[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 144 (Friday, November 3, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H11816-H11832]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 2796, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2000

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 665 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 665

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (S. 2796) to provide for the conservation and 
     development of water and related resources, to authorize the 
     Secretary of the Army to construct various projects for 
     improvements to rivers and harbors of the United States, and 
     for other purposes. All points of order against the 
     conference report and against its consideration are waived. 
     The conference report shall be considered as read.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Frost); pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only on this resolution.
  H. Res. 656 provides for consideration of S. 2796, the Water 
Resources Development Act of 2000. The rule waives all points of order 
against the conference report and against its consideration. In 
addition, the rule provides that the conference report shall be 
considered as read. This is the standard rule for this type of 
conference report, and it is without controversy as far as I know. I 
urge my colleagues to support this rule.
  The Water Resources Development Act, more commonly known as WRDA, is 
a critically important vehicle for environmental restoration projects. 
This year's bill is particularly noteworthy because it includes a plan 
to restore the Nation's Everglades in Florida. This restoration effort 
is the largest,

[[Page H11817]]

most comprehensive restoration program ever attempted.
  Not too long ago, most folks would have predicted it would be 
impossible to craft a restoration plan that gets it right and also wins 
the support of every major stakeholder involved in the Everglades. But 
that is exactly what this Congress has done. It is precisely the model 
for how we should deal with all of our environmental issues.
  We drop the posturing. We quit using the trite catch phrases. We 
bring people together, and we actually sit down at the table and 
rationally discuss the issues and work in good faith for the greater 
good based on science-based principles.
  I am not entirely naive, and I understand that the reason it worked 
with the Everglades is that the parties realized that this was too 
important to let go further amuck. But this precisely is my point.
  All environmental issues are important and should deserve the same 
attention and the same approach. We should not sacrifice the 
environment anywhere for short-term gain. I hope that the folks out 
there who make a living doing so will learn the lesson of the 
Everglades.
  Mr. Speaker, folks on the other side of the aisle talk a lot about a 
do-nothing Congress. I note that President Clinton asserted recently 
that this has been one of the most productive sessions ever, which I 
think is a real tribute to our Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Hastert), frankly a direct disavowal of the statements of the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), Minority Leader, that we are a 
do-nothing Congress.
  But today's action is yet another in a very, very long list of 
examples that prove the Republican Congress delivers on Americans 
priorities. The challenge this Congress faced was to craft the plan 
that truly improves the hydrology and the hydroperiods and restores the 
unique natural environment of the Everglades, along with the other 
partners involved, the state of Florida and the interests that are 
involved in the areas of the Everglades.
  The costs of doing nothing were far too great. The magnificent 
Everglades have suffered through years of neglect and misunderstanding. 
Doing nothing would have ensured disaster. Disaster, incidentally, had 
begun spreading to Florida Bay and even to the nearby coral reefs, 
which are unique in themselves.
  Even so, as is often the case, the impulse to do something can often 
lead to unintended consequences. So, technically, we faced an 
incredible challenge. As daunting as the engineering problems are, even 
more so is the challenge of getting various stakeholders who often 
would not even speak to each other to find common ground. That is the 
snapshot of the immense challenge that we faced at the beginning of 
this process.
  Well, here we are with a conference report, a final agreement. So it 
bears asking how we have tackled what Florida Governor Jeb Bush has now 
termed ``perhaps the defining environmental issue of this new 
century''. I think it is the defining issue. The Everglades bill is 
simply at the top of a very long list of environmental achievement for 
this Congress.
  A lot of folks deserve our thanks for getting us here. The State of 
Florida and Governor Jeb Bush have demonstrated an unmistakable 
commitment to this effort and led at every point in the process. The 
Clinton administration also deserves our praise.
  In terms of steering the proposal through Congress, our two Senators 
deserve an inordinate amount of praise and recognition. In the House, 
the entire delegation supported the effort. But the House efforts were 
kept on track by the patience, perseverance and able leadership of the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), our delegation chairman.

                              {time}  0930

  I do not believe it is an understatement to say that the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Shaw) was the key to our efforts here in the House. 
Anyone who cares about the Everglades should extend their gratitude to 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw). I think he has done an 
extraordinary job.
  It goes without saying that the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) 
did an impressive job of stewardship on the Everglades, as well. This 
is, after all, where the bill comes from. And I want to commend them 
for their leadership in this regard.
  Mr. Speaker, all these folks and many more deserve our thanks for 
making this historic achievement possible. This is a noncontroversial 
rule. It is an historic environmental restoration bill. As far as I 
know, it has bipartisan support.
  I encourage my colleagues to support both the rule and the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule is the standard rule for consideration of a 
conference report in the House and is of no controversy. This 
conference report for the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 has 
been a matter of little controversy over the past few days, as the 
Chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has 
sought assurances from his leadership that funding for additional 
environmental infrastructure spending would be included in the Labor, 
HHS appropriations conference report.
  I am supposing, Mr. Speaker, given the fact that we are now 
considering this rule, that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Shuster) has received these assurances and whenever the Congress 
actually considers the Labor, HHS conference report, next week, 
Thanksgiving, Christmas, whenever that might be, the funding he has 
sought will be provided for in it.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very good bill in large part because of the 
funding in it for the restoration of the Florida Everglades. This 
project is one that has long been sought by environmentalists and 
Floridians of all stripes, Republicans and Democrats alike.
  This project is not a partisan project and no one should assume that 
it has come about because of the influence of any one Member of 
Congress. Rather, this is a project that has been a long time in the 
making on a bipartisan basis and should receive bipartisan support here 
today.
  Mr. Speaker, I support this conference report; and I support the 
efforts of the Chairman of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure. I only hope he enjoys the same kind of support from the 
Republican leadership and the assurances he has received will be 
fulfilled when we return after the election.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield such time as he 
may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), my friend, the 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations and the dean 
of the Florida delegation and the person who is most responsible for 
crafting the mechanics that have brought this legislation to the floor 
today.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in extremely strong support 
of this rule and this legislation to finally address the critical needs 
of the Florida Everglades, the most unique ecosystem anywhere on the 
face of this planet that is in danger of being lost for eternity.
  We are at a critical mass in the issue of the Everglades, but today I 
think is going to be one of the better days in the House. On a very 
strong bipartisan basis, we are going to make an overt effort to begin 
to recover and protect the Florida Everglades.
  The Everglades is home to some 68 endangered species of wildlife and 
plant life. Not only that, the issue of water in our part of Florida is 
extremely critical, water for people, water for agriculture, water for 
industry, water that today is running off at a billion gallons a day 
into the Gulf of Mexico, water that we are losing that is essential to 
the preservation of the Everglades and to the use of the people in 
Florida.
  We have been appropriating money for the Everglades ever since 1993. 
We have appropriated over $1.3 billion for the Everglades, but there 
has not been a real plan. There has not been real management. Today we 
create legislation that will bring about a real plan that will bring 
about real management. We have already appropriated for this fiscal 
year $218.2 million. The Congress has already expressed its 
determination to save the Everglades, but we

[[Page H11818]]

needed this plan along with the funding. And so, today we have the 
plan. I am satisfied that it will pass with a large vote.
  I want to compliment my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in this 
House and our colleagues in the other body and, as the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Goss) said, the administration. Because it has been a 
total cooperative work effort.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to say just in a few closing comments thanks to 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) for the strong leadership that he 
has provided on this historic legislation to preserve and protect the 
Everglades and to echo his comment about the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Shaw), who is the chairman of the Florida Delegation. He has been 
just outstanding in his leadership in keeping the delegation together 
and keeping this issue alive as we worked through the trials and 
tribulations of this Congress. He has been a dynamic leader. And I will 
say that, if anybody gets a lot of credit today, it should be the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw). But so should all the members of our 
delegation, Republicans and Democrats, who have worked together as a 
solid team to make this happen.
  The Governor of Florida, Governor Jeb Bush, has walked the halls of 
the Congress trying to create and to sustain support for this 
Everglades project. The Governor of Florida and the legislature in 
Florida all deserve tremendous credit for where we are arriving today. 
And, of course, the State of Florida will pay 50 percent of all of the 
costs involved in this project. It is a 50-50 deal despite the fact 
that the Florida Everglades is unique to the entire world.
  And so, Mr. Speaker, I am extremely happy to be where we are, that we 
are going to pass this rule, and that we are going to pass this 
legislation and we are going to take a major important step toward the 
preservation of the Florida Everglades, the most unique ecosystem 
anywhere on the face of this planet.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly support this historic 
legislation to restore one of our nation's greatest environmental and 
ecological treasures, the Florida Everglades.
  The Florida Everglades is unlike any other ecosystem in the world. It 
is comprised of more than 18,000 square miles of fresh water marshes 
spanning from Lake Okeechobee in the north to the Florida Keys in the 
south. Larger in land mass than Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode 
Island and Delaware combined, it is home to more than 60 individual 
endangered or threatened species of plants and animals, most or all of 
which will be come extinct without action.
  Unfortunately, the Florida Everglades are dying. In response to flood 
concerns threatening the southern half of the state, a flood control 
plan was developed in the 1940s. The plan would soon establish hundreds 
of miles of canals and levees to ensure proper drainage. It worked too 
well. Fifty years later, almost half of the Everglades have been lost. 
Life-giving fresh water has been diverted out to sea, and the delicate 
balance of fresh and salt water that is unique to the Everglades has 
been upset. Without immediate action, the ecosystem as we know it will 
be unrecoverable. Furthermore, the Florida Aquifer faces the threat of 
saltwater intrusion, compromising the already scarce supply of potable 
water to the residents of South Florida.
  However, with the action of the Congress today, we can begin to 
reverse the damage and restore this pristine ecosystem. The restoration 
plan developed to address this crisis is the culmination of years of 
research by state and federal scientists, private environmental and 
agricultural experts and the United States Army Corps of Engineers. The 
restoration plan is comprised of 68 individual projects to be completed 
by the Corps of Engineers over the next 30 years at a total cost of 
over $7 billion, to be divided equally with the state of Florida. The 
bill we approve today is the first step toward implementation of the 
restoration plan. It authorizes $1.2 billion for 10 initial projects 
and four pilot projects to test new technology critical to the 
restoration. Once completed, the plan will restore more than 1.7 
billion gallons of fresh water per day, replicating the original sheet 
flow of water through the natural system. This massive undertaking is 
the largest environmental restoration plan in history and comes at a 
cost not to be dismissed. However, the fact remains that without this 
plan, the Everglades will die.
  As Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I have worked hard to 
protect the Florida Everglades. My committee has included, to date, 
$730,000,000 in Department of Interior funding for the Everglades and 
$142,360,000 in the Energy and Water Appropriation for Everglades 
related projects. These funds have gone toward land acquisition and 
critical projects that began the journey toward recovery of this 
ecosystem. The State of Florida has matched every dollar with water 
reuse and recovery projects and the most ambitious land acquisition 
agenda of any State in history.
  Mr. Speaker, the Everglades restoration plan enjoys the support of 
the entire Florida Congressional delegation, the Governor of Florida, 
the Administration, and nearly every major environmental and 
agricultural organization in Florida, as well as the Seminole Tribe and 
the Miccosukee Tribe of Florida. Without this plan and without action 
by this Congress, we threaten the existence of one of our greatest 
national treasures. Let's do the right thing and restore the Everglades 
so that future generations of Americans can know and enjoy this natural 
wonder.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for yielding me 
the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I wish I could rise today and offer my unqualified 
support for the conference WRDA bill that is before us today. But I 
want to be clear that the version that came out of the House I thought 
had a lot of good provisions in it that have been watered down now. 
Changes were made on the Senate side, however, that I think set us back 
in two major areas of concern.
  One is the much needed comprehensive Corps reform that I think is 
desperately needed for that embattled agency.
  Earlier this year, I, along with a few other of my colleagues, 
introduced comprehensive Corps reform, H.R. 4879. This was not an anti-
Corps reform bill that we introduced. It merely reflected the need for 
some change for the embattled agency to lift the cloud that currently 
hangs over it.
  The original WRDA coming out of the House contained some pilot 
projects for important independent peer reviews that I think is needed 
in order to let the sun shine in on the Corps' water resource projects.
  Unfortunately, instead of adopting the pilot language in the 
conference report, they instead stripped it out of the language and, in 
fact, ordered another couple of studies for the National Academy of 
Sciences to conduct over the next couple of years, one involving 
independent peer review mind you.
  The problem I have with that, however, is that the National Academy 
of Science has already devoted years of study to this and, in fact, 
last year already released a comprehensive review and recommendations 
for Corps reform in the ``New Directions and Water Resources Planning'' 
for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
  It was this study that came out last year that provided the basis of 
much of what was contained in my comprehensive Corps reform bill. I do 
not think it is necessary for us to be allocating a few million more 
dollars for the National Academy of Sciences to continue their study on 
Corps reform when, in fact, they have already done it in depth with 
great analysis and with a lot of fine recommendations that we need to 
move forward on.
  There are, however, some good provisions in this bill regarding Corps 
reform. One provision requires enhanced public participation in the 
review of feasibility studies and Corps projects and also one that 
directs the Secretary to design mitigation projects using contemporary 
understanding of science and mitigating adverse environmental effects, 
which was, language that was included in the Corps reform bill that we 
had introduced earlier this year.
  So I think we still need to do more work. I do not think now is the 
time to conduct more studies with the National Academy of Sciences.
  But the other provision of this, Mr. Speaker, relates to how we can 
better preserve and protect another vitally important natural resource 
in this country, the Mississippi River Basin. And with that, we are 
very pleased that we were able to keep in the conference report a 
scientific modeling program on sedimentation and nutrient flows for the 
Mississippi River Basin.
  Any expert on the river will tell you that problem is the number one 
danger facing that important ecosystem. In fact, it is North America's 
largest migratory route, as well as providing incredibly important 
functions relating to commercial navigation, tourism, and recreation 
activities.

[[Page H11819]]

  I think having the scientific modelling program in place is an 
important first step in being able to direct targeted resources in a 
more cost-effective manner in order to preserve this important natural 
resource.
  Unfortunately, again the language on the House was not adopted. The 
Senate, in fact, included a 50-50 cost share with States, which many of 
us think is going to put the modeling program in danger. Hopefully, the 
States will recognize the need to participate. But many of the people 
who we got feedback from at the State level were concerned about the 
50-50 cost-share that is ultimately included in this bill. We are just 
going to have to wait and see how that plays out.
  But finally this WRDA bill has good language in regards to a lower 
Mississippi River resource assessment, basically directing an 
assessment on information needed for river-related management, habitat 
needs, the need for river-related recreation and access in the lower 
part of the Mississippi River Basin.
  We have a very successful Environmental Management Program that 
affects the Upper Mississippi River with habitat restoration, and long-
term resource monitoring. Now is the time to start treating the 
Mississippi as the continuous ecosystem that it is and take a holistic 
approach. I believe this Lower Mississippi River resources assessment 
is the first step to extend EMP to lower regions of the River so we 
have a comprehensive and holistic approach to river management.
  Finally, I want to commend the leadership on the House, the chair and 
the ranking members of the appropriate committees for the work they 
have put into this important bill and especially the attention that has 
been given on the House side in regards to steps we can take for Corps 
reform and how we can better manage and preserve and protect the 
Mississippi River Basin.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from the west coast of Florida (Mr. Miller) my close colleague and 
distinguished friend.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the 
west coast of Florida for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, as we conclude the 106th Congress, it is really a 
pleasure to have such a significant piece of legislation that has very 
wide bipartisan support. This is a bill that is especially concerned 
about the Everglades issue that has the support of the administration 
and Democrats and Republicans in the House and the Senate.
  When our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, it made it very 
difficult to pass legislation, because the way it is set up we go to 
subcommittee and full committee and the floor of the House, and we have 
to get a conference where the House and the Senate agree and get an 
agreement with the agencies of the Federal Government. It is indeed a 
very complex challenge. But we are here today with final passage of a 
very, very significant piece of legislation, the most significant 
environmental bill I think in many a year to reverse a half century of 
environmental damages done to the Florida Everglades.
  I want to give compliments and thanks to the leadership that has 
brought this forward, Senators Mack and Graham on the Senate side and 
Senator Bob Smith, the chairman of that committee.
  On the House side, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and 
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Boehlert), the ranking member, and the chairman of the subcommittee on 
the House side. And within the Florida Delegation, again all the 
Republicans and Democrats have come together, but the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Shaw), who is the chairman of the Florida delegation, has 
really led the effort to make sure that it is being pushed forward, 
pushing the Senate leadership, pushing our leadership, pushing the 
committee chairman to get to this bill. It is too important to not let 
die. We need it. Thank goodness we are going to end the 106th Congress 
or come close to ending it with such a significant piece of 
legislation.
  To my conservative colleagues, there is a concern because of the 
total cost of it because it is billions of dollars over several 
decades. But, first of all, it is a split. The Federal Government will 
pick up about 50 percent. The State and local government will pick up 
about 50 percent.

                              {time}  0945

  There were safeguards built in so that the money will not get totally 
out of control.
  The reason we are doing this is the Federal government, through the 
Corps of Engineers some 50 years ago, started digging these dikes and 
canals and environmentally caused the problem.
  Since they caused the problem, they have to be part of the solution. 
That is the reason we are here today, is they are going to have to 
remove some 240 miles of levees and canals that were built over the 
past decades that have now diverted 2 billion gallons of water that 
should flow to the Everglades that now is pushed through the 
Caloosahatchee River or the Saint Lucie Inlet, pushing the water into 
the Atlantic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico.
  We need to allow that to flow into the Everglades, just as Marjory 
Stoneman Douglas wrote in her classic book 50 years ago, River of 
Grass. We need to make sure that fresh water flows through there.
  We are never going to get total restoration, because a lot of it is 
now in agricultural use, a lot is already developed. But we can at 
least bring it back as best we can to how a century ago it was that 
river of grass.
  I am pleased to have this before us, and I complement the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Shaw). I hope we have a unanimous vote on this bill.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend everybody involved, and 
the powerful leaders, the gentlemen from Florida, Mr. Young and Mr. 
Goss.
  I serve on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
formerly known as the Committee on Public Works. I can remember the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) as a member of the Committee on 
Public Works bringing forth the idea of cleaning up the Everglades and 
cleaning up those systems that contribute, ultimately, to the 
destination points where the accumulation of these things happened.
  I have also watched in the Congress the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Deutsch), and I think he has done a good job in bringing the Everglades 
program forward. I want to compliment those two gentlemen for the 
bipartisanship that happened here.
  Back when the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) was talking about the 
Everglades, I was talking about the upper Ohio Valley and the 
Pennsylvania steel mills, the Gary, Indiana, and Chicago area, and all 
of those rivers polluted by the steel industry that ultimately led that 
contaminant downstream into points where the impact of contamination 
made it now so terrible that the gentlemen from Florida, Mr. Shaw and 
Mr. Deutsch, and everybody else had to deal with that issue in their 
home State.
  Mr. Speaker, I was able to get the Mahoning River in Youngstown, 
Ohio, designated and authorized as one of only five rivers in America 
eligible for environmental dredging.
  Here is the problem we face: Florida can evidently afford this 50 
percent match to clean up the Everglades, but the city of Youngstown in 
the Mahoning Valley, depressed, cannot afford the 50 percent match.
  Here is the dilemma. While we continue to have the upper river system 
contaminants continuing to flow, cleaning up the ultimate depositories 
do not ultimately serve the best interests of America.
  I want to compliment the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), 
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Boehlert). They have been great leaders on this issue.
  But I am appealing that we must reduce and if necessary eliminate the 
matching monies necessary for economically depressed communities who 
have contaminated rivers who will continue to contaminate the 
Everglades and the depositories of our great Nation.

[[Page H11820]]

  That issue, I say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), 
must be addressed. My local community cannot meet the match. I have 
been getting all the monies for the studies, everything the Army Corps 
of Engineers has done. But I think we need relief to those upper 
systems who are continuing to contaminate those systems we clean up.
  I say to the gentlemen from Florida, Mr. Shaw and Mr. Deutsch, 
congratulations, and I hope they will help me in the future to 
eliminate or reduce the local match for impacted areas like ours that 
cannot afford to clean up those contaminated rivers.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Shaw), the distinguished chairman of the Florida 
delegation, a man to whom many nice and well-deserved compliments have 
been paid in getting us to this point.
  (Mr. SHAW asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, 
and I very much appreciate the work of this great body.
  Mr. Speaker, as extraordinary as it has been to see traditional 
adversaries come together this year on comprehensive Everglades 
restoration legislation contained in the Water Resources Development 
Act, something else is going on here which I think is very special and 
I think is very worthwhile noting.
  Skeptics have been saying, and they have been at our heels in recent 
weeks, we will not get it done. To them I say, we will. Some have gone 
around the country saying a Republican Congress cannot work with a 
Democrat administration to produce good policy for the American people. 
We have and we will. Others have lost patience and doubted our ability 
to lead and get this done in this short span of time. Well, we have 
proven them wrong, also.
  The fact is this: When both parties come to the table with sincere 
good-faith efforts to get something done without hidden agendas and 
with eyes towards the next generation and not just the next election, 
building upon relationships of good will, not destroying them, we can 
do good things for our country and for the entire globe.
  We all recognize the importance of this legacy, not only on the land 
and water, but on the people who live in Florida and visit this 
national treasure, and want to make sure that it is there for future 
generations.
  My colleagues know, I have worked my entire career and will continue 
to work to build bridges across the aisle. There is no better example 
of doing that, as I am looking at my colleague, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Deutsch) and looking at my colleague, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Goss), whose congressional districts share the Everglades, 
to say that this is certainly a very fine moment.
  I have offered several bills on the environment, but none makes me 
prouder to have my name on it than the comprehensive Everglades 
restoration bill, because I have been looking after this piece of my 
backyard for my entire life.
  I am eager to see this legislation pass, not because the base 
Everglades bill has my name on it, but because it is the right thing to 
do and because a broad cross-section of Americans have put their 
support and their hard work into getting us to this day.
  I urge the passage of this resolution, this rule, and also push for 
the passage of the underlying bill.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to another 
distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), my friend and 
colleague from the east coast, who also has been very instrumental in 
pulling all the parties together in an amicable way to reach this 
solution.
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me, and I thank the gentleman for bringing this rule to the floor. Of 
course, I urge all Members to support this very important landmark 
legislation. It is one of the proudest moments that I will probably 
have here on the floor is to see the Florida delegation unanimous on an 
issue of importance to our State and to our Nation.
  Many people look at the Everglades and say it is Florida's issue, it 
is Florida's problem. But it is America's crown jewel. It is something 
we share not only with ourselves as natives of Florida, but also those 
45-plus million visitors who come to Florida for the pristine 
wonderment of whether it be our oceans, our Everglades, our Keys, or 
our panhandle.
  Marjory Stoneman Douglas penned a novel, the River of Grass, about 
the wonders of the Everglades. Back in the thirties when candidates 
were running for office, one notably Mr. Broward, who became Governor, 
used to say the slogan, elect me Governor and I will drain that swamp, 
known as the Everglades, so we will have development.
  How wrong they were then, how right we are today, to reverse decades 
of abuse and neglect of our national park; to start paving the way, if 
you will, and maybe that is not the correct expression, paving the way, 
but creating the dynamics by which we can reengineer Florida's 
multitude of plumbing projects in order to make the Everglades once 
again the clean and pristine waterway and natural habitat that it is 
and should be.
  The delegation has been led by so many champions, too many to 
mention, back in the days of the governorship of Bob Graham, now 
Senator, Connie Mack, and others.
  We are truly a bipartisan State as it relates to the Everglades. 
Lawton Chiles, in his memory, would be so proud today to know after the 
years he served as our chief executive that one of his greatest efforts 
is now coming to fruition.
  The chairman of Florida's delegation was mentioned. There is a lot to 
be said for seniority in this process. The 20 years of the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Shaw) of service to Floridians, to those in Dade, 
Broward, and Palm Beach County, the hallmark of his 20-year tenure 
here, results in this bill being brought to the floor because he 
pleaded with the Speaker and all parties at the table, with the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and others, to make sure that 
this bill became the final act of this final hour of the 106th 
Congress.
  What a tribute and what a legacy to his grandchildren, 13 I believe 
now in number, maybe 11, two to come, 13 soon will know that their 
grandpoppy made possible this historic day on a Friday before we 
adjourn and return to our constituencies in Florida.
  So I salute every Member, Democrat and Republican, in our delegation, 
every person who will vote for this bill, and I urge, I hope, a 
unanimous acceptance of the fact that we take on the national 
responsibility of our national park, the Everglades, by signalling to 
the world we are prepared to lead, we are prepared to clean up our act, 
and we are prepared to make it the great park that it truly is.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
urge adoption of this rule.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to point out, I see my friend, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch), who did not speak on this. I have 
been privileged to have worked with him for a number of years on this, 
back and forth. The gentleman from Florida has the front door, I have 
the back door. Most people prefer to go in the front door, but the back 
door is equally good. We have gotten along very, very well over the 
years.
  I think of the number of days I have actually been in the Everglades 
with Bob Graham. I remember an occasion where I stood on the banks of 
the then straight Kissimmee Channel, and he said, we are going to put 
some wrinkles back in this. He got a truck, and we started pouring dirt 
back into the channel. I thought, this has got to be against the law. 
We are all going to end up in deep trouble.
  All of these programs that have taken so many people so much vision 
to work out the formula to get all of the interested parties going in 
the same direction have been referred to in this discussion. It is an 
extraordinary story, and I hope some day somebody will write the book. 
It will be a wonderful book about what Americans can do in this country 
when they work together.
  I am very pleased to express my strong support for this good piece of 
bipartisan legislation, and I urge support for the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.

[[Page H11821]]

  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 665, I call up 
the conference report on the Senate bill (S. 2796) to provide for the 
conservation and development of water and related resources, to 
authorize the Secretary of the Army to construct various projects for 
improvements to rivers and harbors of the United States, and for other 
purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the conference report 
is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
October 31, 2000, at page H11624.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Shuster) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski) each will 
control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).

                              {time}  1000

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it is particularly fitting, I believe, that the last 
major piece of legislation that is brought before the Congress before 
we return home for the election next Tuesday is the water resources 
bill, which includes the largest environmental restoration project in 
the history of the world, the restoration of the Everglades.
  As the chairman of that conference, I can say with absolute certainty 
that we would not be here today doing this, if it were not for the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw). The gentleman has been the ultimate 
driving force.
  When we were negotiating and thought that we had our hands tied in 
our negotiations with the other body, looked like we were not going to 
get anywhere, it was the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) who insisted 
that we stay at the table. And while there are many people on both 
sides of the aisle who deserve credit for this legislation, we would 
not be here today if it were not for the gentleman from Florida.
  The conference report includes water resource development projects 
for America. It responds to the Nation's water infrastructure and 
environmental restoration needs. It includes important authorizations, 
modifications and improvements to the Army Corps of Engineers water 
resources programs and projects as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to thank my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisles for working so hard for this environmental restoration and 
water resources bill. With its estimated total costs of $7 billion, it 
invests in America's future by authorizing new projects for navigation, 
flood control, shore protection, environmental restoration, water 
supply, and recreation.
  It fosters partnerships between Federal and non-Federal agencies. It 
authorizes 30 new water resource projects that have received or will 
receive favorable review from the Corps. It modifies over 50 existing 
water resources projects. It authorizes 58 new studies.
  It includes the various policy and procedural reforms to improve 
public participation. It authorizes the environmental restoration 
projects and programs that address several national needs throughout 
the country, including, Illinois, Missouri, Mississippi, the Ohio 
rivers and the Lower Columbia Estuary, including Pugent Sound and the 
Chesapeake Bay.
  WRDA 2000 approves and authorizes the first increment of the 
comprehensive Everglades restoration plan, and it should be emphasized 
the text in this bill, which will become law, is the language that the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) introduced in his bill, H.R. 5121, 
some time ago.
  My colleagues should know, however, that the Senate conferees did not 
accept some of the critical, important provisions included in the bill 
that passed the House by a vote of 394-14.
  While this is a good package on balance, it does fail to include 
environmental infrastructure projects under the Corps of Engineers 
jurisdiction. It also fails to include the text of the bill by the 
gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier) relating to cleanup of the 
San Gabriel and Central Basins and the text of the bill from the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch) and the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Shaw), H.R. 673, relating to water quality protection in the 
Florida Keys.
  It was with great reluctance, but with a desire to ensure enactment 
of this legislation that the House conferees ultimately agreed to the 
Senate's request to delete these provisions. However, as part of that 
compromise, there was also an agreement that these projects could or 
should be considered in the context of proposed legislation yet to move 
through the Congress if the so-called environmental infrastructure 
package also included important legislation addressing combined sewer 
overflow and sanitary overflows.
  House conferees have lived up to that commitment submitting to the 
Committee on Appropriations a package of environmental infrastructure 
projects that passed the House overwhelmingly on October 19, as well as 
the broadly supported text of the bill offered by the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Barcia), the Wet Weather Water Quality Act which was 
reported by our committee on October the 6.
  Mr. Speaker, this environmental infrastructure legislation provides 
needed assistance to help communities throughout the Nation to keep raw 
sewage out of citizens' basements and backyards. It protects streams 
and rivers and bays, the Florida Keys, and the drinking water supply 
for over 1.3 million residents in California.
  It is regrettable that we could not retain these provisions in this 
legislation today, but I am pleased with the assurances we received 
that they will be included as we wrap up our appropriations bill when 
we come back after the election.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues not only to support this landmark 
legislation on the floor, but to work with our friends and the 
appropriators and the House and Senate leadership to ensure that the 
rest of the environmental infrastructure provisions in the conference 
are enacted before the end of the 106th Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would note that the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure of the Congress is the most 
productive committee of the Congress, the most bipartisan committee of 
the Congress. This Congress has passed 109 pieces of legislation 
through the House and 42 pieces of legislation which are becoming law. 
So I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and our 
committee for their tremendous efforts so that our committee could, 
indeed, do the people's business in this Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. BORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference 
report. This conference report reflects the bipartisanship that is the 
hallmark of our success on the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure. We invest in America's future by providing critical 
infrastructure, while working to restore, enhance and protect the 
environment.
  Mr. Speaker, I particularly want to pay tribute to our distinguished 
chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. Shuster). It seems 
appropriate that the last major authorization bill to pass this 
Congress would be under his leadership. His success in leading this 
committee on a bipartisan basis is well known.
  He has earned a great reputation for that bipartisanship; and because 
of his great efforts and success throughout the past 6 years, certainly 
the people of our Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and people throughout 
the United States of America are benefiting from the improved 
infrastructure. He has been a great chairman. He is one who I take 
great pride in serving.
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to say a word, if I may, about the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Boehlert), my subcommittee chairman, my good friend. 
There is, I think, very few people in this whole Congress, Mr. Speaker, 
who stand so firmly for the environment as the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Boehlert); and no one I know in the entire Congress who is more 
willing to cross the aisle and do the people's business.

[[Page H11822]]

  Mr. Speaker, the projects included in the conference report form the 
water-based infrastructure that is a key component of the Nation's 
transportation system. Projects in the water resources bill also 
protect lives and property from floods and hurricanes, and they provide 
drinking water and electricity to our cities and factories.
  Projects are the more visible aspect of the conference report, but 
there are also provisions that will improve the way in which the Corps 
implements its programs. I am disappointed that the conference report 
does not include the House-passed provisions concerning mitigation.
  We should be requiring the Corps to be more aware earlier of possible 
adverse environmental impacts. I intend to revisit this issue in the 
next Congress.
  The agreement also deletes House language that required the Secretary 
to establish a 3-year program of independent peer review of up to five 
projects.
  While some have argued for a permanent peer review program, I believe 
that a pilot program would have allowed the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure to evaluate its effectiveness.
  Next Congress, those who advocate permanent peer review may prevail.
  I strongly support the requirement to monitor the performance of up 
to five projects for 12 years. Today we authorize and construct 
projects, but we do not adequately follow up on whether the expected 
benefits are ever realized.
  This monitoring will be an important tool in helping the Corps and 
the Congress produce a more effective Corps civil works program.
  The conference report approves the Comprehensive Everglades 
Restoration Plan as a framework for modification and operational 
changes to the Central and South Florida project to restore, preserve, 
and protect the Everglades ecosytem. It also authorizes the first 
installment of the plan for $1.4 billion. The total plan will cost at 
least $7.8 billion and take 36 years to construct.
  Since 1986, Mr. Speaker, Congress has tried to maintain a 2-year 
cycle to enact water resources legislation. Such a cycle is important 
to providing certainty and stability to the program. This conference 
report is a continuation of that process and should receive strong 
bipartisan support today in the House.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the 
conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Boehlert), the distinguished chairman of our Subcommittee on 
Water Resources and Environment.
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, this comprehensive, bipartisan legislation 
will help save the Everglades, restore rivers and watersheds throughout 
the country, keep communities safe from floods and hurricanes, and 
repair and improve America's water transportation infrastructure, which 
is the lifeblood of our domestic and global economy.
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, I 
can tell my colleagues that this legislation has been long in the 
making.
  Our subcommittee held hearings throughout the year, as well as last 
year, on the bill's key issues and provisions. We have, on a bipartisan 
basis, reviewed hundreds of project requests and scores of important 
and timely water policy issues.
  I think the committee leadership and the conferees have done a good 
job of balancing competing interest and treating Members and their 
constituents fairly.
  Mr. Speaker, this is landmark legislation. It is our best hope to 
save the Everglades and to restore the balance between the human 
environment and the natural system in South Florida. The world is 
watching, and I am proud of what this institution has produced at this 
critical moment.
  There are many players in this exciting drama. We owe a debt of 
gratitude to Governor Jeb Bush of Florida, the entire Florida 
legislature and the bipartisan Florida congressional delegation led by 
the tenaciousness of our colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Shaw). He is the prime motivator behind this legislation, and he is due 
a round of thanks.
  Through their efforts, we are able to move forward with a consensus 
package that gives overall approval to the 36 year, $7.8 billion plan 
and specifically authorizes $1.4 billion in projects to get the water 
right.
  I want to emphasize, as this legislation does itself, that the 
primary purpose of this landmark, unprecedented activity in the 
Everglades is to restore the natural system. We must continue to be 
reminded of that fundamental truth, and people like Bob Semple will be 
watching, as they should.
  We are going to have to monitor this project closely and continue to 
review the science to ensure that it accomplishes this fundamental 
goal. Indeed, as the project moves forward, we may need more 
legislative safeguards, such as requiring explicitly that 50 percent of 
the restoration benefits be achieved by the time that 50 percent of the 
funds are spent. For now, this legislation sets us on the right path.
  Mr. Speaker, the conference report does not include everything one 
would have hoped for as is to be expected with difficult compromises. 
For example, the Senate prevailed in deleting important provisions on 
environmental infrastructure for the Nation and regional environmental 
restoration for areas such as the Missouri River, the San Gabriel Basin 
in California, and the Florida Keys. Make no mistake about it, though, 
on balance, this conference report is a good, solid compromise that 
will advance ecosystem restoration and protection throughout the 
country.
  Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss in not thanking all the staff of the 
House, Senate, and administration for their efforts to make this 
happen. In particular, I want to thank Sara Gray, a staff member in my 
office and then on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
for her efforts relating to WRDA 2000. Sara, if you are taking a break 
now from your studying for law school exams and watching these 
proceedings, thanks for all you did to help the committee keep track of 
and review the many requests for projects and provisions.
  Mr. Speaker, the conference report on S. 2796 is landmark 
environmental legislation. It did not come about by accident. It is by 
design by a painstaking bipartisan process.
  Let me say also that the Everglades are a treasure not just for 
Florida, but for America; and we are preserving and enhancing that 
magnificent resource.
  Finally, let me say as we come to the end of 6 years of 
bipartisanship on the subcommittee what a pleasure it has been to work 
with my colleague, the gentleman from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Borski), to fashion responsible legislation in a responsible way. 
It was a give and take, always with the best interest of America at 
heart.
  It has been a rare privilege for me to chair this subcommittee and to 
work with such a distinguished man as the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Borski).
  I say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), you have been the best. And 
from this Member and all our colleagues, we owe a debt of gratitude to 
the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for 
his outstanding leadership.

                              {time}  1015


                 Anouncement By The Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shaw). All Members are reminded that 
their remarks should be directed to the Chair.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this 
legislation. Let me begin by congratulating the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the chairman, the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Boehlert) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), ranking members, for a fine 
job on this legislation, as on so many pieces of legislation that have 
come out of the generally bipartisan work of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure.
  Mr. Speaker, I confess, I know very little about the Everglades. I am 
not

[[Page H11823]]

going to speak about the Everglades. But I know a fair amount about the 
Port of New York and New Jersey. In this bill is some absolutely 
essential provisions for the Port of New York and New Jersey.
  This bill authorizes funding to deepen the channels to Newark and 
Elizabeth and Howland Hook and Bayonne and, for the first time, to 
Brooklyn to 50 feet, so that we can accommodate the deeper superships 
that are coming in.
  Mr. Speaker, the shipping companies are following the airlines and 
going to a hub and feeder port system. But there is going to be, in 15 
years, one major port on the Eastern Seaboard, and that should be in 
the United States. We are in competition with Halifax as to which is 
going to be the major hub port on the Eastern Seaboard.
  The provisions in this bill enabling us to get to 50 feet in the Port 
of New York and New Jersey will go a long way to making sure that we 
have the hub port on the American coast in New York and not in Halifax. 
That will be instrumental in hundreds of thousands of jobs and a great 
deal of maritime commerce in the United States, which is very important 
to us, obviously.
  This bill is particularly important because it recognizes, confirms 
the report of the chief engineer for the Army Corps which, for the 
first time, recognizes the necessity or the possibility, even, of a 
major container shipping port in Brooklyn on the east side of the 
harbor instead of having the ports only on the west side.
  If we are going to be the hub port and we are going to be able to 
take 14 million or 15 million TEUs or 16 million TEUs, if we are going 
to be able to go up to the forecast 15 million or 16 million or 17 
million TEUs, twenty-foot equivalent units, in the next 20 or 30 years, 
as is forecast, we are going to need all the land available for ports 
on both sides of the harbor, in New York, and New Jersey and Bayonne 
and Howland Hook and Elizabeth and Newark and Brooklyn. This bill, for 
the first time, makes that possible.
  We will need to do a lot of additional work and probably additional 
appropriations to make that happen, but this bill makes it possible. It 
is a very far-sighted piece of legislation. I am very appreciative of 
it. I rise in full support of it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair notes that the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) has 18 minutes remaining. The gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski) has 23\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton).
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by commending the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster), and the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure for expeditiously bringing us this 
bill today.
  I would also like to commend the gentleman from Florida (Chairman 
Shaw) for his dogged determination in bringing this bill to the floor. 
We all love the Everglades. Without the gentleman's hard work and 
dedication, we would not be here today addressing this subject. I think 
the world should know that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) had a 
lot to do with making this possible.
  It is also important to my district, Mr. Speaker, Congress recognizes 
the importance of preserving and protecting our beaches from further 
erosion. This bill does that for the beaches on Long Beach Island.
  New Jersey is the most densely populated State in the Nation with the 
coastal communities continuing to grow at a rapid pace. In addition, 
tourists double and sometimes triple the local population in the summer 
as people flock to the shore.
  The continued economic health of the coastal communities depend on a 
sustainable shoreline that will protect existing homes and businesses 
from continued erosion and storm damage. The narrowing and lowering of 
beaches and dunes along Long Beach Island has reduced the storm 
protection that would otherwise have been available.
  Major storms which occurred in March of 1984, October of 1991, 
January of 1992 and December of 1992 have taken their toll on our 
beaches. This continued storm damage has eroded the beaches completely 
in some areas where the water is actually washing under homes.
  The storms of 1992 qualified for disaster assistance from the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency, and many areas of the shoreline have not 
fully recovered even today.
  We have been working on this project for 8 years with the cooperation 
of the Corps of Engineers. It is designed to repair Long Beach Island's 
beaches, to protect them for the next 50 years. Therefore, I would like 
to urge my colleagues to vote in support of the Water Resources 
Development Act, WRDA, because of its vital importance in funding 
projects that will protect coastal communities from future storm damage 
throughout the country.
  Mr. Speaker, again, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) for 
the important part that he played in bringing this bill to the floor.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the distinguished vice 
chairman of our caucus.
  (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to congratulate the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster), to congratulate the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Boehlert), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), our 
ranking Democrat, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski) for 
working together to bring this bill in the late stages of this 
Congress. It is an incredibly important piece of legislation which has 
been crafted which has been critical to help our country's waterways.
  The country needs this legislation to improve our ports, our 
channels, our waterways and our environment. We also need it to reduce 
flooding, increase our competitiveness, and create more jobs. That is 
why it is critical to pass this Water Resources Development Act.
  Now, this legislation could not arrive at a more critical time for 
the Port of New York and New Jersey, which generates 180,000 jobs and 
$20 billion of economic activity. That is because right now in my own 
home district where the Port of Elizabeth and Newark, which is really 
where the greatest activity within the port region resides, our port is 
beginning to handle more traffic and cargo. It is creating more jobs.
  But without the authorization for deeper channels contained in this 
bill, all of this recent growth is in jeopardy. Deepening the port 
means more trade and commerce with a better environment. Not deepening 
the port means commerce, goods and, most importantly, jobs generated by 
the port all being shipped to Canada. Consumers in the New Jersey, New 
York metropolitan area would have to pay more to get goods to their 
shelves.
  Now, I am concerned the conference report does not include a 
provision giving the local sponsor of the Port Jersey Channel deepening 
credit for the work it has done and will do prior to the signing of its 
final agreement. But I plan to work with my colleagues to pass this 
provision before we adjourn.
  In the past, WRDA has contained important provisions on sediment 
decontamination, the beneficial use of dredge material, and 
environmental dredging. That is because we know that commerce and the 
environment are not mutually exclusive issues. They are interdependent 
concerns that determine the quality of life for our constituents. So we 
can deepen the port of New York and New Jersey in an environmentally 
responsible way.
  I look forward to continuing to work with the committee to make sure 
that growth takes place in the days ahead.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), my good friend and classmate.
  (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the conference 
report for S. 2796, the Water Resources Development Act, and would like 
to emphasize my support specifically for the Everglades language.
  As many of my colleagues have already stated during this debate, the

[[Page H11824]]

Everglades provisions represent a major step toward restoration of this 
unique ecosystem. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Interior of the 
Committee on Appropriations, I have become involved in this restoration 
effort as it directly impacts the natural areas in Federal ownership, 
including Everglades National Park, Big Cyprus Natural Preserve and 
several national wildlife refuges. Their future and that of the 
numerous species who make the Everglades their home depend upon the 
success of this effort. Only if the Corps of Engineers carries out 
their restoration initiative properly will they survive.
  I might say that, in our committee, we have appropriated $738 million 
as our share of this project with a total of about a $1.35 billion thus 
far for the Federal Government.
  I commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), chairman of 
the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for 
recognizing that the environment must be the primary beneficiary of the 
water made available through the comprehensive plan for the 
restoration.
  The object of the plan is to restore, preserve, and protect the 
natural system while also meeting the water supply, flood protection 
and agriculture needs of the region. I might emphasize I think this is 
very commendable that the point of protecting the water supply for the 
Everglades is a primary objective here.
  As we make our way through this massive ecosystem restoration, I 
intend to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ensure 
that we remain focused on the restoration of the natural areas.
  I commend the Members on their bipartisan work in bringing this 
legislation to the floor today and urge the Members of the House to 
support and pass it.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Traficant), senior member of the committee.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) for a colloquy so if he can hang around 
a minute. But I want to start out by saying that I am not surprised.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I am at the 
gentleman's beck and call.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised that the leadership of 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) has basically been 
unparalleled. The reason for that is he is a brilliant Pitt man. The 
University of Pittsburgh almost whacked out Virginia Tech last week, 
and they are on the rise. But I want to pay special tribute to a 
Pittsburgh alum who has distinguished himself head and shoulders above 
most.
  I want to also thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Borski), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Deutsch), and everyone involved here.
  But as I talked on the rule, I talked about a problem that I think 
must be addressed by this committee. No matter how many ultimate 
depositories of water that are impacted upon by contaminated flow from 
upstream upriver contaminated points and sources of points, there will 
never be a cleanup of our environment.
  Now, here is the trick bag I am in, Mr. Speaker. I have been able to 
get over a couple million dollars to start the cleanup of the Mahoning 
River that runs right through the middle of the third largest steel 
producing region in the world at one time, and the contaminants are 4 
and 5 feet deep. They must be cleaned.
  Now we are at the point where we need a 50 percent match. My 
depressed community cannot afford that match. So as a result, while we 
are cleaning up these down-river depositories, we continue to have the 
overflow from the contaminant source point contamination situation.
  With that in mind, in the colloquy, I want to know if the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) is willing, even though he will 
not be chairman, he will be one of the most powerful Members in this 
body, be willing to work with me next year to reduce and, when 
necessary because of such a depression, if necessary, to eliminate that 
match so as we could stop the continuing contamination of the 
Everglades and other points downstream?
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to yield to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster).
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, it is always my pleasure to work with the 
former Pitt quarterback. I will be happy to do so.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster). I take that as a yes answer. I will hold 
him to that.
  I compliment everybody for this great bill. I support it.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), a distinguished member of our 
committee.
  (Mr. LaHOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1030

  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I also want to compliment the chairman for 
getting this bill to the floor and also our leadership for having this 
bill on the floor today and having a vote on it.
  I represent a district that has 200 miles of the Illinois River all 
along my district. This bill includes an authorization to really begin 
to clean up and fix up and stop the siltation that has occurred on the 
Illinois River that is inhibiting transportation, inhibiting 
recreation, and inhibiting the great ascetic value that the Illinois 
River provides from Chicago all the way to Alton.
  This is a very good project, and it is a project that has brought 
together a lot of agricultural interests, a lot of business interests, 
a lot of transportation interests, a lot of conservation interests. The 
Nature Conservancy has done a great job on the Illinois River. We have 
a great CREP program that sets aside land along the Illinois River. 
This really brings it all together.
  I want to thank the Lieutenant Governor of our State, the Governor of 
our State, and all Members of our delegation who have supported this 
every effort. I appreciate again the opportunity to have this included 
in this important bill.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), a valuable member from our 
committee.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding 
me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is unprecedented legislation in an unprecedented 
session. I want to congratulate the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Chairman Shuster). I want to congratulate the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Oberstar), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), and the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski) on a great job well done. They 
have set the pace in this session.
  I rise in strong support of the Water Resources Development Act, this 
conference report. As a member of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, I was pleased to work with my colleagues on a 
bipartisan basis to construct legislation to amend the Clean Water Act 
to establish a nationally consistent wet weather control standard for 
combined sewer and overflows.
  This bill was drafted by the committee and is a combination of two 
bills that were introduced in the 106th Congress. I am pleased that 
language from a bill that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) and 
I introduced, the Combined Sewer Overflow Control and Partnership Act 
of 1999, is included.
  I say to the chairman, the ranking member, those involved, this 
legislation is not the sexy material which we in the legislature like 
to talk about many times, but there are not too many communities 
throughout the land that have the wherewithal or the resources to deal 
with the problem of combined sewer overflows. They just do not have the 
dollars and yet they are supposed to comply with EPA regulations and 
standards. Some of those communities have already been fined.

[[Page H11825]]

This is going to go a long way in cleaning up our water system in the 
United States.
  The language that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) and I 
wrote authorizes $1.5 billion for grant to municipalities and States 
for these projects. It authorizes $45 million in grants for 
demonstration projects on the use of watershed management for wet 
weather control in urban areas and to determine the most effective 
management practices for wet weather flows. This is a tremendous 
victory for towns all over America.
  The grant programs established in this legislation will finally give 
these towns, large and small, resources they need to clean up their 
sewer systems and to comply with the Clean Water Act.
  Urban wet weather pollution affects every community in this Nation. 
Discharges from urban areas and sewer systems during wet weather occur 
in either one or a combination of forms, including combined sewer 
overflows and sanitary sewer overflows.
  These discharges constitute the most pervasive, most costly municipal 
challenge to achieving the goals of the Clean Water Act. In other 
words, without this legislation, this is not going to get done. The 
problems are extremely evasive, very broadly due to the intermittent 
and temporary nature of storm events that caused it.
  The bill that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) and I 
introduced strengthens the Clean Water Act to address the highest 
priority municipal water quality issues by including targeted reforms 
that redirect the Environmental Protection Agency's wet weather program 
in hopes of yielding greater success.
  I encourage all my colleagues to support this conference report. I 
again thank the chairman and thank the ranking member.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), a member of our 
committee.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I especially want to thank the chair of the 
full committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), for his 
leadership. And I wanted to reach across the aisle and thank the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and others who have worked so 
hard in making certain that today we saw this legislation before the 
Congress.
  I particularly, as an observer of this process, want to pay thanks to 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw). We have 435 Members, but to get 
something to final passage takes the perseverance and the dedication 
and commitment. I was in the legislature in Florida back some 20-some 
years ago, and they talked about saving the Everglades. I have been in 
the Congress for nearly 8 years, and they have talked about saving the 
Everglades. This today shows and demonstrates what the persistence of 
one individual can do and has done.
  So I salute the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) for his tremendous 
efforts. I think as we grow older we see how important it is that we 
preserve the natural treasures around us and certainly the Everglades 
is a national treasure. So today is an important day, an historic day. 
But one individual has helped make that possible. So I come to the 
floor to salute my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), 
again for making what others have talked about a reality.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of this 
WRDA conference report. This bill has two very important authorization 
projects for the residents of Marin and Sonoma counties in my district 
in California.
  Along with the committee's majority leadership, I would like to thank 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski) and the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and their staffs for all the work they have 
done, as well as my Bay Area colleague on the subcommittee, the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher) for her assistance. It has 
taken some hard work of each of them and for the Petaluma community, 
but I am delighted that this conference report is a home run for my 
city. On behalf of the city government and my neighbors in Petaluma, I 
greatly appreciate the effort of the committee to work through a 
complex situation.
  This new authorization for the Petaluma River Control Project will 
keep residents and businesses safe. It will also make affordable the 
protection that residents need without putting an unfair financial 
burden on the city.
  I realize this authorization is not, however, all about me and about 
my city. This authorization is about the blueprint for restoring the 
Florida Everglades. The people I represent are very supportive of this 
restoration of such an important ecosystem, and we are looking forward 
to it being restored to its natural glory.
  Mr. Speaker, it is going to be fun to work together and vote together 
on a bipartisan issue. I thank my colleagues for my gift, and I thank 
them for making this possible for our Nation.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) who has been tenacious in his 
efforts to protect the Great Lakes.
  (Mr. CAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished chairman of 
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for his leadership 
on this legislation. Without his efforts, this bipartisan bill would 
not be on the floor today.
  Water scarcity is becoming a worldwide problem. Over 166 million 
people in 18 countries are suffering from water shortages, and almost 
270 million in 11 additional countries are considered water stressed. 
Experts predict that by 2025, one-fourth of the world will suffer from 
lack of water. Given the pressures of dropping water tables, present-
day water usage cannot be sustained. Some are trying to change fresh 
water from a resource to a commodity.
  Given these statistics, it is not surprising that there are now 
proposals to withdraw bulk quantities of water in the Great Lakes 
Basin. After all, the Great Lakes comprise one-fifth of the Earth's 
fresh water resources and contain over six quadrillion gallons of 
water.
  This year, lake levels are at an all-time low, which is especially 
concerning after the wet summer we have had. The Detroit News reported 
that Lake Superior is seven inches below its long-term average, near 
lows not seen since 1920; Lake Michigan and Huron are six inches below 
average. Now is the time to work on this matter. Prudent management of 
our natural resources means looking ahead and planning for the future. 
We must be responsible stewards of our environment to ensure that our 
children are not denied the resources that we are able to enjoy today.
  For the past 15 years, the governors of the Great Lakes States, in 
consultation with the Canadian premiers, have effectively managed the 
Great Lakes Basin. Today we have the opportunity to protect regional 
control of the basin and ensure its long-term stability.
  I have worked very diligently with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Ehlers) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and Senator 
Abraham in the other body to include language in this conference report 
which ensures that control of Great Lakes water remains in the hands of 
the Great Lakes governors. The language in this bill is the culmination 
of a great deal of work to assure that these waters are effectively 
protected.
  I urge Members of the Great Lakes States and all Members of Congress 
to join me in supporting this legislation.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Wu).
  Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Chairman Shuster) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the 
ranking member, for their hard work on this bill.
  I would like to especially recognize the landmark legislation with 
respect to the Everglades on which my colleague from school and the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch) has been working on for a very 
long time. Hopefully, some day the Columbia River

[[Page H11826]]

Gorge in the Pacific Northwest would receive some similar treatment as 
the Everglades are receiving today because the Columbia Gorge combines 
natural beauty along with being a commercially crucial transportation 
corridor. The major cities and towns of the Northwest depend on the 
Columbia River and that gorge. And yet the gorge is also an ecological 
singularity. It is truly unique and deserves special consideration. But 
that is in the future.
  There are small parts of this bill which are absolutely vital to the 
Pacific Northwest. I cite, in particular, the work which is going to be 
done on the Astoria, Oregon East Mooring Basin. There is a causeway 
there which needs to be moved so that the breakwater which protects the 
east basin, the restoration work can continue. In this bill there is 
authorization to move that causeway so that the Corps of Engineers can 
continue to work on restoring the Mooring Basin's breakwater and that 
will preserve that Mooring Basin as an economic resource for the 
fishing families of the Pacific Northwest.
  I thank the committee for its work.

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller).
  (Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bipartisan 
legislation. I want to salute the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Shuster) and the members of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure and particularly the Speaker of the House for bringing 
this important legislation to the floor. I also want to take a moment 
and salute my colleague on the Committee on Ways and Means, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw). We know it was because of the 
gentleman from Florida's leadership that this legislation to restore 
the Everglades is on the House floor today. I want to salute the 
gentleman from Florida and thank him for his leadership.
  It is the little things that mean a lot for a lot of communities. I 
want to thank the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure under 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania as well as this House for their 
bipartisan support for three things that matter a lot to the folks back 
home in Illinois, three projects that mean a lot to the communities 
that I represent.
  I want to thank this House for their support in our efforts to 
restore the channel adjacent to Ballard's Island outside of Marseilles 
on the Illinois River. We, of course, recognize that in this 
legislation. You have also provided the opportunity for the Ottowa YMCA 
and its effort to serve thousands of Illinois Valley residents by 
allowing it to have an easement on property currently owned by the Army 
Corps of Engineers.
  Last, I want to thank this body for transferring property currently 
owned by the Army Corps of Engineers to the Joliet Park District for a 
new headquarters. I urge bipartisan support for this legislation.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the 
commitment that this bill represents today to a partnership that 
started many, many years ago in the State of Florida, the commitment to 
begin to return the Everglades to its natural splendor. Amid all the 
rancor and strife that has overwhelmed this House the last few days, I 
think it is important to stop and appreciate how we got to where we are 
in the Everglades. This is the product of years of cooperation between 
not just Republicans and Democrats but Floridians. Our Senator Bob 
Graham, then Governor, started this effort. He and Connie Mack have 
represented a wonderful bipartisan commitment to get this done. And now 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Deutsch) in the House together with our delegation as Floridians 
have worked together to produce this product. This is an excellent 
example of the partnership, and it is an excellent example of what 
happens when we come together as Floridians and now as Americans to 
protect a national treasure and begin a very difficult and long-term 
commitment towards restoring the splendor of the Everglades.
  This is an important issue not just as far as preserving a natural 
resource, it is also a very important issue to Florida as far as water 
quality. The southern part of our State heavily depends upon the 
Everglades as an important source of drinking water and public health, 
and the country has come together to help us preserve that. We are very 
grateful.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch) and note that he is the 
Congressman who represents the National Park of the Everglades and has 
been a tenacious fighter for the Everglades in his 8 years here.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, today we are witnessing Congress at its 
best. In fact, we are really witnessing government at its best and I 
think in many ways even America at its best. There has been a lot of 
praise that has been given on this House floor, and I want to add to 
that. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), I think, has 
worked harder in his committee in terms of really trying to improve the 
lives of Americans in terms of infrastructure which is really what 
creates jobs and hopefully is what we do as Members of Congress. I 
really praise him for his work. I particularly also praise him for his 
insistence in terms of the other projects that he has been fighting for 
and not just in terms of the Everglades but in terms of other projects 
that are needed.
  But in particular in terms of the Everglades, what I think the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania stated previously and understands is that 
as important as this authorization is, and this truly is historic 
legislation, there is more that needs to be done. The Keys wastewater 
treatment bill which is part of the package that the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania mentioned previously is part of the restoration efforts 
that we need to continue not just in the Everglades but in Florida Bay 
and throughout the area. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) as 
well has been a leader in terms of infrastructure on this bill and the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski) as the ranking member, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) as the chairman have also been 
incredibly helpful. Praise has also I think been given and well 
deserved to the chairman of our delegation, the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Shaw). The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) really has taken an 
incredible leadership role on this issue. It is the base of the 
legislation, his bill. He has worked well with all of us and has been a 
leader through many troubled times in terms of this bill's trouble but 
finally literally as we pass it in hopefully a few minutes, maybe even 
unanimously, it will happen.
  Let me also mention, and again it has been mentioned on this floor, 
the administration. President Clinton and Vice President Gore have made 
Everglades restoration their number one environmental infrastructure 
proposal. I cannot imagine how we would be here today without that 
commitment from the President and the Vice President. In the last 8 
years, in the 8 years I have been in Congress, we have actually 
appropriated over $1.2 billion during that period of time. The chairman 
of the Committee on Appropriations, obviously we could not have done 
that without his help, but this entire Congress deserves praise in 
terms of our efforts.
  It has also been mentioned again just the bipartisan nature of this, 
and I think praise also goes to the last five Governors of the State of 
Florida, Governor Graham, Governor Martinez, Governor Chiles, Governor 
McKay and Governor Bush, all of whom have been instrumental in terms of 
Everglades restoration. This is the largest environmental restoration 
project in the history of the world, $7.8 billion. It authorizes 
immediately $1.2 billion; it authorizes immediately 10 specific 
projects, including the C-14 basin storage reserve, reservoirs and 
Everglades agricultural area, four pilot projects as well. It is done 
in a design build concept which is really the state of the art in terms 
of these types of infrastructure projects. Congress will continue to be 
engaged throughout this entire

[[Page H11827]]

process, which literally is a 36- to 38-year process.
  This bill is really about the future. I doubt, although it is 
possible that some Members of this Chamber will still be serving in 
Congress 38 years from now. Hopefully each of us will still be alive 38 
years from now and we will be able to see the fruits of our labor in 
terms of an ecosystem that has been restored. There is only one 
Everglades on the planet Earth. This is it. This is the Everglades. 
Everglades is an Indian word for river of grass. It is a 100-mile wide 
river, only about a foot deep, and flows into Florida Bay. That is why 
I was really saying America at its best, because we are really 
restoring an ecosystem. That is exactly what we are doing. We have made 
the turn already over the last 8 years; but now this plan in place, a 
really well thought out government at its best, policymaking at its 
best, has set a road map for us to actually come to that complete 
restoration which hopefully will occur over that period of time.
  Many people have mentioned some personal things in terms of the 
Everglades. I live close to the Everglades, at my back door. As has 
been mentioned, all of Everglades National Park is in my district. I 
represent probably a majority of the Everglades as well. But I have 
spent time in the Everglades. I have taken my children to the 
Everglades. I have camped in the Everglades. I wish that each of my 
colleagues would have that experience as well. Because this is 
legislation that is not really for us, it is for our children and for 
our grandchildren as well. I urge its passage.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  It is fitting that the last major vote that occurs in this Congress 
prior to the election will be this vote which comes from the Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure. Indeed our committee, this means 
that this will be the 42nd law which has been generated from our 
committee and sent to the President for his signature, and I am told 
that the President will sign it.
  This committee, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
has been the most productive committee of the Congress and the most 
bipartisan. I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for doing 
that.
  When this bill passes today, it will be sent over to the enrolling 
clerk, it will take several days for the final document to be enrolled, 
and then will be sent to the President for his signature. Certainly 
many people deserve credit; but I emphasize that, as the chairman of 
the conference, I can tell you with absolute certainty we would not be 
here today doing this if it were not for the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Shaw), who has been the driving force behind this historic 
legislation, the largest environmental restoration legislation in the 
history of the world.
  Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) so he may close this historic debate.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAW. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I simply want to congratulate the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Boehlert), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), and the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) for this outstanding piece of 
legislation. It helps Illinois and Chicago tremendously. I want to 
salute the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) for the fantastic 
leadership that he has displayed with this committee over the course of 
the past 6 years. No matter what happens on November 7, I sincerely 
look forward to working with him as closely as I have in the past 6 
years, in fact, in the past 18 years that I have been on this 
committee. I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) for yielding 
to me.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I come to the Democrat side of the aisle this 
morning to close this argument, not to get in anybody's face but to 
demonstrate the solidarity of this great body and what we are 
experiencing today. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch); all of 
the Florida delegation; the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis); of 
course the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the chairman of 
the committee; the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski); the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert); the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Oberstar); of course the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), who 
has been absolutely there for us the entire way. There are just so 
many. The entire Florida delegation, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Goss), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller), there are just so many 
that have worked so hard to see that we got here this day. But we also 
have our heroes in Florida, many of them not with us.
  I want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Deutsch) in ticking off the Members, former Members of 
this body as well as the former Governors who have worked so hard, 
Senator Graham as Governor and as a Senator, Senator Connie Mack, 
former Senator and Governor Chiles, who really had a sensitivity toward 
the Everglades and to saving the Everglades, and, of course, Governor 
Jeb Bush who has been absolutely tireless in his efforts to pull 
together this legislation and communicating with the Speaker and the 
majority leader and other people to see that we got where we are today.
  I have been confident the whole time that I have been working on this 
bill that we would be able to get to this day, and I have had that 
confidence because I have seen the bipartisan support that we have been 
able to generate; and the locomotive on this entire bill, of course, is 
the largest restoration, environmental restoration project in the 
history of the world. It started with the destruction of the 
Everglades. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) spoke of it earlier 
this morning during the debate on the rule, where Governor Broward, for 
whom my home county is named, ran on the platform that he was going to 
drain that swamp, the Everglades. We almost got there. Thank God we 
stopped it. We have had great cooperation from the Army Corps of 
Engineers through this whole project. Mr. Westfahl has been absolutely 
tireless in working with us. Secretary of Interior Mr. Babbitt has been 
tremendously helpful and sensitive to the needs of Florida and to the 
needs of the Everglades. This destruction is not just down in the 
Everglades itself. It starts out up just south of Orlando, and it 
stretches down all the way through Florida Bay and off the Keys, the 
Florida Keys. The water has been rerouted in so many ways that the 
sheath flow has been almost completely destroyed. The salinity of 
Florida Bay goes up and down so that the natural grasses that are on 
the floor of the Florida Bay are in deep trouble. This makes all of the 
fish life, the shellfish and other fisheries that are in that area, 
puts them in grave danger and that could affect the whole fishing 
industry for the entire State of Florida. It is fitting and proper that 
the Federal Government at least pay half of the cost of the restoration 
of this great natural resource. But I think one of the great miracles 
of pulling this thing together is that all of the interests came 
together. The agricultural interest which was at complete odds with the 
environmental interest of the Everglades have come together with the 
environmentalists, the developers have come together as the 
municipalities. The Indian tribes that are there have signed on. It was 
just a tremendous job that has been done in bringing these people 
together.
  This is a historic day. November 3 is the day that we took the first 
step in really restoring this great national treasure.
  Mr. Speaker, this is really a great day for this country; it is a 
great day for Florida. I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support for the Water 
Resource Development Act Conference Report. The conference report 
authorizes various types of water resource development projects, 
including the Florida Everglades restoration project.
  I am particularly pleased that the bill includes a project to create 
a riparian and pedestrian corridor from Lake Merritt to the Oakland 
Estuary. Lake Merritt is home to the nation's oldest nationally 
registered wildlife refuge and is the jewel of Oakland. This project 
will allow for natural tidal flows into the lake and channel area that 
will significantly improve water quality, support wetlands habitat and

[[Page H11828]]

provide for more environmentally sensitive flood control in the Lake 
Merritt watershed. The proposed project is intended to result in a 
restoration of the area into a new urban greenbelt corridor, comparable 
to such places as San Antonio's Riverwalk.
  I want to thank my colleague, Representative Ellen Tauscher, her 
staff and the committee for their help in securing this project. I am 
confident that this important project will restore wildlife habitat, 
allow for natural tidal flows, but will also provide for a new 
significant recreational attraction and create jobs in small businesses 
surrounding the lake area.
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that we are adopting 
today the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (WRDA). This 
important bill includes authorization of 50-foot deepening projects for 
all of the major channels in the Port of New York and New Jersey (the 
``Port'')--including the Arthur Kill Channel. These deepening projects 
are critical to the port's ability to handle the larger ships that are 
now calling on ports throughout the world. This deepening will enable 
the Port to remain competitive with other ports already equipped with 
deeper drafts and help to maintain and enhance our region as a hub for 
international trade.
  The Port is the largest container port on the east coast, moving more 
than 2.3 million TEU's of containers annually and directly serving over 
35 percent of the U.S. population. As a result of its strategic 
location in the middle of one of the nation's largest and most affluent 
consumer markets, the Port provides same day delivery of goods to more 
than 18 million people. Over the next 10 years, cargo volumes in the 
Port are expected to double and over the next 40 years, quadruple. The 
new generation of cargo ships will require greater depths to 
accommodate their enormous size and container capacity. Some portions 
of the Port are currently too shallow to accommodate most modern 
container and military ships. Given the increased competition from 
other ports, especially Halifax which has depths of 60 to 70 feet, this 
comprehensive deepening of the Port is imperative.
  This project has enjoyed the support of the New York and New Jersey 
delegations as well as the Governors of both states. I'd like to thank 
Chairman Shuster, Subcommittee Chairman Boehlert and Ranking Member 
Oberstar for all of their hard work on this crucial bill. I commend all 
of my colleagues for coming together to pass this bill important not 
only to Staten Island and Brooklyn, but to our Nation as a whole.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise 
and extend my remarks. I rise today in support of the Water Resources 
Development Act Conference Report, in particular, the section on the 
restoration of the Everglades. We are on the verge of passing historic 
legislation to restore America's Everglades.
  Mr. Speaker, the Everglades are dying. All of us know that we must 
act now or we lose what is left of the Everglades within a few years. 
No one disputes that the Federal Government is largely responsible for 
the damage that was done to the Everglades. Fifty years ago, the 
Federal Government established the Everglades National Park but 
simultaneously, a series of canals, levees and other flood control 
structures constructed by the Southern and Central Florida Project 
disrupted the life-blood of the Everglades--the flow of clean fresh 
water.
  As a result of these 50 years of neglect and abuse, the State of 
Florida has lost 46 percent of its wetlands and 50 percent of its 
historic Everglades ecosystem. Sixty-eight plant and animal species 
have become threatened or endangered with extinction while urban and 
agricultural runoff have produced extensive water quality degradation 
throughout the region.
  The Federal Government has a clear interest in restoring this 
ecosystem since a large portion of the lands owned or managed by the 
Federal Government will receive the benefits of the restoration--4 
national parks and 16 national wildlife refuges which make up half of 
the remaining Everglades. The need for action is clear. That is why I 
am so pleased that we are coming together to solve this problem. The 
legislation before us today represents an unprecedented compromise 
supported by the administration, the State of Florida, environmental 
groups, farmers, home builders, water utilities, Indian tribes and 
industry. These diverse groups represent every major constituency 
involved in the Everglades restoration. And they are all on board. Not 
because they all got what they wanted, but because they all understood 
the urgency of passing this legislation to save America's Everglades.
  Mr. Speaker, America desperately needs this bill. I urge all my 
colleagues to join me to preserve America's Everglades and to ensure 
that one of the world's most endangered ecosystems is not lost.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that the Senate has recognized 
the need to protect the Great Lakes water from diversion and export. 
Yesterday, the other body passed legislation that focuses on protecting 
this precious resource from foreign companies and countries who target 
the Great Lakes for their fresh, drinking water.
  The Great Lakes is the largest body of fresh water, containing more 
than 20 percent of the planet's fresh water, and is the primary source 
of drinking water for millions of people. These lakes, however, are 
being targeted outside the continent because the global water demand is 
doubling every 21 years. The World Bank predicts that by the year 2025, 
more than 3 billion people in 52 countries will suffer water shortages 
for drinking or sanitation.
  Unfortunately, this legislation does not go far enough to ensure a 
federal role in protecting the Great Lakes from such threats. The 
language passed by the Senate is nonbinding and thus does not ensure a 
role for the Secretary of State or any other federal official or agency 
in devising and approving water conservation standards for the region.
  Despite opposing arguments, water diversion from the Great Lakes must 
involve the federal government. Notably, only the federal government 
may enter into treaties with the Canadian government. Only the federal 
government may devise a uniform national policy on diversions. And, 
only the federal government may set and enforce policies on 
international waters that apply to four of the five Great Lakes. The 
federal government's role in this issue is clearly delineated and it 
must maintain a strong involvement to prevent future diversions.
  This entire issue was spurred in 1998 when a Canadian company planned 
to ship 3 billion liters of water from Lake Superior over 5 years and 
sell it to Asia. That same year I authored legislation, that the House 
of Representatives passed, urging the United States government to 
oppose this action. While the permit was subsequently withdrawn, the 
House passage of my resolution could not stop future requests. In fact, 
the United States cannot stop diversions and withdrawals in Great Lakes 
water that is under the control of Canada.
  Obviously, the federal governments of Canada and the United States 
must be involved to ensure that diversions from the Great Lakes do not 
occur. The legislation that passed the Senate yesterday fails to 
include such a protection. It encourages the Provinces of Ontario and 
Quebec to be included in developing conservation standards. But even if 
they are present during such discussions, their contribution is made 
only to existing United States federal law, not to that of Canadian 
federal law. Without similar restrictions in Canadian federal law, we 
may be confronting another company's request to remove Great Lakes 
water in the next few years. We cannot risk this real threat.
  I thank the Senate for its consideration of this serious issue and 
hope that the next Congress may better protect the Great Lakes and the 
35 million people who live within its basin.
  Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Water 
Resource Development Act, which includes a provision to help restore 
Lake Mead and the Las Vegas Wash and Wetlands in southern Nevada.
  The Las Vegas Wash and Wetlands is the only major drainage channel 
for the entire 1,600-square-mile Las Vegas Valley. On average, 153 
million gallons of water, including harmful pollutants, flow each day 
through the Las Vegas Wash, then through the Las Vegas Wetlands 
eventually draining into Lake Mead, which is Las Vegas Valley's primary 
source of drinking water. Fortunately, the Las Vegas Wetlands filter 
out harmful pollutants before they enter into Lake Mead.
  In 1972, the Las Vegas Valley had 135,552 people and 2,000 acres of 
wetlands. Today, the Valley has over 1.2 million people and only 200 
acres of wetlands left. The Valley's tremendous growth has severely 
eroded the Las Vegas Wash and Wetlands. If left alone the wetlands will 
disappear, and Lake Mead will become badly polluted resulting in an 
environment disaster threatening local fish and wildlife species and 
the health of area residents.
  The future of Lake Mead and the Las Vegas Wash is the future of our 
community, so this is hugely important to southern Nevada.
  I've grown up with Lake Mead and the Wash and I've seen over the 
years how they've become more and more polluted. Not only do we rely on 
Lake Mead and the Wash for clean drinking water, but they provide one 
of our greatest recreational and scenic areas. If we want our children 
to continue to have access to this tremendous asset, we have to come 
together now to save the Lake and restore the fragile Wash.
  This important legislation authorizes $10 million in funding for the 
implementation of a water resources plan adopted by the Las Vegas Wash 
Coordinating Committee. The plan directs federal, state, and local 
officials to work together to restore the wetlands at the Las Vegas 
Wash and to improve water quality at the Lake.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation is crucial to the continued growth and 
environmental

[[Page H11829]]

sustainment of southern Nevada. I praise the bipartisan efforts that 
created this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to lend my strong support to S. 
2796, the Water Resources Development Act of 2000. I also would like to 
thank Chairman Shuster and ranking member Oberstar as well as the 
Chairman of the Water Resources and the Environment Committee, Mr. 
Boehlert, and the subcommittee's ranking member, Mr. Borski, for their 
willingness to work with me on a title of this bill of great importance 
to my state of South Dakota and to the future of the Missouri River.
  Title IX of the bill creates the Missouri River Restoration Program. 
The program takes a very thoughtful and practical approach to the 
vexing and growing problem of sediment accumulation in the Missouri 
River in South Dakota.
  As my colleagues may be aware, the Flood Control Act of 1944 
authorized the construction of six dams on the Missouri in Montana, 
North Dakota, and South Dakota. These dams, a part of the Pick-Sloan 
program, have brought a number of benefits to the people in my state 
and to the states upstream and downstream from South Dakota.
  However, the creations of these dams and vast reservoirs also 
dramatically changed the course of the river, and consequently, how the 
river interacts with the land and all things living along the river. 
One of the negative impacts has been the deposition of millions of tons 
of silt into the reservoirs. Prior to the construction of the dams, the 
sediment would have flowed down the river, eventually settling as the 
water approached the Gulf of Mexico. That is no longer the case; 
instead, the sediment is dropping out of suspension and accumulating in 
new areas.
  That accumulation now is causing flooding in residential and 
commercial areas in places like Pierre and Fort Pierre, South Dakota. 
And the new shape of the river has caused increased erosion throughout 
the river system in South Dakota.
  Places like Springfield and Yankton, located on or near Lewis and 
Clark Lake, have benefited greatly the recreational opportunities of 
the river since the construction of Gavins Point Dam. But the problem I 
described above threatens those benefits. And those threats have been 
well documented in a number of studies by independent groups and the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The latest study was authorized in WRDA 
in 1999 at my request. Those studies have been instrumental in the 
development of this legislation.
  Title IX will give power and resources the state, tribal, and local 
governments need to work with the Corps and other federal agencies to 
tackle these problems head-on. The restoration program creates a 
governing board made up of local interests as well as state and federal 
officials to develop a plan to reduce sedimentation at the source, 
develop ways to reduce the sediment, and preserve the health and 
viability of the river. The program is authorized at $10 million per 
year for each of the next 5 years. Even though some of the identified 
solutions exceed this authorization level by almost twofold, the $50 
million total will allow for significant and important work to move 
forward.

  I am confident that positive results will become obvious once this 
group goes to work. And as those results reveal themselves, I am 
hopeful that this body will be willing to consider changes in the 
legislation to ensure maximum local control and adequate resources.
  I have introduced H.R. 5527, the Missouri River Restoration Act of 
2000. That bill has served as a model for title IX of this bill and 
will continue to serve as a framework for future amendments to title IX 
if necessary.
  Again, I want to thank Chairman Shuster and Chairman Boehlert for 
their support of my request on this issue and a number of other issues 
throughout my service in the House.
  I look forward to WRDA 2000 being signed into law and for 
improvements to begin on the Missouri River in South Dakota, ensuring 
this great treasure is available for generations to come.
  Mr. PICKETT. Mr. Speaker, the conference report on Water Resources 
Development Act of 2000 has my full support. I commend Chairman Shuster 
and Mr. Oberstar for their considerable efforts to bring this 
legislation before the House of Representatives for final 
consideration.
  Section 338 of the conference agreement concerns a project at 
Sandbridge Beach in the city of Virginia Beach, Virginia. I am 
particularly grateful to Chairman Shuster for his personal commitment 
to favorably resolving this issue. The project was authorized for 
construction by Section 101(22) of WRDA 1992. Due to severe conditions 
at Sandbridge in 1998, the City of Virginia Beach entered into a 
Project Cooperation Agreement with the Corps of Engineers to complete 
construction of the hurricane and storm protection project. The City 
expended $7.8 million to complete construction that was executed by the 
Corps of Engineers. Section 338 will assist the City of Virginia Beach 
in maintaining this hurricane and storm protection project. Project 
maintenance is critical to the future protection of public and private 
property in the area. I thank the Chairman for the considerable time, 
patience and effort he expended on this issue. I urge my colleagues to 
support this conference report.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today in strong support 
of the S. 2796, the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) conference 
report. This Member commends the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Shuster), Chairman of the Transportation Committee, the distinguished 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), Ranking Member on the 
Transportation Committee, the distinguished gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Boehlert), Chairman of the Water Resources and Environment 
Subcommittee, and the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Borski), the Ranking Member on the Subcommittee for all their hard work 
in bringing this important conference report to the Floor. This Member 
is especially appreciative that he has had the opportunity in the 106th 
Congress to serve on the Transportation Committee and the Water 
Resources and Environment Subcommittee. Clearly, it has been a 
highlight of the 106th Congress for this Member.
  This important legislation presents a tremendous opportunity to 
improve flood control, navigation, shore protection and environmental 
protection. This Member is pleased that the conference report we are 
considering today includes contingent approval for the sand Creek 
watershed project in Saunders County, Nebraska. This proposed project, 
which is a result of the Lower Platte River and Tributaries Flood 
Control Study, is designed to meet Federal environmental restoration 
goals, help provide state recreation needs, solve local flooding 
problems and preserve water quality. It is sponsored jointly by the 
Lower Platte North NRD, the City of Wahoo and Saunders County.
  The plans for the project include a nearly 640-acre reservoir, known 
as Lake Wanahoo, wetlands restoration and seven upstream sediment 
nutrient traps. The Sand Creek watershed project would result in 
important environmental and recreational benefits for the area and has 
attracted widespread support. It is especially crucial that the Sand 
Creek project is included in WRDA this year as the Nebraska Department 
of Roads is ready to begin design of an expressway in that area that 
will be routed across the top of a dam if the project is approved. If 
the Sand Creek project is not included in WRDA, a new bridge will have 
to be planned and built, which probably would make the project not 
economically feasible.
  This Member is also very pleased that contingent authorization of the 
Antelope Creek flood control project is included in WRDA 2000. Antelope 
Creek runs through the heart of Nebraska's capital city of Lincoln. The 
purpose of the project is to solve multi-faceted problems involving the 
flood control and drainage problems in Antelope Creek as well as 
existing transportation and safety problems all within the context of 
broad land use issues. This Member continues to have a strong interest 
in this project since he was responsible for stimulating the City of 
Lincoln, the Lower Platte South Natural Resources District, and the 
University of Nebraska-Lincoln to work jointly and cooperatively with 
the Army Corps of Engineers to identify an effective flood control 
system for Antelope Creek in the downtown area of Lincoln.

  Antelope Creek, which was originally a small meandering stream, 
became a straightened urban drainage channel as Lincoln grew and 
urbanized. Resulting erosion has deepened and widened the channel and 
created an unstable situation. A ten-foot by twenty-foot (height and 
width) closed underground conduit that was constructed between 1911 and 
1916 now requires significant maintenance and major rehabilitation. A 
dangerous flood threat to adjacent public and private facilities 
exists.
  The goals of the project are to construct a flood overflow conveyance 
channel which would narrow the flood plain from up to seven blocks wide 
to the 150-foot wide channel. The project will include trails and 
bridges and improve bikeway and pedestrian systems.
  Another Nebraska project was included on the contingent authorization 
list for Western Sarpy and Clear Creek for flood damage reduction. 
Frankly, this Member must say he has reservations about the Clear Creek 
project in light of comments from his constituents in adjacent Saunders 
County.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, this Member urges his colleagues to support 
this important conference report. In the short time left in the 106th 
Congress, we must work to ensure WRDA becomes law this year.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, when we considered this bill last 
month I had some serious reservations about it, especially those parts 
dealing with oceanfront development, dredging, and other projects to be 
carried out by the Corps of Engineers.

[[Page H11830]]

  I thought the House should have had the chance to consider amendments 
that would have improved the bill and regretted that it was considered 
under procedures that did not permit that.
  However, I voted for the bill because I strongly support authorizing 
the important program of environmental restoration for the Everglades.
  The bill then went to conference with the Senate, and today we are 
considering a revised version that was produced in that conference.
  Compared with the original bill, the conference report is much 
improved and deserves to be passed and sent to the President for 
signing into law.
  As has been noted already, the conference report not only authorizes 
restoration work for the Everglades, it also includes important 
provisions to improve the way the Corps of Engineers carries out its 
work. I do not think they fully address all the changes that need to be 
made, but they are an improvement and deserve support.
  So I will vote for the conference report, and urge its approval by 
the House.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in full support of the WRDA 
Conference Report. Let me begin by commending the Chairman of the full 
committee Chairman Shuster and ranking member Oberstar. Subcommittee 
Chairman Boehlert and ranking member Mr. Borski also deserve special 
commendation. This important piece of legislation is necessary to 
improve our ports, waterways and environment. I am especially pleased 
that the restoration of the Everglades is included in this WRDA 
package. Though this precious natural resource is located in my home 
state of Florida, let there be no mistake this is America's Everglades 
and the bipartisan nature of the restoration effort reflects this.
  In addition, it is widely known that I have serious concerns 
regarding the participation and inclusion of socially and economically 
disadvantaged businesses in the Everglades Restoration Plan, the 
largest environmental restoration project in the history of this 
nation. The Ranking Member, Mr. Oberstar and the administration has 
been extremely sensitive to this concern and I appreciate his efforts 
to address the issue. I have received numerous correspondences from 
residents of my district and across my state, urging that we pass this 
measure before we adjourn. I urge strong support for this Conference 
Report and again thank the Chairman and Ranking member for their usual 
fine work.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Conference 
Report on S. 2790, the Water Resources Development Act of 2000, the 
biennial authorization bill for programs and projects of the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers.
  Since the landmark water resources legislation of 1986, the former 
Public Works and Transportation Committee, now renamed the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, has worked to maintain a 
consistent two-year authorization schedule for the Corps. It is 
critical to maintain this two-year cycle to provide continuity to the 
program and certainly to the non-federal, local sponsors who support 
Corps projects. This biennial cycle also affords Congress the 
opportunity to monitor and, if necessary, amend the workings of the 
Corps program.
  This Conference Report authorizes projects for the entirety of the 
Corps civil works program. It includes navigation, flood control, 
shoreline protection, and environmental restoration and protection.
  This bill both builds and rebuilds the Nation's infrastructure. It 
will allow us to expand international trade through projects to improve 
our coastal ports and inland navigation system. Through flood control 
and hurricane and storm damage reduction measures, it will help to meet 
critical needs to protect lives and property.
  It is no secret that one of the issues that delayed House 
consideration of this bill until last month was the applicability of 
the Davis-Bacon Act to non-federal contributions to federal projects of 
the Corps. I have always believed that Davis-Bacon applies to all 
aspects of a federal public works project, regardless of whether the 
Corps is performing the work, or a non-federal sponsor is contributing 
the work. The key element is that these have always been federal public 
works projects, and Davis-Bacon should apply.
  I was surprised that the Corps was not consistently applying the 
Davis-Bacon wage protection provisions to the non-federal contribution 
for Corps projects. I was prepared to offer legislative language to the 
bill to rectify this situation--ensuring that the Corps would apply 
Davis-Bacon Act protections to all aspects of its program.
  I am pleased to say that such legislative action is no longer 
necessary. Following numerous meetings with the Corps, the Department 
of the Army, and the Department of Labor, there is agreement within the 
Administration that my view of the applicability of the Davis-Bacon Act 
is the correct one. The Davis-Bacon Act wage provisions apply to non-
federal contributions to federal Corps of Engineers projects. It 
applies regardless of whether the non-federal contribution is in cash, 
or in-kind work for which credit or reimbursement is sought.
  I appreciate the Administration working with me to make sure that the 
protections of the Davis-Bacon statute are provided to all workers on 
all federal public works.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill contains an important tribute to our late 
colleague, and my friend, Bruce Vento. This bill will rename a portion 
of the Boundary Water Canoe Area Wilderness in my district as the Bruce 
Vento Unit of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.
  Bruce served people of his district nobly, with dignity, with 
passion, and with purpose. He did the same for the Nation, particularly 
in preserving and enhancing its parks and wilderness areas. Bruce has 
been credited with championing hundreds of bills into law that protect 
and preserve our precious natural resources. I believe that it is most 
appropriate that one of those precious resources in our home state of 
Minnesota bears his name in perpetuity, and I am proud that this 
tribute will be in my Congressional district.
  Mr. Speaker, local newspapers have devoted a lot of time and effort 
over the past nine months to criticizing the Corps. But, the Corps is a 
proud institution with a long history. It deserves our praise and 
respect. Let me share some of its history with my colleagues.
  First, I welcome the opportunity to pay tribute to the organization 
frequently mentioned in debate here but whose accomplishments are 
almost never discussed, the Corps of Engineers. The Corps celebrates 
its 225th birthday this year. During those years it has established 
itself as the Nation's oldest, largest, and most experienced government 
organization in the area of water and related land engineering matters. 
It has provided extraordinary, competent, lifesaving, economic 
development enhancing service to this country for two and a quarter 
centuries.
  Few people today know that the Corps of Engineers, among its many 
responsibilities, once had jurisdiction over Yellowstone National Park. 
The Corps managed Yellowstone Park for 30 years. Lieutenant Dan Kingman 
of the Corps, who would later become the Chief Engineers, wrote:
  ``The plan of development which I have submitted is given upon the 
supposition and in the earnest hope that it will be preserved as nearly 
as may be as the hand of nature left it, a source of pleasure to all 
who visit and a source of wealth to no one.''
  A few years later, John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club, said:
  ``The best service in forest protection, almost the only efficient 
service, is that rendered by the military. For many years, they have 
guarded the great Yellowstone Park, and now they are guarding Yosemite. 
They found it a desert as far as underbrush, grass and flowers are 
concerned. But, in two years, the skin of the mountains is healthy 
again, blessings on Uncle Sam's soldiers, as they have done the job 
well, and every pine tree is waving its arms for joy.''
  Another great American said: ``The military engineers are taking upon 
their shoulders the job of making the Mississippi River over again, a 
job transcended in size only by the original job of creating it.'' That 
was Mark Twain.
  Those statements together pay tribute to what the Corps of Engineers 
has done so admirably, and the great legacy they have left for all 
Americans protected in floods, enhanced with river navigation programs, 
and, of immense importance to me, by protecting the great resource of 
the Great Lakes--one-fifth of all the fresh water on the face of the 
Earth.
  The Corps of Engineers deserves recognition for all of these works 
and the great contribution it makes to the economic well-being, and to 
the environmental enhancement of this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I find it ironic that even while some criticize the 
Corps, the central piece of this legislation is a project to invest 
nearly $8 billion in federal, state, and local funds for the greatest 
environmental restoration project ever conceived. A project that has 
the support of the Administration, Members of Congress from both sides 
of the aisle, the environmental community, Florida, affected Indian 
Tribes, local governments, and the business community of South Florida. 
This critical project has not been entrusted to an agency incapable of 
carrying out its mission. No, the project has been entrusted to the 
only agency capable of carrying out the mission.
  The Everglades are dying from years of population growth, and a Corps 
project that works all too well in draining them. While some criticize 
the existing Corps project for having harmed the Everglades, it should 
be recalled that the current system of canals, levees, and pumps that 
redirect water from the Everglades to the ocean was built with the 
support and encouragement of Florida and local residents.

[[Page H11831]]

  The project has provided the desired flood and hurricane protection, 
as well as water supply for South Florida. Unfortunately, when the 
project was constructed, no one envisioned the dire consequences for 
the Everglades ecosystem.
  The restoration project initiated in this bill will help restore the 
Everglades by changing the plumbing of South Florida to more closely 
resemble historical patterns and amounts. Today, the Everglades receive 
the wrong amount of water at the wrong times of the year. The 
Everglades restoration project, when fully implemented, will provide a 
more natural flow through the Everglades, and the Everglades National 
Park. It will do so without diminishing flood and hurricane protection 
for South Florida.
  Mr. Speaker, scores of individuals worked for many years to develop 
the comprehensive plan to restore the Everglades. For many, their 
efforts have been acknowledged here and in the Senate. However, I will 
compliment one individual who has worked tirelessly toward the 
Everglades restoration project, and whose name has not been mentioned 
on this Floor.
  Mr. Gary Hardesty of the Corps of Engineers headquarters office has 
given of himself above and beyond the call of duty to make the 
Everglades restoration happen. He coordinated the Comprehensive 
Everglades Restoration Plan, was responsible for drafting the Report of 
the Chief of Engineers, wrote Congressional testimony for numerous 
hearings, and provided detailed and accurate information to the House 
and Senate in the drafting of the bill. As Members of Congress know 
well, there are less visible individuals who make the work we do 
possible. For the Everglades, Mr. Hardesty is one of the individuals 
that made the Everglades restoration possible. He deserves the Nation's 
recognition and gratitude.
  The Conference Report is not just the Everglades and other projects. 
It also includes a number of provisions to improve the operation of the 
Corps program. But, I am disappointed that more of the program 
improvements contained in the House amendment were not acceptable to 
the Senate. In particular, it is unfortunate that the Conference Report 
does not include House language to ensure that Corps' projects will 
successfully mitigate any adverse environmental impacts associated with 
its projects. I intend to revisit this issue next Congress.
  The Conference Report expands the ability of non-governmental 
entities to participate as non-federal sponsors of projects. This is 
particularly important for environmental restoration and improvement 
projects where local organizations are anxious to work with the Corps 
to improve the environment.
  Mr. Speaker, this water resources bill is worthy of strong bipartisan 
support. It is consistent wiht other Water Resources Acts that Congress 
has approved overwhelmingly over the past 15 years. We should give this 
Conference Report that same overwhelming support today.
  I urge all Members to support the Conference Report on S. 2796, the 
Water Resources Development Act of 2000.
  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Shuster, Mr. 
Oberstar, and my Subcommittee Chairman Mr. Boehlert, and Ranking member 
Mr. Borski for their support and dedication in moving this important 
legislation forward. Additionally, I would like to express my gratitude 
for their tireless efforts to move my bipartisan legislation, H.R. 828. 
While it is not part of this package, I am pleased that an agreement 
was reached that will result in the eventual passage of this important 
legislation.
  I would also like to express appreciation to all those Members who 
played a key role including Congressman LaTourette who is a leader on 
this issue as well.
  I am pleased that we will pass WRDA today, legislation that will have 
a positive impact on communities across the country and I look forward 
to continuing our work to provide clean water for the citizens of this 
great nation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Without objection, the previous 
question is ordered on the conference report.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 312, 
nays 2, not voting 119, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 594]

                               YEAS--312

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Coburn
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--2

     Chenoweth-Hage
     Sanford
       

                            NOT VOTING--119

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Archer
     Baird
     Ballenger
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Capps
     Carson
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Collins
     Conyers
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hill (MT)
     Hutchinson
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jones (OH)
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Klink
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Lee
     Lofgren
     Maloney (NY)
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McIntosh
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Oberstar
     Ose
     Owens
     Paul
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Reyes
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Rush
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Schaffer
     Serrano
     Shays
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wise

[[Page H11832]]



                              {time}  1127

  Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. DUNCAN changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 594, I was in my 
Congressional District on official business. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yea.''
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 594 on November 3, 
2000, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have 
voted ``yea.''

                          ____________________