is the savings plus the interest
earned on those savings to the Federal Government. That $1.8 billion
would pay the cost of operation and maintenance of this project to
approximately the year 2050.
We are, for the first half century of the 21st century, going to be
saving the Federal Government an enormous amount of money by the State
paying at the rate of 50 percent rather than 35 percent, and those
funds will go substantially towards meeting these ongoing operation and
maintenance costs that the Federal Government will share on a 50-50
basis.
The amendment Senator Warner has offered fails to recognize any of
these distinct characteristics, the nature of the Federal interest to
be protected, the continuing interest of the Federal Government in how
its capital investment is implemented, and, finally, the fact that
because of a much more generous and forthcoming State share of the
construction cost, the Federal Government is saved substantial funds.
The Senator from Virginia raised the question that there are other
projects. He specifically talked about wastewater projects. There are
no wastewater projects in here. There are wastewater reuse projects
which are one of the areas being done precisely to protect Federal
interests. They are not wastewater systems that are going to be serving
a local municipality. They are wastewater systems to purify the water
before it goes into the Biscayne Bay National Park and before it goes
into the Florida Bay component of the Everglades National Park or
before it goes into the National Marine Sanctuary in the Florida Keys.
This is not a wastewater treatment system that a municipality would
have. These are systems to protect the quality of water in order to
protect the quality of the Federal investment. As I said earlier, these
are some of the most expensive of the operation and maintenance costs
this project will generate.
[[Page S8921]]
The amendment fails to reflect the fact that this is a marriage, a
marriage between the State and Federal Government, and that that
marriage is necessary to assure the plan's success, a true union where
each partner respects the other and makes a commitment as equals.
Everglades restoration won't work unless the executive branch,
Congress, and the State government move forward hand in hand.
We are about to make one of the most important decisions that this
Congress will make. Obviously, it is a project that has enormous
personal interest to me because of my personal long association with
the Everglades and my deep appreciation of the qualities it represents.
But this will be an opportunity for the Congress to commit itself to
one of the great ventures in terms of environmental restoration and
protection in our Nation's history. It is a project that I suggest
Members of Congress will look back upon later in their lives and
careers with pride that they were part of this effort.
It is a project in which we are asking that there be a long-term
commitment with the State of Florida. On the concerns that were
expressed about the possibility that additional changes might be called
for, or additional costs incurred, I underscore, every one of those
costs is going to be shared on a 50-50 basis. So we have a partner in
this project who is going to be just as concerned about achieving the
result and doing so in the most cost-effective way as we share those
concerns.
So this is legislation which is truly historic. It is legislation
which will lead us down the path toward Everglades restoration--a goal
which our Nation has shared for many decades, a goal in which we can
play an important role today in seeing that it becomes reality.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Exhibit No. 1
1000 Friends of Florida, Audubon of Florida, Center for
Marine Conservation, The Everglades Foundation, The
Everglades Trust, National Audubon Society, National
Parks Conservation Association, Natural Resource
Defense Council, Sierra Club, World Wildlife Fund,
September 19, 2000.
Hon. Bob Smith,
Chairman, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee,
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Max Baucus,
Ranking Member, Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington,
DC.
Dear Senator Smith and Senator Baucus: We are writing to
express our opposition to the Voinovich amendment to H.R.
2796, the Water Resources Development Act of 2000, that would
eliminate the state-federal operations and maintenance (O&M)
cost share for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan
(CERP).
S. 2796 presently provides a 50-50 cost share between the
State and Federal government. The Voinovich amendment would
make the State of Florida pay the entire cost. The Voinovich
amendment ignores the fact that this is no ordinary water
project because the taxpayer is a primary beneficiary of the
project.
Within the project area there is a unique and compelling
federal interest that justifies a 50-50 state/federal cost
share for operations and maintenance. The project area
includes four National Parks, 16 National Wildlife Refuges,
and one National Marine Sanctuary that comprise five million
acres of federally owned and managed lands--50% of the
remaining Everglades.
In addition, approval of the Voinovich amendment would
likely yield two results; both of which would severely
jeopardize the likelihood of enacting Everglades Restoration
legislation this year: First, the State could withdraw its
support for the bill leaving this a project without a non-
federal sponsor. Or, the State could seek new modifications
to reflect the diminished federal commitment to restoration
of America's Everglades, a move that would send the
Everglades back to the drawing board with no time left on the
clock.
Therefore, we respectfully request that you vote against
the Voinovich Everglades cost share amendment to S. 2796.
Thank you for your consideration of our views.
Sincerely,
Nathaniel Reed, Chairman, 1000 Friends of Florida.
David Guggenheim, Vice President for Conservation Policy,
Center for Marine Conservation.
Tom Rumberger, Chairman, The Everglades Trust.
Mary Munson, Director, South Florida Programs, National
Parks Conservation Association.
Frank Jackalone, Senior Field Representative, Sierra Club.
Stuart Strahl, Ph.D., Executive Director, Audubon of
Florida.
Mary Barley, Chair, The Everglades Foundation.
Tom Adams, Director of Government Affairs, National Audubon
Society.
Bradford H. Sewell, Senior Project Attorney, Natural
Resources Defense Council.
Shannon Estenoz, Director, South Florida/Everglades
program, World Wildlife Fund.
____
Dawson Associates Incorporated,
Washington, DC, September 19, 2000.
Senator Bob Smith,
Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, Dirksen
Senate Office Bldg., Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Smith: The coalition of Florida agriculture,
water utilities, and homebuilders is convinced that without
Federal participation in the costs of operation, maintenance,
repair, replacement, and rehabilitation activities associated
with the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP),
Everglades restoration will never be implemented. Governor
Bush's Commission for the Everglades has taken the position
that if the Federal government is to be a full and equal
partner in restoration, it should share in all of the
associated costs. Furthermore, it is certain that the Florida
Legislature will not supply the level of funding needed to
construct this plan if they are going to have to pay the full
cost of operation over the life of the project.
The CERP is primarily a plan to restore and protect Federal
properties, and the development of the plan has been
dominated by the federal agencies, especially the Department
of Interior. The restoration of a unique ecological system of
world significance dramatically and fundamentally
distinguishes the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan from
those of other Army Civil Works projects.
Furthermore, the Army Corps of Engineers indicated to
stakeholders throughout the planning process that it would
seek cost sharing for all modifications over their life
cycle. This commitment eliminated the biases in project
decision-making that result when all costs are not treated in
the same way. Affirming this commitment in the authorization
will ensure that project design decisions will continue to be
based on cost-effectiveness alone.
Sincerely,
Robert K. Dawson,
President.
Coalition Members
Florida Citrus Mutual (Mr. Ken Keck, Director for
Government Affairs).
Florida Farm Bureau (Mr. Carl B. Loop, Jr., President).
Florida Home Builders Association (Mr. Keith Hetrick,
General Counsel).
The American Water Works Association, Florida Section
Utility Council (Mr. Fred Rapach, Chairman).
Florida Chamber (Mr. Chuck Littlejohn, Government Affairs).
Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association (Mr. Mike Stuart,
President).
Southeast Florida Utility Council (Mr. Vernon Hargrave,
Chairman).
Gulf Citrus Growers Association (Mr. Ron Hamel, Executive
VP).
Florida Sugar Cane League (Mr. Phil Parsons, Environmental
Counsel).
The Florida Water Environment Association Utility Council
(Mr. Fred Rapach, Chairman).
Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida (Mr. George
Wedgworth, President).
Florida Fertilizer and Agri-chemical Association (Ms. Mary
Hartney, President).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I yield such time as he
may consume to the Senator from Florida, Mr. Mack. And I thank him for
his help and cooperation on this legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida, Mr. Mack, is
recognized.
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I want to say to my dear friend, the Senator
from Virginia, I thoroughly enjoyed listening to his presentation. And
I say this with all good humor. It was a great performance. It reminded
me a little of Chicken Little in ``The Sky is Falling'' when I listened
to equating $86 million in operating expenses to a $1.4 billion budget.
The $86 million will be the cost of operating and maintaining this new
system 25 or 30 years from now. I think it might be appropriate to try
to figure out what the Corps' budget might be 25 or 30 years from now.
I think that would bring a more significant understanding of the impact
of the operating and maintenance costs to the Federal Government.
The second point I will make is that we are already spending more
than that now on the Everglades. I suggest that on this project we are
proposing today--and I believe strongly that it will pass--we will
probably seek a reduction in the long run as a part of the Corps'
budget. But, again, I appreciate the fervor with which my colleague
presented his argument.
Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague for his courtesy. We will have more
to say.
Mr. MACK. I am sure we will.
[[Page S8922]]
Mr. President, I am in strong opposition to the amendment offered by
my friend from Virginia. This amendment, if passed, will put an end to
the unprecedented partnership developed between the Federal Government
and the State of Florida in an effort to restore and protect America's
Everglades. While I am sure my colleague from Virginia has the best of
intentions in offering his amendment, I caution my colleagues that one-
size-fits-all solutions can be extremely harmful to something as
sensitive and as difficult as Everglades restoration.
It may be useful to take a few minutes today to help highlight the
Everglades provision in the water resources bill before us and explain
how the amendment of the Senator from Virginia will impact our
longstanding efforts to restore and protect this unique ecosystem.
Let me begin by stating that the legislation before us today is a
consensus product supported by a full spectrum of environmental groups
and economic stakeholders. It is supported by Florida's two Indian
tribes, Gov. Jeb Bush of the State of Florida, and it is supported by
the Clinton administration.
Nine months ago, my colleague from Florida, Senator Graham, and I set
out to write a balanced Everglades bill that addressed the needs of
south Florida's environment and its citizens. This was no small task.
We asked individuals and groups who have long been divided to set aside
their differences and work together with us. We asked them to help us
restore this vibrant, natural system to its former glory. With the
steady leadership of Chairman Bob Smith and Senator Baucus, we have
accomplished our goal. The bill we bring to the floor today is
something of which all Americans, and I believe all Senators, can be
proud.
In the bill we are considering today, we authorize a comprehensive
plan to undo the harm done by 50 years of Federal efforts to control
flooding in south Florida, without consideration for damage done to
south Florida's environment. This comprehensive plan was developed over
the past 8 years by the Corps of Engineers, with input from economic
and environmental stakeholders, local governments, scientists,
restoration engineers, the people of south Florida, and the Congress.
It is recognized throughout south Florida and the Nation as a fair and
balanced plan to provide for the water-related needs of the region
while, for the first time, ensuring that the needs of the Everglades
will be met as well.
It is terribly important that we do this. Without this plan, the
Everglades will die and water, the lifeblood of south Florida's
economy, will continue to be siphoned off into the sea without
benefiting the environment or the people who live and work in the
region.
Let me take a moment to share with you some of the principles Senator
Graham and I have used to guide our efforts this year in drafting this
bill. We wanted to be sensitive to the legitimate concerns and needs of
all citizens and interests who have a stake in how the plan is
implemented, we wanted to be true to the restoration mandate and ensure
that the Everglades got the first benefit of any new water generated by
the plan, and we wanted to affirm and establish in law the true
partnership we share with the State of Florida in achieving the plan's
restoration goal.
The cooperation between the State agencies charged with managing this
effort and the Federal Government over the years has been truly
unprecedented. The State shared the cost of developing the plan we are
considering today. The Corps of Engineers has benefited greatly from
the engineering talent at the South Florida Water Management District.
Florida has been our full partner in bearing half of the cost of the
restoration projects already underway in the Everglades. The State has
committed to split evenly the cost of implementing the plan once it is
authorized. The reason for this partnership is simple. Both the State
and Federal Government have a vital interest in the restoration of the
Everglades. Both the State and the Federal Government should pay for
the cost of operating and maintaining the restoration project once it
is built.
I say this to provide background for the debate on the amendment
before us. This partnership we have established is vital to our
efforts, and if this amendment passes, it will be very difficult to
accomplish our restoration goals.
I have a letter from Gov. Jeb Bush expressing his opposition to the
amendment of the Senator from Virginia. I ask unanimous consent that it
be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, a key part of this partnership has been the
commitment by the State of Florida--already enshrined in a bill
approved by Governor Bush earlier this year--to pay fully half the $7.8
billion cost of implementing the Everglades restoration plan. This is a
significantly greater cost share than the local sponsor typically pays
to construct a Corps project.
Many Corps projects have a local cost share of as little as 20
percent of the total project and few pay more than 35 percent. In fact,
if the State were paying 35 percent, rather than the 50 percent it has
committed to, it would increase the burden of the Federal taxpayer by
almost $1.2 billion. Let me repeat that. The State has committed to a
greater-than-average cost share for constructing the restoration
project and will save the Federal taxpayers almost $1.2 billion.
I believe the good faith demonstrated by the State's offer--not to
mention the resulting savings of the Federal Government--clearly
refutes any argument that the State is somehow unduly benefiting from
the operation and maintenance cost share proposed in the bill before us
today.
While I cannot stress enough the damage this amendment will do to our
relationship with the State of Florida, I remind my colleagues about
the significant Federal investment we are making in the Everglades and
the important Federal interest in ensuring this project is operated and
maintained properly.
Within the boundaries of the proposed restoration area, there are
four national parks, including Everglades National Park, one of the
crown jewels of our National Park System. There is a national marine
sanctuary and many other national interests. All of these important
environmental assets are dependent upon the successful operation of the
restoration plan.
If the project is not operated properly--if the water is not right--
these important Federal holdings in south Florida will continue to
suffer the same fate they are suffering today. If we and the State of
Florida are to come together behind a restoration plan and spend $7.8
billion to implement that plan, it seems we also have the
responsibility and obligation to stay in Florida and help with the
successful operation and maintenance of the project. That is a
reasonable position.
I add that the operation and maintenance cost share in this bill is
fully consistent with prior central and southern Florida project
authorizations. In fact, the Federal Government pays the full cost of
operating and maintaining the levees, channels, locks, and control
works of the St. Lucie Canal, Lake Okeechobee, and the Caloosahatchee
River. The Federal Government pays the full cost--not 50-50, but the
full cost--of operating the levees, channels, locks, and control works
of the St. Lucie Canal, Lake Okeechobee, and the Caloosahatchee River.
All of these areas that I have mentioned are in this restoration area.
It pays the full cost of operating and maintaining the main spillways
in the system's water conservation area.
Further, the Flood Control Act of 1968 provided that the project
costs of providing water delivery to Everglades National Park is
considered a federal responsibility and on that basis the federal
government would share in the operation and maintenance of projects
that serve that area of the system. The federal government is also
required, under a 1989 law, to participate in the cost share for the
modified water deliveries project. And, finally, the water resources
bill of 1996 provides that the cost of operating and maintaining water
deliveries to Taylor Slough and Everglades National Park be shared
between the State and federal governments.
That is my argument to this constant mention of the fact that for 14
years we have had this precedent.
[[Page S8923]]
I have just stated the whole series of issues related to the
Everglades in which there is a whole range of the sharing of costs and
maintaining the Everglades system.
There appears to be ample precedent for a shared cost between the
State and federal governments on projects related to the Everglades and
Everglades restoration.
What the Senator from Virginia is advocating is something far
different. He would have the federal government pack up and leave when
the restoration project is completed--essentially abandoning precedent
and abandoning a national treasure after an unprecedented effort to
save it. His amendment would have the federal government abdicate its
responsibility, to both the environment and the taxpayer, to protect
the substantial investment we're making on their behalf in the
Everglades.
I would remind my colleagues, the Everglades is a dynamic system. It
is dependent on the steady, reliable supply of fresh water this
restoration project will provide over the years.
It is not like a levee, or a bridge, which the federal government can
construct and turn over to the local authorities. This is an enormously
complex restoration project managing the water flow over and through
18,000 square miles of subtropical uplands, wetlands and coral reefs.
The area covered by this project spans from Lake Okeechobee to Key
West; from Fort Myers on the gulf to Fort Pierce on the Atlantic.
This is not an investment we can afford to abandon, Mr. President.
The investment is too great and the stakes are too high. I would urge
my colleagues to defeat the amendment.
Exhibit 1
Governor of the State of Florida,
September 19, 2000.
Hon. Connie Mack,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Mack: Florida awaits with much anticipation
Congress' authorization of the plan to restore America's
Everglades. Our optimism is derived in large measure from the
demonstrated leadership in the Senate, particularly your
efforts and those of Senator Smith and Senator Trent Lott and
his leadership team. We are also hopeful that, with time
running out, the White House will hold together the
bipartisan nature of this effort by encouraging minority
members to keep focused on the historic nature of the
opportunity before them.
Clearly, with just a few legislative days remaining, a key
to success will be limiting efforts to revisit some of the
fundamental agreements that have now carried us so far. Among
these agreements is the unprecedented equal cost sharing
arrangement between the federal government and our state.
This true and equal partnership creates all of the right
incentives for making wise, cost-effective decisions as the
project proceeds through construction, operation and
maintenance. An equal and shared interest between the state
and federal governments ensures that cost control remains a
shared goal, and that design and construction decisions are
made based on what will provide the greatest long-term
efficiencies. No party will benefit from attempting to shift
costs forwards or backward for short-term advantage.
Everybody, most importantly the taxpayers, wins if there is
mutual benefit in controlling overall costs for the life of
the project.
The current 50-50 cost sharing formula for construction,
operation and maintenance of the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan is far superior to the conventional funding
formulas used for more typical Water Resources Development
Act projects. Florida, by paying half of the project
construction costs, will save the federal treasury nearly $2
billion. This up front savings to the federal government is
equivalent to more than 20 years of the projected operation
and maintenance costs.
Beyond the sound fiscal arguments for an equal partnership,
there are also important practical and management benefits.
All of the diverse interests that have rallied around the
bill that is now before the Congress recognize the delicate
political balance that has been struck regarding the
management and allocation of water resources in the South
Florida ecosystem after the construction project is complete.
Clearly the maintenance of this balance is best protected if
there are equal commitments from the state and the federal
government for the ongoing operation and maintenance of the
project.
I respectfully urge you to remain alert to the importance
of this full and equal partnership between the state and
federal governments. Not only is this partnership formula
fiscally and politically prudent, it is also critical to
maintaining the diverse and broad-based support that the bill
before you has earned. Please let me know if you believe that
this agreement is ever in jeopardy in the critical days ahead
as this Congress prepares to make environmental history.
Sincerely,
Jeb Bush.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
I was much taken by my colleague's comment that this is a matter
between the Federal Government and the State. Indeed, it is a marriage
that every Governor would dream about, and the wedding presents being
given are astronomical. Look at the whole project. It is dotted with
wastewater projects to clean up the water that comes from the
communities before it goes to these estuaries. I can understand that. I
can understand that, I say to my other colleague from Florida. But how
does that differ from the Chesapeake Bay which has been struggling over
a 10-year period to clean up the wastewater from their surrounding
communities which goes into the Chesapeake Bay and which affects the
striped bass, crabs, and everything else? Who pays for that? The local
communities do.
The wastewater comes from the various adjacent communities, and why
shouldn't this cleanup project be paid for by the local communities
rather than this massive public project?
I have looked at towns all over Virginia that are struggling to meet
the wastewater requirements and paying their local taxes to clean it up
before it is distributed into the streams and rivers and lakes in my
State. I say there is no difference between my streams and my lakes in
the Chesapeake Bay and the magnificence of the Florida Everglades. Yet
the Senator is asking the Federal taxpayer to pay for it and changing a
law which has served this Nation for some 14 years.
That is why you do not have the 35-percent construction cost formula
but 50 percent, because of the many projects which are not related to
the magnificence of the flora, fauna, birds, alligators, snakes, and so
forth, which indeed are very important. They are very important and
essential to these projects.
Fine, clean up the water, but do it like every other municipality.
Have the States pay for it with the local taxes before it is
distributed back into the various components of the Florida Everglades.
If there are any Senators who wish to reply during the course of the
debate, I would be glad to yield.
There is an abundance of wedding presents coming with this marriage,
I say to my good friend from Florida.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I repeat what I said before. The purpose
of these water reuse facilities, as I indicated earlier, and the nature
of these reuse facilities is one of the areas on which we are going to
be doing some preliminary experimentation and demonstration before
committing to what the ultimate formula will be.
The purpose of these is to take water which has been polluted in
large part because of the Federal projects that have been in place
since it was authorized in 1948 and to clean that water to a point that
it will no longer serve to damage the important Federal investment.
As an example, in the middle of the Everglades there will be a
variety of what are called stormwater treatment areas constructed.
These are not mechanical, but biological methods of cleaning the water
that comes off the middle part of the Everglades so that when it gets
down into the area of Everglades National Park, it will meet the
standards that will avoid the water-causing adverse effects in the
park.
At the present time, the injection of inappropriate water quality
into Everglades National Park has contributed substantially to a
dramatic fall in the natural wildlife, fisheries, and fauna of
Everglades National Park, and it has contributed to the development of
extensive exotic, nonnatural plants in the area.
The purpose of these water reuse and treatment areas--most of which
are not the kind of sewage treatment plants we think about with
concrete in place where water comes and is mechanically treated and
then discharged--is to deal with natural water flow systems--not from
municipal areas; they are largely going to be biological and not
mechanical. And the purpose of all of this is to achieve a level of
water quality, the principal beneficiary of which will be these Federal
landowners.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I may respond to my friend, I accept
[[Page S8924]]
what he is saying. It is just a question of who is going to pay for it.
Take, for example, the cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay, which begins
way up in Delaware, reaches Baltimore, MD, reaches Washington, DC, and
reaches Norfolk, VA. All of the water runoff from those municipalities
the local people accept the cost of because it goes into the Chesapeake
Bay, which is, as any number of projects, a Federal investment. The
Federal taxpayer has put money into cleaning up the Bay.
What is the distinction between the water runoff from municipalities
into the local streams or the Chesapeake Bay, which is just as
important to the people of those communities as are the everglades to
the people of Florida?
Mr. GRAHAM. The source of pollution is largely from a previously
authorized Federal project; two, the nature of the cleanup in Florida
is not of the type that surrounds the Chesapeake Bay.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator will suspend, the time is under
the control of the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from New
Hampshire. At the present time, the Senator from Virginia has the time.
Mr. WARNER. Thank you. I wish to share the time. I will accept the
time of my questioning to be charged to the time of the Senator from
Virginia, and, of course, the reply would be charged to the chairman's
time.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. WARNER. I make my point, Mr. President. I see no distinction.
Water is water. Cleanup is cleanup. The question is, Who is going to
pay for it? The question is, Who will pay for it?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from New Hampshire has time and the Senator from Virginia
has time.
Mr. WARNER. I yield such time as the Senator from Ohio desires, but
our colleague from Florida also seeks recognition.
Mr. MACK. I wanted to respond to the question.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senator from Florida wishes to respond
to a point I made. I suggest to the Chair we recognize our colleague
from Florida. Of course, his time is under the control of the chairman
of the committee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I yield such time as the Senator from
Florida may consume to respond to the Senator from Virginia.
Mr. MACK. This will be a brief response. I apologize to my colleagues
for trying to hop in here, but the Senator raised a question I thought
should be responded to: What makes us different?
In the State of Florida, in 1994, we passed the Everglades Forever
Act which provides for local payment of water cleanup costs. The
Federal Government's share in the cost of cleaning up the water that
directly benefits Federal areas such as the Everglades National Park--
the fact is that the local communities are paying for the cleanup of
the waters that the Senator has suggested.
The second point I make, I think there is something unique about what
we have come up with. The Senator says the uniqueness is the 50-50 cost
sharing. The uniqueness that I see--and I don't think there is a Member
who has traveled to the State of Florida and become involved and
knowledgeable about the Everglades Project, who is not amazed by the
partnerships that have been developed--is the various interests in our
State that have come together and who have said not only do they
support but they are willing to put money into it.
As the Senator knows, the State of Florida, during this past
legislative session, in fact, put up I believe almost $200 million
towards this project.
Again, to answer the question directly, the cities are, in fact,
paying. The State of Florida anticipated that question in 1994 and
passed the act that I referred to a few moments ago.
I thank the Senator for yielding.
Mr. WARNER. I want to reply to my colleague.
We love our States equally. I say to the Senator, the Chesapeake Bay
is just as dear to our people as are the Everglades to Floridians. The
Chesapeake Bay is a national asset--maybe not of the proportions but
certainly of equal significance to the Everglades. All of this has been
done through the years at a minute fraction of the cost to clean up the
bay. Striped bass and crabs are returning and are beginning to live and
prosper. We are making some progress. Again, there has been a clear
cost sharing by the local communities, which I do not find in this
bill.
My question to the Senator is, Why did the Congress of the United
States in 1996, just 4 years ago almost to the day, October 12, pass a
law saying ``operation and maintenance expenses of projects carried out
under this section shall be a non-Federal responsibility''?
That was 1996, 4 years ago. Why is this now being changed?
Mr. MACK. I believe, if I can respond, and perhaps I can find the
language, if you read further on in the act, you will find some
language that has to do with some cost sharing of the area that the
Senator is referring to as identifying certain aspects of the bill, but
there are other references in there about following precedent with
respect to cost sharing. There is, as I read in my statement, a whole
series of things in which there is even 100-percent participation at
the Federal level for operation and maintenance.
Mr. WARNER. I will pass this document to my good friend and we should
address that together before the vote.
My amendment simply says, leave in place the 1986 and the 1996 laws.
That is all.
I yield time to the Senator from Ohio.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. VOINOVICH. I make it clear I am a supporter of this Florida
restoration plan.
Second, I point out there is this representation that we have all of
these Federal resources in Florida that are going to benefit from this
bill. And the answer to that, yes, they are. On the other hand, as a
former Governor of Ohio, the Everglades are not only a tremendous
resource for the United States, but they are also a tremendous resource
for the State of Florida because they bring tremendous numbers of
people to Florida from which the State benefits. We don't talk about
that, but that is the other side of the coin.
Senator Graham from Florida mentioned page 118 of the restoration
projects. I point out that none of the restoration projects mentioned
include municipal water supply. This proposal benefits the municipal
water supply to the extent of 20 percent of the overall cost of the
project.
In my State, the municipal water supply is paid for 100 percent by
the people in the community. If we look at the numbers on this project
and subtract the benefit to the State of Florida for the cost of paying
for this public water supply that they would have to pay for entirely
themselves, they are benefiting to the tune of $1.6 billion. If we take
the $1.6 billion the State of Florida is benefiting from, the $3.9 non-
Federal share they are putting into it, it works out to be $2.3 billion
as what they are really paying out because they are saving on the $1.6
billion that they would have to spend on the public water supply.
Looking at those numbers, the relationship is basically 35 percent,
the State of Florida; 65 percent, the Federal Government. I want the
Senators to look at the numbers: 20 percent of this overall project is
for the public water supply. Fine. But the fact is that if this project
wasn't being undertaken, that public water supply would have to be
supplied by the State of Florida or the communities within the State of
Florida.
This argument that it is a 50-50 cost sharing on the construction
costs does not state the facts. It is more like 35-65. Therefore, to
say we are paying 50 percent of the construction costs; therefore, it
should be 50-50 in operations, I don't think is a proper argument on
their part.
In addition, I conclude with reference to the equity to the rest of
the projects throughout the United States of America. In 1986 we
decided O&M would be taken care of by the restoration project
beneficiaries. I point out to the other Senator from Florida that as to
the St. Luci project and many others mentioned, the Federal Government
is picking up 100 percent of the cost that took place before 1986.
Perhaps maybe one of the reasons why the Federal
[[Page S8925]]
Government decided not to pay 100 percent is because a lot of people
thought that was not fair.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from
Florida.
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I respond to the question raised by the
Senator from Virginia when we were talking about cost share. I
suggested to Senator Warner, if he looked in other places in Public Law
104, which is referred to as the Water Resources Development Act of
1996, he would find other language different from the language to which
he was referring. That is found in section 316, central and southern
Florida Canal, 111. Under ``Operation and Maintenance,'' it says:
The non-Federal share of operation and maintenance cost of
the improvements undertaken pursuant to this section shall be
100 percent;
However, if you go on, it says:
. . . except that the Federal Government shall reimburse
the non-Federal interest with respect to the project 60
percent of the cost of operating and maintaining pump
stations that pump water into Taylor Slough and in the
Everglades National Park.
I wonder what the argument was 14 years ago about changing precedent.
People want to refer to precedent. The reality is that Congress does
what the Congress believes is necessary to carry out an important
project. I think it is pretty clear. In fact, my colleagues who oppose
this cost share have indicated they are going to support the
resolution, or support the act; therefore, I think, accepting the
notion of the significance and importance of what we are doing. And
therefore it is reasonable for the Senate to determine on this
particular project because of its unusual, unique circumstances, that
somehow we should, in fact, have a 50-50 cost share.
I do not find that stunning, and I am not impressed with the fact
that for the last 14 years which some want to refer to that there has
been a precedent established. There are all kinds of indications that
we have had different cost shares, to the extent that we find in some
areas the Federal Government is picking up 100 percent of the cost of
operation and maintenance.
I again say to my colleagues, I hope they will support Senator Graham
and I and Senators Smith and Baucus and defeat this amendment.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the
Senator from Montana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we all want to protect the Everglades. I
don't think there is a Senator here who does not want to substantially
protect and restore the Everglades.
How do we do it? What is the most fair, most equitable way to restore
the Everglades? I think it is important to remember we cannot let
perfection be the enemy of the good. There is no perfect solution. But
there are good solutions. The committee has crafted a good solution.
It is true, as the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Ohio
are pointing out, we are breaking precedent. It is true. The provisions
of the bill do provide for Uncle Sam to pay 50 percent of the operation
and maintenance cost of this very large and very important project.
That is true. I share many of the concerns of the Senators, the
potential slippery slope; what is this going to lead to? Why are we
breaking precedent here? It is a 14-year precedent, I think. It has
been some time. What is a Federal interest? Sometimes it is hard to
define what a Federal interest is.
But just as there are more Federal dollars going in for operation and
maintenance, on the other side of the equation we are also breaking
another precedent; that is, the State is putting up more of the
construction costs. Ordinarily the State would have to put up about 35
percent of the construction costs. It is a big project, about $8
billion. Florida has decided to put up the full 50 percent. So they are
paying more than they ordinarily would. The U.S. Government will be
paying more than it ordinarily would in operation and maintenance
costs.
This arrangement may not be perfect. But we are dealing with an
extraordinary, special situation, and that is the Everglades. All of us
in America feel a part of the Everglades. Certainly, the Floridians
feel more closely attached to the Everglades, but I think the rest of
us in this country have a feeling about it. It is part of America, a
special part of America we want to protect and restore as best we can.
So I say we should stick with the approach the committee has come up
with after a lot of hard work, and a lot of give and take.
In addition, I might point out 50 percent of the benefits go to
parks, Federal parks, Federal land. There are about 18,000 square miles
involved in the Everglades restoration. About 9,000 square miles of
that is Federal lands; 9,000 is non-Federal lands. So it seems to me a
50-50 operation and maintenance cost share--it is rough justice. It is
about right: 9,000 Federal, 9,000 non-Federal, 50-50; at a time when
the State of Florida also is putting up more than its usual share for
construction.
So this has been a good debate. In future years, when we are faced
with similar questions, I know the Senator from Virginia and the
Senator from Ohio are going to be front and center saying: Uh-oh, here
we go again. Remember that time in September 2000? And they will be
making good points. But I believe one has to make a decision. The
decision is now before us to proceed with the bill and not adopt the
amendment offered by my good friend, recognizing they made good points,
but I do not agree those points are sufficiently valid to warrant
passage of their amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield for a question on my time?
Mr. BAUCUS. I yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. In those few moments when I am able to take a vacation, I
like to go to your State.
Mr. BAUCUS. You go often and I appreciate it.
Mr. WARNER. I started there as a firefighter in 1943.
Mr. BAUCUS. You did, and you told many stories about how proud you
are of that.
Mr. WARNER. I was a 15-year-old boy. But what are you going to tell
the people in Billings, Missoula, Livingston? There is lots of Federal
land out there.
What percentage of your State is Federal land?
Mr. BAUCUS. I tell you, we are very proud of it.
Mr. WARNER. It is a high percentage.
Mr. BAUCUS. I will tell them this is a good precedent for Montana.
Mr. WARNER. You better go back and undo some of the things we have
done in the last 14 years and readjust the cost sharing.
I say to my friend, I don't understand it. The State of Florida has
to pay 50 percent rather than 35 percent. I will tell you why. It is
because you have so many collateral projects, wastewater and other
things. But if that was the problem, why didn't you stick in the
committee to the 35 percent and leave the cost sharing as it was and
not change the law?
Mr. BAUCUS. I think the answer to that, if I might answer my friend,
is, again, a sort of rough justice. The State of Florida wants to be a
partner in this thing.
Mr. WARNER. We shifted from marriage to partner, Mr. President.
Mr. BAUCUS. It is not lopsided. There is a slight tilt in favor of
the State of Florida, and I mean it is slight. It is not really out of
bounds. But the Everglades is really special. It is a national
treasure. I think we should help restore the Everglades.
Mr. WARNER. I thank my friend. I wouldn't want to go back to Virginia
and say to my community they are more special than they are.
But one of the interesting things, if I may add for a minute, where
are the environmental organizations, the watchdogs who are the first to
come up? They are standing by in absolute silence as to the change of
this law which they helped us put in place in 1986, and again in 1996.
It is just silence across the land because of the romance and the
mystique of this magnificent Everglades.
I say to those organizations: My little lakes, my little streams in
Virginia are just as important. And the people of Virginia are paying
to clean up the water going into those streams and lakes, rivers and
dams, not the Federal Government.
[[Page S8926]]
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. WARNER. I yield time to my friend from Ohio.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Will the Senator from Montana yield for a question?
Mr. BAUCUS. Yes, on the Senator's time.
Mr. VOINOVICH. The cost sharing on municipal waters is 100 percent
local. Does the Senator agree?
Mr. BAUCUS. That's correct, ordinarily.
Mr. VOINOVICH. I have many areas of my State that need to upgrade
their water supply. They would love to have the Federal Government pick
up the tab for part of it.
Mr. BAUCUS. That is correct, as do all States.
Mr. VOINOVICH. As mayor of Cleveland, we had to increase water rates
300 percent in order to do the job we needed to do and we didn't get
any money from the Federal Government. I think it is really important
to recognize that 20 percent of this total cost is municipal water
supply. We are paying for the cost of the municipal water supply. They
are avoiding some $1.6 billion of cost for this municipal water. That
is an enormous contribution.
If you subtract out that $1.6 billion from Florida's share on it, it
works out to be about 35-65, so that the argument, 50-50, and therefore
we ought to do 50 percent of the operation and maintenance I do not
think is as relevant as it might be if it was really 50-50.
Mr. BAUCUS. Might I respond to the Senator?
Mr. VOINOVICH. Yes.
Mr. BAUCUS. I heard what you are saying, but I think you heard the
Senator from Florida, both Senators, very extensively explain how it is
the Corps project, the original Everglades project, which I think cost
about $3 billion in today's dollars to build, that caused a lot of the
pollution problems.
Here we are coming up with a restoration of the Everglades which
includes restoration of waters, municipal waters included, which
otherwise would be degraded because of the original Corps project or
because of the costs and pollution problems associated with that
project.
Mr. VOINOVICH. The point is, I am not referring to wastewater. I am
talking about public water supply which is very important to developing
any State. You have people coming in, and you need a public water
supply. In order to provide it, you have to go to the local people, the
ratepayers, and say: Come up with the money. And the Federal Government
does not participate.
In this project, we are saying to the State of Florida: If you have
future municipal water needs, 20 percent of this project is for that.
It is an equivalent of $1.6 billion, and you are going to be saving
that cost in the future.
Mr. BAUCUS. I understand that, but, again, the same principle applies
to municipal water as I explained applies to wastewater.
Mr. VOINOVICH. We do not agree on that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). The Senator from New
Hampshire.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, how much time remains on
our side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fifteen minutes.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, during the course of the
debate on this amendment, I heard several statements made--I am sorry
my colleague from Virginia is not on the floor at the moment--about
precedent-breaking and about what the law says. We have heard all these
representations about the law.
I have the law in my hand, and I am going to read from it word for
word. This is the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, which has
been cited a number of times, that somehow we are breaking precedent,
violating law, or not maintaining the law with what we are doing in the
Everglades.
Section 906(e). There are three criteria mentioned here in terms of
construction, and then I will go to O&M:
(e) In those cases when the Secretary, as part of any
report to Congress, recommends activities to enhance fish and
wildlife resources, the first costs of such enhancement--
In this case construction--
shall be a Federal cost when--
(1) such enhancement provides benefits that are determined
to be national. . . .
Everybody in this Chamber today has called the Everglades a national
treasure, including those proponents of this amendment.
(2) such enhancement is designed to benefit species that
have been listed as threatened or endangered by the Secretary
of Interior. . . .
We have 68 endangered or threatened species in the Everglades.
(3) such activities are located on lands managed as a
national wildlife refuge.
We have 16 national wildlife refuges in the Everglades ecosystem.
Here is the line which is absolutely the opposite of what has been
said on the Senate floor all afternoon on this amendment. Listen
carefully. This is the O&M portion:
When benefits of enhancement do not qualify under the
preceding sentence, 25 percent of such first costs of
enhancement shall be provided by non-Federal interests under
a schedule of reimbursement. . . . The non-Federal share of
operation, maintenance . . . of activities to enhance fish
and wildlife resources shall be 25 percent.
If the non-Federal portion is 25 percent, the Federal portion should
be 75 percent. All we are asking for in this legislation is a 50
percent Federal portion. We are not violating any law. We are
absolutely following, to Florida's detriment, if one wants to take that
position since they could do 75-25; we are doing 50-50.
It is very important my colleagues understand. No precedent is being
broken. No law is being ignored or violated. We are working within the
law under this provision, up to 75 percent Federal share when those
three criteria of construction I just mentioned are met. We have met
all three of those. We do not even have to meet them all. It is ``or.''
We met all three. As a result of that, we can go up to 75 percent. We
have gone to 50 percent in the Federal share. There is a compelling
reason to do this. It is fair, and it is within the law.
I will conclude with a few more points. If one looks at the so-called
normal WRDA legislation, 65 percent Federal--35 percent State on
construction--we are doing 50-50 with the Everglades--that is a 15-
percent reduction in the Federal cost. If we take that 15-percent
reduction--Senator Mack referred to this already--that is about $1.2
billion the Federal Government is saving on the construction portion.
The question is, If we take that $1.2 billion and offset it, how much
O&M can we get out of that? Senator Mack thought it was around 20
years. So there are 20 years of O&M just from the savings on that
particular part of the construction.
All my colleagues need to understand, this is a deal-breaking
amendment. This amendment would basically take down the entire
Everglades proposal, in my view, and WRDA, because to go from the 50-50
position, which has been delicately negotiated and has stayed within
the law and stayed within the precedent, contrary to what has been
said, would be a deal breaker. That would be a tragedy, in my view,
with the greatest respect for the proponents because they feel strongly
about this. I do not want to be breaking precedent or violating law and
will not.
I want, first, my colleagues to know after this project is
constructed, it is the responsibility of the non-Federal interests to
operate and maintain it. In the Everglades provision, 50-50 O&M--I do
not think that is out of the ordinary; it is within the law, as I said.
The Federal Government owns and manages about 50 percent of the lands
that will benefit from this restoration project. Fifty percent is
federally owned. For realizing 50 percent of the benefits, it is not
unreasonable we should put up 50 percent of the costs. We could do 75
under the law; we are doing 50. There are four national parks, as I
indicated before, 16 national wildlife refuges, 1 national marine
sanctuary, and 21 federally managed properties, or 5 million acres of
federally owned and managed lands all in the south Florida ecosystem.
I do not mean to imply that other projects are not important, but
this project has plenty of Federal interest.
The level of the investment being put forth by the State is
unprecedented, and they put it up early, to their credit. They put
money aside right from
[[Page S8927]]
the beginning. We asked Governor Bush and the legislature to do that.
They did it and did it quickly and willingly.
The Federal Government was responsible for damaging the Everglades,
as has been pointed out. We did it. The Federal Government did it in
1948. That is another aspect of this that needs to be considered. We
must look at what we did. We did the damage, not knowingly or not
knowing how badly it was going to affect the Everglades, but we did it,
and therefore we have an obligation to correct it. That should impact
that figure of 50-50.
Do we want to ensure our investment in the restoration effort is
preserved for future generations? The answer is unequivocally yes.
Do we believe the restoration project is an equal partnership between
the Federal Government and the State of Florida? The answer is yes,
absolutely. Florida does, too.
Do we want to impose on Florida the burden for maintaining fresh
flows of water in the quality and quantity needed by our Federal trust
resources? I do not think so. Our properties are our responsibility,
and we should maintain them. That is not unreasonable.
The Everglades provision in the managers' amendment is supported by
the administration, supported by the State of Florida, supported by two
Native American tribes impacted by the restoration, and supported by
industry groups and environmentalists, and they do not want to risk
fracturing that delicate coalition of support.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Governor
Bush of Florida in opposition to this amendment and a letter from
several environmental groups in opposition, and also a letter from
Dawson Associates, which represents a number of industries, be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Governor of the State of Florida,
Tallahassee, FL, September 19, 2000.
Hon. Bob Smith,
Chairman, Environment and Public Works Committee, Washington,
DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Florida awaits with much anticipation
Congress' authorization of the plan to restore America's
Everglades. Our optimism is derived in large measure from the
demonstrated leadership in the Senate, particularly your
efforts and those of Senator Mack and Senator Trent Lott and
his leadership team. We are also hopeful that, with time
running out, the White House will hold together the
bipartisan nature of this effort by encouraging minority
members to keep focused on the historic nature of the
opportunity before them.
Clearly, with just a few legislative days remaining, a key
to success will be limiting efforts to revisit some of the
fundamental agreements that have now carried us so far. Among
these agreements is the unprecedented equal cost sharing
arrangement between the federal government and our state.
This true and equal partnership creates all of the right
incentive for making wise, cost-effective decisions as the
project proceeds through construction, operation and
maintenance. An equal and shared interest between the state
and federal governments ensures that cost control remains a
shared goal, and that design and construction decisions are
made based on what will provide the greatest long-term
efficiencies. No party will benefit from attempting to shift
costs forward or backward for short-term advantage.
Everybody, most importantly the taxpayers, wins if there is
mutual benefit in controlling overall costs for the life of
the project.
The current 50-50 cost sharing formula for construction,
operation and maintenance of the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan is far superior to the conventional funding
formulas used for more typical Water Resource Development Act
projects. Florida, by paying half of the project construction
costs, will save the federal treasury nearly $2 billion. This
up front savings to the federal government is equivalent to
more than 20 years of the projected operation and maintenance
costs.
Beyond the sound fiscal arguments for an equal partnership,
there are also important practical and management benefits.
All of the diverse interest that have rallied around the bill
that is now before the Congress recognize the delicate
political balance that has been a struck regarding the
management and allocation of water resources in the South
Florida ecosystem after the construction project is complete.
Clearly the maintenance of this balance is best protected if
there are equal commitments from the state and the federal
government for the ongoing operation and maintenance of the
project.
I respectfully urge you to remain alert to the importance
of this full and equal partnership between the state and
federal governments. Not only is this partnership formula
fiscally and politically prudent, it is also critical to
maintenance to maintaining the diverse and broad-based
support that the bill before you has earned. Please let me
know if you believe that this agreement is ever in jeopardy
in the critical days ahead as this Congress prepares to make
environmental history.
Sincerely,
Jeb Bush.
____
1000 Friends of Florida, Audubon of Florida, Center for
Marine Conservation, The Everglades Foundation, The
Everglades Trust, National Audubon Society, National
Parks Conservation Association, Natural Resource
Defense Council, Sierra Club, World Wildlife Fund,
September 19, 2000.
Hon. Bob Smith,
Chairman, Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Max Baucus,
Ranking Member, Senate Environmental and Public Works
Committee, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Smith and Senator Baucus: We are writing to
express our opposition to the Voinovich amendment to H.R.
2796, the Water Resources Development Act of 2000, that would
eliminate the state-federal operations and maintenance (O&M)
cost share for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan
(CERP).
S. 2796 presently provides a 50-50 cost share between the
State and Federal government. The Voinovich amendment would
make the State of Florida pay the entire cost. The Voinovich
amendment ignores the fact that this is no ordinary water
project because the taxpayer is a primary beneficiary of the
project.
Within the project area there is a unique and compelling
federal interest that justifies a 50-50 state/federal cost
share for operations and maintenance. The project area
includes four National Parks, 16 National Wildlife Refuges,
and one National Marine Sanctuary that comprise five million
acres of federally owned and managed lands--50% of the
remaining Everglades.
In addition, approval of the Voinovich amendment would
likely yield two results; both of which would severely
jeopardize the likelihood of enacting Everglades Restoration
legislation this year: First, the State could withdraw its
support for the bill leaving this a project without a non-
federal sponsor. Or, the State could seek new modifications
to reflect the diminished federal commitment to restoration
of America's Everglades, a move that would send the
Everglades back to the drawing board with no time left on the
clock.
Therefore, we respectfully request that you vote against
the Voinovich Everglades cost share amendment to S. 2796.
Thank you for your consideration of our views.
Sincerely,
Nathaniel Reed, Chairman, 1000 Friends of Florida.
David Guggenheim, Vice President for Conservation Policy,
Center for Marine Conservation.
Tom Rumberger, Chairman, The Everglades Trust.
Mary Munson, Director, South Florida Programs, National
Parks Conservation Association.
Frank Jackalone, Senior Field Representative, Sierra Club.
Stuart Strahl, Ph.D., Executive Director, Audubon of
Florida.
Mary Barley, Chair, The Everglades Foundation.
Tom Adams, Director of Government Affairs, National Audubon
Society.
Bradford H. Sewell, Senior Project Attorney, Natural
Resources Defense Council.
Shannon Estenoz, Director, South Florida/Everglades
Program, World Wildlife Fund.
____
Dawson Associates, Inc.,
Washington, DC, September 19, 2000.
Senator Bob Smith,
Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Smith: The coalition of Florida agriculture,
water utilities, and homebuilders is convinced that without
Federal participation in the costs of operation, maintenance,
repair, replacement, and rehabilitation activities associated
with the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP),
Everglades restoration will never be implemented. Governor
Bush's Commission for the Everglades has taken the position
that if the Federal government is to be a full and equal
partner in restoration, it should share in all of the
associated costs. Furthermore, it is certain that the Florida
Legislature will not supply the level of funding needed to
construct this plan if they are going to have to pay the full
cost of operation over the life of the project.
The CERP is primarily a plan to restore and protect Federal
properties, and the development of the plan has been
dominated by the federal agencies, especially the Department
of Interior. The restoration of a unique ecological system of
world significance dramatically and fundamentally
distinguished the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan from
those of other Army Civil Works projects.
Furthermore, the Army Corps of Engineers indicated to
stakeholders throughout the planning process that it would
seek cost sharing for all modification over their life cycle.
This commitment eliminated the biases in project decision-
making that result when all costs are not treated in the same
way. Affirming this commitment in the authorization will
ensure that project design
[[Page S8928]]
decisions will continue to be based on cost-effectiveness
alone.
Sincerely,
Robert K. Dawson,
President.
coalition members
Florida Citrus Mutual (Mr. Ken Keck, Director for
Government Affairs).
Florida Farm Bureau (Mr. Carl B. Loop, Jr., President).
Florida Home Builders Association (Mr. Keith Hetrick,
General Counsel).
The American Water Works Association, Florida Section
Utility Council (Mr. Fred Rapach, Chairman).
Florida Chamber (Mr. Chuck Littlejohn, Government Affairs).
Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association (Mr. Mike Stuart,
President).
Southeast Florida Utility Council (Mr. Vernon Hargrave,
Chairman).
Gulf Citrus Growers Association (Mr. Ron Hamel, Executive
VP).
Florida Sugar Cane League (Mr. Phil Parsons, Environmental
Counsel).
The Florida Water Environmental Association Utility Council
(Mr. Fred Rapach, Chairman).
Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida (Mr. George
Wedgworth, President).
Florida Fertilizer and Agri-chemical Association (Ms. Mary
Hartney, President).
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, in conclusion, we have an
opportunity to rectify a terrible mistake we made. We did it with good
intentions. But we made a mistake. This is what we need to do. It is
our responsibility now to do that. The Everglades provision in the
managers' amendment is supported by these groups.
I urge my colleagues to preserve that Federal-State partnership in
the Everglades restoration, to preserve this 50-50 O&M, and to reject
this amendment because, again, I believe to pass this amendment would
break the deal that we have already worked out so delicately among so
many groups, No. 1, and, No. 2, it would be unfair. It would not be
consistent with the law, WRDA 86, and it would not, in my view, be
consistent with the precedent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. WARNER. I yield such time as the Senator from Ohio may require.
But before doing so, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Warner
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I would like to comment on the remarks
of the chairman of my committee for whom I have a great deal of
respect. I would beg to differ in terms of the interpretation of what
this water restoration project comes under.
This is not a fish and wildlife enhancement under 906(e). This is an
environmental restoration under section 103 of WRDA 1986, as amended,
which basically calls for: 100 percent of the operation, maintenance,
replacement and rehabilitation costs for projects are to be paid by the
local participant in the project.
Last, but not least--and, again, with all due respect to my
chairman--as a former Governor of Ohio, I can tell you that if this
amendment is adopted, the Governor of Florida is not going to walk away
from this wonderful legislation that is going to help restore the
Everglades and commit the Federal Government to--based on our hearing
this week--half of some $14 billion.
If anyone is going to vote against this amendment because they think
it is a deal breaker, in my opinion, it is not a deal breaker. This
bill will pass. If this amendment is adopted, the bill is still going
to pass, and we will move on with this project.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to accommodate the distinguished
chairman of our committee to facilitate the vote, which would also
accommodate a number of our colleagues.
We have had a very good debate. The issue before the Senate is very
succinct and simple. We have had a body of law for 14 years. That law,
with reference to this specific project, was reviewed in 1996. And
explicitly, the Congress, after reviewing it, stated the following:
``The operation and maintenance of projects carried out under this
section''--and that section dealt with the Florida Everglades--``shall
be a non-Federal responsibility.'' So we are now about to vitiate 14
years of law.
I say to my colleagues, you will have to go back and explain to your
constituents how all the projects in that 14-year period are now
operation and maintenance being funded by the States, and that the
budget for the projects prior to 1986 is underfunded by $440 million in
this one fiscal year.
So I think it is a very bad precedent for this Congress to vitiate 14
years of law, and particularly when it was reviewed specifically with
regard to this project just 4 years ago and explicitly written into law
that the operation and maintenance would be entirely the responsibility
of the State of Florida.
I yield the floor and yield back my time.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, how much time do I have
remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six minutes.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I am prepared to yield that back, but
Senator Levin has asked for time to make a comment.
I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator from New Hampshire.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. I understand that there is a managers' package of
amendments which have been cleared, and that one of those amendments
was that of my colleague from Michigan, Senator Abraham.
I had some concerns about that, which I have not had a chance yet to
share with Senator Abraham. I think I will be able to work this out
with him, but I have not yet had the opportunity.
I understand now that amendment would be withheld from the managers'
package until we can get back with the managers about that subject.
So if there is a managers' package that is offered tonight, it would
not include that amendment?
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. The Senator is correct. We are going to
try to offer a managers' package tonight. It will not include that
amendment, to give the two Senators from Michigan the opportunity to
work that out.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator for that. I will be in touch with
Senator Abraham in the hopes and belief, too, we will be able to work
something out on it.
I thank my friend.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I now yield back all time
on my side on the pending amendment.
Before the vote begins, I announce, on behalf of the majority leader,
that following this vote on this amendment, there will be no further
votes this evening.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the final passage vote
for WRDA occur at 4:50 p.m. on Monday, and that paragraph 4 of rule XII
be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question is on agreeing to Warner amendment No. 4165. The yeas
and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo) is
necessarily absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the
Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from California (Mrs.
Feinstein), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are
necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 24, nays 71, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 254 Leg.]
YEAS--24
Allard
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Cochran
Gramm
Grassley
Hagel
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Voinovich
Warner
NAYS--71
Abraham
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Byrd
Chafee, L.
Cleland
Collins
Conrad
Craig
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Enzi
Feingold
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Grams
Gregg
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
Lott
[[Page S8929]]
Lugar
Mack
McCain
Mikulski
Miller
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--5
Akaka
Boxer
Crapo
Feinstein
Lieberman
The amendment (No. 4165) was rejected.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. GRAHAM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Amendments Nos. 4166, 4167, 4168, 4169, 4170, 4171, 4172, and 4173, en
bloc
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent
that the amendments to S. 2796 currently at the desk, be accepted en
bloc. These amendments have been agreed to by the minority.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendments en bloc.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Smith] proposes
amendments Nos. 4166 through 4173, en bloc.
The amendments are as follows:
Amendment No. 4166
(Purpose: To direct the Corps of Engineers to give expedited
consideration to the completion of a study on renourishment of certain
beaches in North Carolina)
At the appropriate place in title III, insert the
following:
SEC. __. BOGUE BANKS, CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.
(a) Definition of Beaches.--In this section, the term
``beaches'' means the following beaches located in Carteret
County, North Carolina:
(1) Atlantic Beach.
(2) Pine Knoll Shores Beach.
(3) Salter Path Beach.
(4) Indian Beach.
(5) Emerald Isle Beach.
(b) Renourishment Study.--The Secretary shall expedite
completion of a study under section 145 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1976 (33 U.S.C. 426j) on the
expedited renourishment, through sharing of the costs of
deposition of sand and other material used for beach
renourishment, of the beaches of Bogue Banks in Carteret
County, North Carolina.
____
amendment no. 4167
(Purpose: To provide the Corps of Engineers the authority to accept and
expend funds provided by public entities to process permits required by
federal environmental statutes)
Sec. . (a) The Secretary, after public notice, may accept
and expend funds contributed by non-Federal public entities
to expedite the evaluation of permits under the jurisdiction
of the Department of the Army.
(b) In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall
ensure that the use of such funds as authorized in subsection
(a) will result in improved efficiencies in permit evaluation
and will not impact impartial decision making in the
permitting process.
____
amendment no. 4168
The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the
project deficiencies and identify the necessary measures to
restore the project for Cliff Walk in Newport, Rhode Island
to meet its authorized purpose.
____
amendment no. 4169
The Secretary shall conduct a reconnaissance study to
determine the Federal interest in dredging the Quonset Point
navigation channel in Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island.
____
Amendment No. 4170
(Purpose: To provide assistance for efforts to protect and improve the
Missouri River in the State of North Dakota)
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
amendment no. 4171
(Purpose: To direct the Secretary of the Army to establish a program to
market dredged material)
At the appropriate place, insert the following section:
SEC. . SHORT TITLE.
This section may be cited as the ``Dredged Material Reuse
Act''.
SEC. . FINDING.
Congress finds that the Secretary of the Army should
establish a program to reuse dredged material--
(1) to ensure the long-term viability of disposal capacity
for dredged material; and
(2) to encourage the reuse of dredged material for
environment and economic purposes.
SEC. . DEFINITION.
In this Act, the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of
the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers.
SEC. . PROGRAM FOR REUSE OF DREDGED MATERIAL.
(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish a
program to allow the direct marketing of dredged material to
public agencies and private entities.
(b) Limitations.--The Secretary shall not establish the
program under subsection (a) unless a determination is made
that such program is in the interest of the United States and
is economically justified, equitable, and environmentally
acceptable.
(c) Regional Responsibility.--The program described in
subsection (a) may authorize each of the 8 division offices
of the Corps of Engineers to market to public agencies and
private entities any dredged material from projects under the
jurisdiction of the regional office. Any revenues generated
from any sale of dredged material to such entities shall be
deposited in the U.S. Treasury.
(d) Reports.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter for a period
of 4 years, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report
on the program established under subsection (a).
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this Act $2,000,000 for each
fiscal year.
____
amendment no. 4172
On page 49, line 1, insert a comma between ``assessment''
and ``community''.
____
amendment no. 4173
At the appropriate place insert:
SEC. __. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES STUDIES.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Academy.--The term ``Academy'' means the National
Academy of Sciences.
(2) Method.--The term ``method'' means a method, model,
assumption, or other pertinent planning tool used in
conducting an economic or environmental analysis of a water
resources project, including the formulation of a feasibility
report.
(3) Feasibility report.--The term ``feasibility report''
means each feasibility report, and each associated
environmental impact statement and mitigation plan, prepared
by the Corps of Engineers for a water resources project.
(4) Water resources project.--The term ``water resources
project'' means a project for navigation, a project for flood
control, a project for hurricane and storm damage reduction,
a project for emergency streambank and shore protection, a
project for ecosystem restoration and protection, and a water
resources project of any other type carried out by the Corps
of Engineers.
(b) Independent Peer Review of Projects.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall contract with the
Academy to study, and make recommendations relating to, the
independent peer review of feasibility reports.
(2) Study elements.--In carrying out a contract under
paragraph (1), the Academy shall study the practicality and
efficacy of the independent peer review of the feasibility
reports, including--
(A) the cost, time requirements, and other considerations
relating to the implementation of independent peer review;
and
(B) objective criteria that may be used to determine the
most effective application of independent peer review to
feasibility reports for water resources projects, including
but not limited to projects for navigation, flood control,
hurricane and storm damage reduction, emergency streambank
and shore protection, and ecosystem restoration and
protection.
(3) Academy report.--Not later than 1 year after the date
of a contract under paragraph (1), the Academy shall submit
to the Secretary, the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, and the
Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a
report that includes--
(A) the results of the study conducted under paragraphs (1)
and (2); and
(B) in light of the results of the study, specific
recommendations, if any, on a program for implementing
independent peer review of feasibility reports.
(4) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $1,000,000,
to remain available until expended.
(c) Independent Peer Review of Methods for Project
Analysis.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall contract with the
Academy to conduct a study that includes--
(A) a review of state-of-the-art methods;
(B) a review of the methods currently used by the
Secretary;
(C) a review of a sample of instances in which the
Secretary has applied the methods identified under
subparagraph (B) in the analysis of water resources projects,
including but not limited to projects for navigation, flood
control, hurricane and storm damage reduction, emergency
streambank and shore protection, and ecosystem restoration
and protection; and
(D) a comparative evaluation of the basis and validity of
state-of-the-art methods identified under subparagraph (A)
and the methods identified under subparagraphs (B) and (C).
(2) Academy report.--Not later than 1 year after the date
of a contract under paragraph (1), the Academy shall submit
to the
[[Page S8930]]
Secretary, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on
Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report that
includes--
(A) the results of the study conducted under paragraph (1);
and
(B) in light of the results of the study, specific
recommendations for modifying any of the methods currently
used by the Secretary for conducting economic and
environmental analyses of water resources projects.
(3) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $2,000,000,
to remain available until expended.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak for a few minutes
about my amendment in the managers' package to the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000. My amendment is needed to allow the Army Corps
of Engineers to continue to work on a feasibility study to alleviate
the chronic flooding in the Southwest Valley of Albuquerque, New
Mexico.
First, I want to thank the committee chairman, Senator Smith, the
distinguished ranking member, Senator Baucus, and Chairman Voinovich,
as well as their fine staffs for all their good work on WRDA2000 (S.
2796).
For a number of years the Southwest Valley area of Albuquerque in my
state has been prone to flooding after major rainstorms. The flooding
has caused damage to irrigation and drainage structures, erosion of
roadways, pavement, telephone and electrical transmission conduits,
contaminated water and soil due to overflowing septic tanks, damaged
homes, businesses, and farms, and presented hazards to automobile
traffic. In 1997, Bernalillo County approached the Army Corps of
Engineers to request a reconnaissance study of the chronic flooding
problems.
The study area encompassed 17.8 square miles of mostly residential
neighborhoods along the banks of the Rio Grande in the Southwest Valley
and the 50 square miles on the West Mesa, including the Isleta Pueblo,
that drain into the valley. The reconnaissance study began in March
1998 and is now completed.
The conclusions of the reconnaissance study define the magnitude of
the continuing flooding problem in the Southwest Valley. The study also
established a clear federal interest in the drainage project, found a
positive cost to benefit ratio for the project, and identified work
items necessary to begin designing a range of solutions to alleviate
the chronic flooding problems in the valley.
In 1999, based on the positive findings of the reconnaissance study,
the Environment and Public Works Committee authorized the Army Corps of
Engineers to conduct a full study to determine the feasibility of a
project for flood damage reduction in Albuquerque's Southwest Valley.
The authorization is contained in section 433 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). I want to thank the EPW
committee for authorizing this much needed feasibility study. The study
began in March 1999 and is expected to be completed in February 2002.
Currently, Bernalillo County, the Albuquerque Metropolitan Arroyo
Flood Control Authority and the Corps are working cooperatively on the
feasibility study. Last year, the administration requested, and the
Congress appropriated, $250,000 in Federal funding for the feasibility
study. This year, the request was for $330,000. I want to thank the
Appropriations Committees in the House and Senate for again providing
the full amount requested.
Last July I had an opportunity to meet with the engineers from the
Corps, the County, and AMAFCA to get an update on the study and to tour
the areas in the Southwest Valley that are subject to chronic flooding.
At the end of the tour, the Corps indicated to me that based on the
initial results of the feasibility study, the flooding there was quite
severe but the project did not seem to meet the Corps' required flow
criterion of 1800 cubic feet per second for the 100-year flood. These
flow criteria are outlined in the Engineering Regulations established
for the Corps. Because of the obvious severity of the flooding, the
engineers requested a legislative waiver of the regulations. Without a
waiver, the Corps could not continue as a partner in the project. They
also indicated the Corps' regulations do not contain any provision to
waive the peak discharge criterion.
I'd like to take a few moments to describe briefly the unique
situation in the Southwest Valley that necessitates a waiver of the
Corps' standard regulations. The land along the west side of the Rio
Grande is essentially flat. The river is contained by large earthen
levees, which were built for flood control. When a river is contained
this way by levees, the sediment accumulates in the river bed, slowly
raising the level of the river. Of course, if there were no levees,
when sediment builds up, the river would simply change course to a
lower level. However, over the years, as the sediment has continued to
accumulate in the Rio Grande, the level of the river within the levees
is now higher than the surrounding land. Thus, when there are heavy
rains during the monsoon season, the runoff has nowhere to go--it
simply flows into large pools on the valley floor, flooding homes and
farms. The water can't flow uphill into the river, so it stays there
until it either evaporates or is pumped up and hauled away.
If the flood water sits in large pools and isn't flowing, it clearly
can't meet any criterion based on the flow rate of water. Indeed, given
the unique nature of the flooding in the Southwest Valley, most areas
subject to chronic flood damage do not meet the Corps' peak discharge
criterion.
During my visit in July, the three partners in the feasibility study
specifically asked me for help in obtaining a waiver of the Corps'
technical requirements to deal with this special situation. My
amendment provides the necessary waiver the Corps needs to continue to
work in partnership with the county and AMAFCA on this project.
This is not a new authorization; Congress authorized this study last
year. My amendment is a simple technical fix to the existing
authorization. I do believe the unique situation in Bernalillo County
warrants a waiver of the Corps' standard regulations, and I thank the
committee for accepting my amendment.
Savings Clause Report Language
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, as part of the manager's amendment we
amend section (h)(3)(B) of the bill as reported that explains what the
programmatic regulations should contain. What impact does amending this
section have on the report language that accompanies this section.
Mr. SMITH. I am very glad that you asked that question. First let me
explain what subsection (h)(3) does. Subsection (h)(3) requires the
issuance of programmatic regulations to ensure that the goals and
purposes of the Plan are achieved by guiding the implementation of the
project implementation reports.
Confusion was raised due to the wording that we used in the bill as
reported. In order to clarify section (h)(3)(B)(i), we deleted the
words ``provide guidance.'' Despite the change in the manager's
amendment, the report language for this section is still relevant, and
reflects the committee's interpretation of this section. It is still
the committee's intent that in developing the programmatic regulations,
the Federal and State partners should establish interim goals-expressed
in terms of restoration standards-to provide a means by which the
restoration success of the plan may be evaluated through the
implementation process. The restoration standards should be
quantitative and measurable at specific points in the plan
implementation.
Mr. BAUCUS. thank you for the clarification.
Florida Consumptive Use Permitting Process
Mr. BAUCUS. In the manager's amendment we modified the agreement
section of the bill. Am I correct that the purpose of this section is
to require the State of Florida and the President of the United States
to enter into a binding agreement requiring Florida to manage its
consumptive use permitting process in such a manner that the State will
be able to deliver the water made available by the plan for the natural
system to ensure restoration.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. That is correct. Furthermore, the plan
should include an agreemen that the State will not pre-allocate any
water generated by the plan for consumptive use or otherwise make this
water unavailable by the State. This agreement is extremely is
extremely important, as are the programmatic regulations,
[[Page S8931]]
in ensuring that the needs of the natural system are met.
Mr. BAUCUS. Thank you for the clarification.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendments
en bloc.
The amendments (Nos. 4166 through 4173, en bloc) were agreed to.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move
to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
breakenridge flood reduction project
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished
chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, in a brief
colloquy on an extremely important flood reduction project. As the
Chairman may recall, I have been a strong proponent of the ongoing
Breckenridge flood reduction project in Breckenridge, Minnesota. I am
pleased that the Chairman has agreed that this existing flood control
project should continue to proceed expeditiously. As a result of the
1997 floods, the city of Breckenridge experienced over $30 million in
flood related damages. That flood cost the Federal Government millions
of dollars in expenditures for advanced measures for flood fighting,
flood emergency actions during the flood, and post-flood cleanup and
recovery efforts at Breckenridge.
After the 1997 flood, the city has taken numerous actions to protect
themselves from future catastrophic flooding. Such actions include the
acquisition of many flood prone properties; local design and
construction of new local flood levees at selected areas; initiation of
a partnership between the Corps of Engineers, the city, and the State
of Minnesota for a cost-shared Section 205 Feasibility Study to define
an implementable Federal flood reduction project.
The city of Wahpeton, North Dakota is located immediately across the
Red and Bois de Sioux Rivers from Breckenridge and is therefore
strongly inter-related from a hydraulic and social perspective.
Wahpeton has also entered into a separate cost-shared Section 205 flood
reduction study for protecting their city. The flood protection plans
now formulated for Wahpeton and Breckenridge are interdependent with
each project relying on flood control features to be implemented by
their sister city. If Wahpeton moves forward before Breckenridge, then
Breckenridge could experience even more flooding. The two projects
should proceed together. Therefore, in order for either project to move
forward through completion these separate Federal flood reduction
projects must both be constructed expeditiously. The timing associated
with construction of each project will affect the implementation
options and costs for each project.
I would like to continue to work with the Chairman as this bill goes
to conference in providing further assurances that this existing flood
control project be constructed as quickly as possible so that the city
of Breckenridge can be protected from future flooding.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I want to echo the words of my
colleague from Minnesota and thank my colleagues, the Chairman and
ranking members of the Environment and Public Works Committee for their
attention to the needs of the residents of Breckenridge, Minnesota and
this much needed flood control project. We have come a long way since
the floods of 1997, when I visited the community to witness first hand
the devastation. Since then the city of Breckenridge has been working
closely with the Army Corps of Engineers and the Minnesota Department
of Natural Resources to design a comprehensive flood control plan to
protect the community from future losses. I am pleased that the Senate
WRDA bill will include authorization for this much needed flood control
project.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I am pleased to be able to
accommodate the Senators' request and provide $21 million in authorized
language for this existing and ongoing flood reduction project. I know
how important this project is to the citizens of Breckenridge,
Minnesota, and hope the construction can begin expeditiously.
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his assistance.
Adaptive Assessment and monitoring
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to speak today about the Adaptive
Assessment and Monitoring section of this legislation with my
colleagues from Florida and New Hampshire. This is one of the most
critical aspects of this legislation which builds in a feedback loop
for the Army Corps and the South Florida Water Management District and
ultimately, the Congress, to incorporate new information into Plan
authorization, design and execution. I would encourage the Corps, under
the authority and appropriations provided for the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan [CERP], to coordinate with appropriately
qualified outside institutions, both nationally and internationally, to
conduct independent scientific assessments and monitoring as part of
the Adaptive Assessment and Monitoring Program. I also believe that one
of the most important elements of Everglades restoration will be
technology transfer to other ecosystems. I recommend that the Corps
continue its partnerships with appropriately qualified outside
institutions, both nationally and internationally, to distribute
lessons-learned from this experience.
Mr. MACK. I echo the sentiments of the Senator from Florida about the
Adaptive Assessment and Monitoring Program. As this is a long-term plan
spanning almost 25 years in execution, it stands to reason that
research will yield new information and technology changes will yield
new solutions. The Adaptive Assessment and Monitoring Program is
critical to ensuring that this new information is incorporated into our
planning process for this project. The type of collaboration described
by my colleague from Florida will ensure that resources are wisely
spent by utilizing and expanding monitoring programs already in
operation.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I thank my colleagues from Florida for
bringing these issues to my attention, and I agree with my colleagues
that the Corps of Engineers should take advantage of the expertise of
appropriately qualified outside institutions, both nationally and
internationally, in the Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment Program
authorized under this legislation.
Indian Trust Doctrine Provision
Mr. BAUCUS. Section (h)(2)(C) of Title VI of S. 2796 states, ``in
carrying out his responsibilities under this subsection with respect to
the restoration of the South Florida ecosystem, the Secretary of the
Interior shall fulfill his obligations to the Indian trust tribes in
South Florida under the Indian Trust Doctrine as well as other
applicable legal obligations.'' Is the intent of this provision to
ensure that the Secretary of the Interior give full and equal
consideration to all his legal responsibilities?
Mr. SMITH. The Senator is correct. The intent of this provision is to
ensure that the Secretary of the Interior, in carrying out his
responsibilities as authorized by this Act, shall fully and equally
consider all of his legal responsibilities including, but not limited
to the Indian Trust Doctrine, Everglades National Park, Biscayne
National Park, Big Cypress National Preserve, the National Park System,
the National Wildlife Refuge System, Migratory Bird Treaty, and the
Endangered Species Act.
Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Chairman.
Clarification of intent of the Savings Clause
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to ask the Chairman of the
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee to clarify the intent of
the Savings Clause provision included in subsection (h)(5) section of
601 of S. 27976, as modified by the manager's amendment.
Mr. SMITH. I would be happy to clarify.
Mr. BAUCUS. It is my understanding that the Savings Clause was
intended to provide that until a new source of water supply of
comparable quantity and quality is available to replace any water
supply to be lost as a result of implementation of the Plan, the
Secretary of the Army and the non-federal sponsor shall not eliminate
or transfer existing legal sources of water.
Mr. SMITH. That is my understanding as well.
Mr. BAUCUS. Am I correct in saying with respect to flood control, the
Savings Clause was intended to ensure that implementation of the Plan
will
[[Page S8932]]
not result in significant adverse impact to any person with an
existing, legally recognized right to a level of protection against
flooding, including flood protection for the natural system?
Mr. SMITH. The Senator is correct.
Mr. BAUCUS. Furthermore, I understand that the Savings Clause
provision was not intended to allow the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to
redirect to the natural system water from the human environment of
unsuitable quality or quantity in an effort to provide the flood
protection guaranteed in the section?
Mr. SMITH. Yes, that is my understanding of the intent of the Savings
Clause as well.
Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Senator for his assistance in clarifying the
intent of this provision.
waterbury dam
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to thank my distinguished
colleagues, Senators Baucus and Smith, for their hard work on the Water
Resources Development Act of 2000. I am especially grateful for their
inclusion of a provision in this bill that will ultimately expand the
successful federal, state, and local partnerships restoring the highest
water quality in the Lake Champlain watershed.
One project that we could not come to full agreement on before this
bill's passage, however, was authorization for the repair of the
Waterbury Dam. Our lack of final language was in a large part due to
the absence of a final Dam Safety Assurance Program Evaluation Report
from the Army Corps of Engineers, a final draft of which was sent to
ACE Headquarters for review on August 24, 2000.
The Waterbury Dam was built by the Army Corps of Engineers in 1935
and holds 1.23 billion cubic feet of water in its reservoir. Were the
dam to fail, this volume of water would ultimately submerge and destroy
the entire corridor of cities and towns downstream in the Winooski
River valley. Thousands of lives would be lost. Hundreds of thousands
of acres would be completely devastated.
Unfortunately, increasingly serious cracks and seepage in Waterbury
Dam's structure were recently discovered and have heightened concerns
that the dam could, in fact, fail. The State of Vermont and the Army
Corps went into action and drew down the water level to alleviate
pressure on the dam. The Corps carried out an assessment this summer to
further characterize immediate repair needs. There is strong evidence
that these cracks are, in fact, the result of initial design flaws and
the Corps work today follows two previous instances--one in 1956-8 and
one in 1985--when the Army Corps of Engineers had full authority to
make needed dam modifications.
I understand that the Army Corps of Engineers is expediting the
review of the Dam Safety Assurance Report for the Waterbury Dam. I am
grateful to Senators Smith and Baucus for their understanding that the
final report may contain important information relevant for
authorization of the project.
I look forward to working with my distinguished colleagues, Senators
Smith and Baucus, once the report is finalized and is able to guide our
plans for Waterbury Dam repair.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I realize that Waterbury Dam repair is a
pressing need for the state of Vermont and will carefully analyze the
final report when it is released from the Army Corps of Engineers.
Mr. BAUCUS. I join Chairman Smith in recognizing the need for repairs
to Waterbury Dam in Vermont.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, there is an issue that needs to be
addressed in WRDA that is not addressed by this bill. On June 12, 2000,
the Administration sent us a report on the management of the Corps of
Engineers' hopper dredge fleet. It says that efforts initiated by
Congress in WRDA 96 have been successful. That legislation moved more
of the routine maintenance dredging to the private sector and increased
the Corps emergency response capability. In their report, the Corps
recommended a plan that would move a little more work to the private
sector while rehabilitating the oldest federal hopper dredge for
emergency response purposes. While it may be questionable whether or
not the benefit of this federal investment is worth the cost, I am
willing to implement the Corps recommendations in order to get the
management and emergency response improvements that are described in
the report to Congress. After receiving the report, I requested
legislative language from the Corps that they provided to me. I have
been attempting to work with interested members to get this language,
or possibly other compromise language, adopted in this legislation. I
do not understand why the Corps recommendation is not considered a
victory by the supporters of this federal dredge. The Corps strongly
believes that their recommendation is a win-win for the nation's ports
and the ports along the Delaware River as well as the nation's
taxpayers. While I am not offering an amendment here today, I want my
colleagues to know that this is an issue that I am going to pursue. I
hope that we will be able to work something out in the conference
committee. Thank you very much. I look forward to working with my
colleagues on this important national issue.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, there is a clear need for Independent
Review of Army Corps of Engineers' projects. During debate on this bill
I was prepared to offer an amendment on Independent Review. It was
drawn from similar provisions in a larger piece of Corps Reform
legislation sponsored by my Wisconsin colleague in the other body (Mr.
Kind). My interest in an Independent Review amendment was shared by the
Minority Leader (Mr. Daschle) and the Senator from California (Mrs.
Boxer) and a number of taxpayer and environmental organizations.
including: the League of Conservation Voters, American Rivers, Coast
Alliance, Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund, Izaak Walton League of
America, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club and Taxpayers
for Common Sense.
I believe that the Senate should act right now to require Independent
Review in this Water Resources Development Act, but the Senate is
apparently not ready to take that step. Nevertheless, in response to my
initiative, the bill's managers (Senator Smith and Senator Baucus) have
adopted an amendment as part of their Manager's Package which should
help get the Authorizing Committee, the Environment and Public Works
Committee, the additional information it needs to develop and refine
legislation on this issue through a one year study by the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) on peer review. As part of the discussions
with the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Smith) and the Senator from
Montana (Mr. Baucus) over the amendment I intended to offer, they have
agreed that as the NAS conducts its review, they will hold hearings on
the issue of Corps reform and on a bill which I will introduce next
Congress that will include Independent Review. I want to make certain
that an NAS study does not become an excuse not to do anything on Corps
reform for a year. Therefore, I have not opposed that study, and its
completion will eliminate one argument against enacting serious Corps
reform. The managers understand my concern in this regard, and are
interested in moving forward on reforms, and have agreed to my request
for hearings. It is my hope that through hearings the NAS study and my
bill can dovetail nicely so that we have a fully vetted bill which can
then be fined tuned by the NAS recommendations. The agreement we have
made provides the best chance to pass a serious reform bill in the next
year, rather than reach deadlock.
I appreciate the efforts that the Managers of this bill have taken to
bring this bill to the floor in the closing days of this Senate. I know
that many of these Corps projects are extremely important to many of
our constituents. However, Mr. President, in light of the attention and
concern that the replacement of the Upper Mississippi locks has had in
my own home state, I felt it that it was important that the issue of
establishing additional oversight and review of Corps projects be
raised in the context of this year's Water Resources bill, and that we
begin down the road to passage of Corps reform legislation. Today we
are closer to that goal than we were yesterday.
As last week's five part series on the Corps of Engineers which ran
in the Washington Post last week highlighted, the ongoing construction
and maintenance of Corps dams, navigation
[[Page S8933]]
channels, and flood control structures, and other water development
projects dramatically alter the nation's landscapes. Michael Grunwald's
Sunday, September 10, 2000 story made this point very clear that the
debate over whether the Corps:
. . . should grow or shrink, and how much it should shift its
focus from construction projects to restoration project. .
.may not be the sexiest of Beltway brawls, but it will have a
dramatic effect on America. Corps levees and floodwalls
protect millions of homes, farms and businesses. Its coastal
ports and barge channels carry 2 billion tons of freight
annually. Its dams generate one-fourth of America's
hydroelectric power. Its water recreation sites attract more
visitors than the National Park Service's. Its land holdings
would cover Vermont and New Hampshire. But the Corps may have
its greatest impact on nature . . . So the future direction
of the Corps will help determine the future health of
America's environment.
Furthermore, this major government program costs federal taxpayers
billions of dollars each year, and unfortunately, there have been times
when economically unjustified activities have made it through to
construction. While there are heartening signs of reform in the Corps
Civil Works program, Congress should be working to create an
independent process to help affirm when the Corps gets it right and
help to provide a means for identifying problems before taxpayer funded
construction investments are made. Today we begin that work in earnest.
Mr. President, I feel that requiring independent review of large and
controversial Corps projects is a practical first step down the road to
a reformed Corps of Engineers. Independent review would catch mistakes
by Corps planners, deter any potential bad behavior by Corps officials
to justify questionable projects, and would provide planners
desperately needed support against the never ending pressure of project
boosters. Those boosters, Mr. President, include Congressional
interests, which is why I believe that this body needs to champion
reform--to end the perception that Corps projects are all pork and no
substance. As Mike Grunwald's article on Monday, September 11, 2000
states:
Water projects are a traditional coin of the realm on
Capitol Hill, offering members of Congress jobs, contracts
and other benefits for their constituents and campaign
contributors --as well as ribbon cutting opportunities for
themselves. In fact, the Corps budget consists almost
entirely of projects requested by individual lawmakers, then
approved by the Corps; the agency has almost no discretionary
funds of its own.
I wish it were the case, Mr. President, that I could argue that
additional oversight were not needed, but unfortunately, I see that
there is need for additional scrutiny. In the Upper Mississippi there
is troubling evidence of abuse. There is troubling evidence from
whistleblowers that senior Corps officials, under pressure from barge
interests, ordered their subordinates to exaggerate demand for barges
in order to justify new Mississippi River locks. This is a matter which
is still under investigation, and I hope that no evidence of wrongdoing
will ultimately be found. Adequate assessment of the environmental
impacts of barges is also very important. I am also concerned that the
Corps' assessment of the environmental impacts of additional barges
does not adequately assess the impacts of barge movements on fish,
backwaters and aquatic plants. We should not gamble with the
environmental health of the river. If we allow more barges on the
Mississippi, we must be sure the environmental impacts of those barges
are fully mitigated.
I am raising this issue principally because I believe that Congress
should act to restore trust in the Corps if we are going to complete an
unbiased assessment of navigation needs. The first step in restoring
that trust is restoring the credibility of the Corps' decision-making
process. We must remove the cloud hanging over the Corps. There is a
basic conflict of interest here, and Mike Grunwald's story on
Wednesday, September 11, 2000, again in the Washington Post, makes this
clear:
The same agency that evaluates the proposed water projects
gets to work on the ones it deems worthwhile. If the analysis
concludes that the economic costs of a project outweigh its
benefits, or that the ecological damage of a project is too
extreme, then the Corps loses a potential job.
Unfortunately, Mr. President, Congress now finds itself having to
reset the scales to make economic benefits and environmental
restoration co-equal goals of project planning. Our rivers serve many
masters--barge owners as well as bass fisherman--and the Corps'
planning process should reflect the diverse demands we place on them. I
want to make sure that future Corps projects no longer fail to produce
predicted benefits, stop costing more than the Corps estimated, and do
not have unanticipated environmental impacts. In the future, we must
monitor the result of projects so that we can learn from our mistakes
and, when possible, correct them. We should impose a system of peer
review as soon as possible and consider other comprehensive reforms. In
a first step toward full evaluation of projects, I have committed
myself to making Corps reform a priority in the next year and in the
107th Congress. The agreement we have reached today ensures that this
Senate will also make it a priority.
____________________