[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 118 (Wednesday, September 18, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8755-S8760]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. BAYH (for himself and Mr. Lugar)
S. 2952. A bill to amend the National Trails System Act to extend the
Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, next year America will celebrate the
bicentennial of the cross-country expedition of Meriwether Lewis and
William Clark. With what became known as the Corps of Discovery, Lewis
and Clark embarked on an epic journey to chart an overland route to the
Pacific Ocean, developing a record of its native people and resources.
They catalogued varieties of never before seen plant and animal life.
In fact, their expedition is seen as a critical precursor to America's
great movement to the West.
Less known, but of no less significance to the expedition, are the
historic events that occurred at the outset of the journey. I rise
today, with my colleague from Indiana, Senator Lugar, to introduce
legislation that recognizes the importance of these events by adding
the Falls of the Ohio, in Clarksville, IN and Louisville, KY, to the
sites honored and preserved by inclusion on the Lewis and Clark
National Historic Trail.
Many historians have detailed the fact that it was the Falls of the
Ohio, in Clarksville, IN, that Meriwether Lewis and William Clark met
and formed their famous partnership. It was there that they spent 12
days recruiting and enlisting members for their Western expedition in
Louisville and southern Indiana for the Corps of Discovery. Ultimately
they selected nine men from the area. After establishing their crew,
Lewis and Clark set out for the West on the Ohio River from Clarksville
on October 26, 1803.
One of the many accounts of the formation of the Corps of Discovery
is included in historian Stephen E. Ambrose's work on the expedition,
Undaunted Courage. Mr. Ambrose writes that: ``At the foot of the
rapids, on the north bank, was Clarksville, Indiana Territory. . . . On
October 15, Lewis hired local pilots, who took the boat and pirogues
into the dangerous but passable passage on the north bank. Safely
through, Lewis tied up at Clarksville and set off to meet his
partner.''
``When they shook hands, the Lewis and Clark expedition began.''
And Ambrose continues: ``Word has spread up and down the Ohio, and
inland, and young men longing for adventure and ambitious for a piece
of land of their own set out for Clarksville to sign up . . . Those
selected were sworn into the army in solemn ceremony, in the presence
of General Clark, and the Corps of Discovery was born.''
The National Park Service agreed with Mr. Ambrose and other
historical sources that the events at the Falls of the Ohio are of
important historical significance. The National Park Service certified
the Falls of the Ohio State Park as an official site associated with
the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail.
My legislation would simply reiterate the Park Service's conclusion
that the events at the Falls of the Ohio are a significant part of the
history of the Lewis and Clark expedition and would include the Falls
of the Ohio among the areas designated for recognition on the Lewis and
Clark National Historic Trail.
[[Page S8756]]
The National Council of the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial designated
the Falls of the Ohio as the second signature event of the
bicentennial, which will be held in October 2003.
The Falls of the Ohio is an integral part of the Lewis and Clark
story, which will be uniquely celebrated next year. It is my hope that
we can move quickly to pass this legislation to insure that the
recognition occurs in time for the much anticipated 200th anniversary
of the trail. That way the citizens of Clarksville and Louisville can
honor and preserve their local heritage and all students of history can
fully follow in the footsteps of Lewis and Clark and experience the
birth of the Corps of Discovery at the Falls of the Ohio.
______
By Mr. CAMPBELL:
S. 2953. A bill to redesignate the Colonnade Center in Denver,
Colorado, as the ``Cesar E. Chavez Memorial Building''; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to
name the Federal building located at 1244 Speer Boulevard, Denver, CO.,
as the ``Cesar E. Chavez Memorial Building.''
Cesar E. Chavez was an ordinary American who left behind an
extraordinary legacy of commitment and accomplishment.
Born on March 31, 1927 in Yuma Arizona on a farm his grandfather
homesteaded in the 1880's, he began his life as a migrant farm worker
at the age of 10 when the family lost the farm during the Great
Depression. Those were desperate years for the Chavez family as they
joined the thousands of displaced people who were forced to migrate
throughout the country to labor in the fields and vineyards.
Motivated by the poverty and harsh working conditions, he began to
follow his dream of establishing an organization dedicated to helping
these farm workers. In 1962 he founded the National Farm Workers
Association which would eventually evolve into the United Farm Workers
of America.
Over the next three decades with an unwavering commitment to
democratic principals and a philosophy of non-violence he struggled to
secure a living wage, health benefits and safe working conditions for
arguably the most exploited work force in our country, that they might
enjoy the basic protections and workers right to which all Americans
aspire.
In 1945, at the age of 18 Cesar Chavez joined the U.S. Navy and
served his country for two years. He was the recipient of the Martin
Luther King Jr. Peace Prize as well as the Presidential medal of
Freedom, the highest award this country can bestow upon a civilian.
Chavez's efforts brought dignity and respect to this country's farm
workers and in doing so became a hero, role model and inspiration to
people engaged in human rights struggles throughout the world.
The naming of this building will keep alive the memory of his
sacrifice and commitment for the millions of people whose lives he
touched.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2953
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives
of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF CESAR E. CHAVEZ MEMORIAL BUILDING.
The building known as the Colonnade Center, located at 1244
Speer Boulevard, Denver, Colorado, shall be known and
designated as the ``Cesar E. Chavez Memorial Building''.
SEC. 2. REFERENCES.
Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,
or other record of the United States to the building referred
to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the
Cesar E. Chavez Memorial Building.
______
By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Wellstone, Mr.
Leahy, and Mr. Dayton):
S. 2954. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 to permit States and local educational agencies to decide the
frequency of using high quality assessments to measure and increase
student academic achievement, to permit States and local educational
agencies to obtain a waiver of certain testing requirements, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, as millions of public school students
and teachers around the country settle into the new school year, I am
introducing a bill that would help to return a measure of local control
that was taken from school districts and State educational agencies
with the enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act earlier this year.
I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senators Jeffords,
Wellstone, Leahy, and Dayton.
I strongly support maintaining local control over decisions affecting
our children's day-to-day classroom experiences. I also believe that
the Federal Government has an important role to play in supporting our
State educational agencies and local school districts as they carry out
one of their most important responsibilities, the education of our
children.
I voted against the recently-enacted No Child Left Behind Act in
large part because of the new annual testing mandate for students in
grades 3-8. While I agree that there should be a strong accountability
system in place to ensure that public school students are making
progress, I strongly oppose over-testing students in our public
schools. I agree that some tests are needed to ensure that our children
are keeping pace, but taking time to test students has to take a back
seat to taking the time to teach students in the first place.
I have heard a lot about these new annual tests from the people of
Wisconsin, and their response has been almost universally negative. My
constituents are concerned about this additional layer of testing for
many reasons, including the cost of developing and implementing these
tests, the loss of teaching time every year to prepare for and take the
tests, and the extra pressure that the tests will place on students,
teachers, schools, and school districts.
I share my constituents' concerns about this new Federal mandate. I
find it interesting that proponents of the No Child Left Behind Act say
that it will return more control to the States and local school
districts. In my view, however, this massive new Federal testing
mandate runs counter to the idea of local control.
Many States and local school districts around the country, including
Wisconsin, already have comprehensive testing programs in place. The
Federal Government should leave decisions about the frequency of using
high quality assessments to measure and increase student academic
achievement up to the States and local school districts that bear the
responsibility for educating our children. Every State and every school
district is different. A uniform testing policy may not be the best
approach.
I have heard from many education professionals in my state that this
new testing requirement is a waste of money and a waste of time. These
people are dedicated professionals who are committed to educating
Wisconsin's children, and they don't oppose testing. I think we can all
agree that testing has its place. What they oppose is the magnitude of
testing that is required by this law.
Beginning in the 2005-2006 school year, the No Child Left Behind Act
will pile more tests on our Nation's public school students. And of
course, when those tests are piled on students, they burden our
teachers as well, because teachers must spend more and more time
preparing students to take these exams.
This kind of teaching, sometimes called ``teaching to the test,'' is
becoming more and more prevalent in our schools as testing has become
increasingly common. The dedicated teachers in our classrooms will now
be constrained by teaching to yet more tests, instead of being able to
use their own judgment about what subject areas the class needs to
spend extra time studying. This additional testing time could also
reduce the opportunity for teachers to create and implement innovative
learning experiences for their students.
Teachers in my State are concerned about the amount of time that they
will have to spend preparing their students to take the tests and
administering the tests. They are concerned that these additional tests
will disrupt
[[Page S8757]]
the flow of education in their classrooms. One teacher said the
preparation for the tests Wisconsin already requires in grades 3, 4, 8,
and 10 can take up to a month, and the administration of the test takes
another week. That is five weeks out of the school year. And now the
Federal Government is requiring teachers to take a huge chunk out of
instruction time each year in grades 3-8. In my view, and in the view
of the people of my State, this time can be better spent on regular
classroom instruction.
The legislation that I introduce today, the Student Testing
Flexibility Act of 2002, would give State educational agencies, SEAs,
and local educational agencies, LEAs, that have demonstrated academic
success the flexibility to apply to waive the new annual testing
requirements in the No Child Left Behind Act. SEAs and LEAs with
waivers would still be required to administer high quality tests to
students in, at a minimum, reading or language arts and mathematics at
least once in grades 3-5, 6-9, and 10-12 as required under the law.
This bill would allow SEAs and LEAs that meet the same specific
accountability criteria outlined for school-level excellence under the
State Academic Achievement Award Program to apply to the Secretary of
Education for a waiver from the new annual reading or language arts and
mathematics tests for students in grades 3-8. The waiver would be for a
period of three years and would be renewable, so long as the SEA or LEA
met the criteria.
To qualify for the waiver, the SEA or LEA must have significantly
closed the achievement gap between a number of subgroups of students as
required under Title I, or must have exceeded their adequate yearly
progress, AYP, goals for two or more consecutive years. The bill would
require the Secretary to grant waivers to SEAs or LEAs that meet these
criteria and apply for the waiver. LEAs in states that have waivers
would not be required to apply for a separate waiver.
The Federal Government should not impose an additional layer of
testing on states that are succeeding in meeting or exceeding their AYP
goals or on closing the achievement gap. Instead, we should allow those
States that have demonstrated academic success to use their share of
Federal testing money to help those schools that need it the most.
The bill I introduce today would do just that by allowing States with
waivers to retain their share of the Federal funding appropriated to
develop and implement the new annual tests. These important dollars
would be used for activities that these states deem appropriate for
improving student achievement at individual public elementary and
secondary schools that have failed to make AYP.
I am pleased that this legislation is supported by the National PTA,
the National Association of Elementary School Principals, the National
Association of Secondary School Principals, the Wisconsin Department of
Public Instruction, the Wisconsin Education Association Council, the
Wisconsin Association of School Boards, the Milwaukee Teachers'
Education Association, and the Wisconsin School Administrators
Alliance, which includes the Association of Wisconsin School
Administrators, the Wisconsin Association of School District
Administrators, the Wisconsin Association of School Business Officials,
and the Wisconsin Council for Administrators of Special Services.
While this bill focuses on the over-testing of students in our public
schools, I would like to note that my constituents have raised a number
of other concerns about the No Child Left Behind Act that I hope will
be addressed by Congress. In particular, many of my constituents are
concerned about the new adequate yearly progress requirements and about
finding the funding necessary to implement all of the provisions of
this new law. I hope that my bill, the Student Testing Flexibility Act,
will help to focus attention on the perhaps unintended consequences
that the ongoing implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act will
have for States, school districts, and individual schools, teachers,
and students.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2954
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Student Testing Flexibility
Act of 2002''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) State and local governments bear the majority of the
cost and responsibility of educating public elementary school
and secondary school students;
(2) State and local governments often struggle to find
adequate funding to provide basic educational services;
(3) the Federal Government has not provided its share of
funding for numerous federally mandated elementary and
secondary education programs;
(4) underfunded Federal education mandates increase
existing financial pressures on States and local educational
agencies;
(5) the cost to States and local educational agencies to
implement the annual student academic assessments required
under section 1111(b)(3)(C)(vii) of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
6311(b)(3)(C)(vii)) remains uncertain;
(6) public elementary school and secondary school students
take numerous tests each year, from classroom quizzes and
exams to standardized and other tests required by the Federal
Government, State educational agencies, or local educational
agencies;
(7) multiple measures of student academic achievement
provide a more accurate picture of a student's strengths and
weaknesses than does a single score on a high-stakes test;
and
(8) the frequency of the use of high quality assessments as
a tool to measure and increase student achievement should be
decided by State educational agencies and local educational
agencies.
SEC. 3. WAIVER AUTHORITY.
Section 1111(b)(3) of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(3)) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(E) Waiver authority.--
``(i) States.--Upon application by a State educational
agency, the Secretary shall waive the requirements of
subparagraph (C)(vii) for a State if the State educational
agency demonstrates that the State--
``(I) significantly closed the achievement gap between the
groups of students described in paragraph (2); or
``(II) exceeded the State's adequate yearly progress,
consistent with paragraph (2), for 2 or more consecutive
years.
``(ii) Local educational agencies.--Upon application of a
local educational agency located in a State that does not
receive a waiver under clause (i), the Secretary shall waive
the application of the requirements of subparagraph (C)(vii)
for the local educational agency if the local educational
agency demonstrates that the local educational agency--
``(I) significantly closed the achievement gap between the
groups of students described in paragraph (2); or
``(II) exceeded the local educational agency's adequate
yearly progress, consistent with paragraph (2), for 2 or more
consecutive years.
``(iii) Period of waiver.--A waiver under clause (i) or
(ii) shall be for a period of 3 years and may be renewed for
subsequent 3-year periods.
``(iv) Utilization of certain federal funds.--
``(I) Permissive uses.--Subject to subclause (II), a State
or local educational agency granted a waiver under clause (i)
or (ii) shall use funds, that are awarded to the State or
local educational agency, respectively, under this Act for
the development and implementation of annual assessments
under subparagraph (C)(vii), to carry out educational
activities that the State educational agency or local
educational agency, respectively, determines will improve the
academic achievement of students attending public elementary
schools and secondary schools in the State or local
educational agency, respectively, that fail to make adequate
yearly progress (as defined in paragraph (2)(C)).
``(II) Nonpermissive use of funds.--A State or local
educational agency granted a waiver under clause (i) or (ii)
shall not use funds, that are awarded to the State or local
educational agency, respectively, under this Act for the
development and implementation of annual assessments under
subparagraph (C)(vii), to pay a student's cost of tuition,
room, board, or fees at a private school.''.
______
By Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself and Mr. Gregg):
S. 2955. A bill to improve data collection and dissemination,
treatment, and research relating to cancer, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, today, I am proud to join with the
ranking member of the Senate HELP Committee in introducing and the
National Cancer Act of 2002. We believe that this is the proverbial
first step of the thousand mile journey toward the
[[Page S8758]]
goal of making cancer death rare by the year 2015.
First, I would be remiss if I failed to point out that we are not the
first in the Senate to drop a cancer bill. Indeed, fired the first
salvo in our Nation's conflict with cancer with the passage of the
National Cancer Institute Act back in 1937. This law, established the
National Cancer Institute, (NCI), within the public health service and
directed the Surgeon General to promote cancer research.
In 1971, responding to the call of President Nixon, Congress
officially declared war on cancer with the passage of the National
Cancer Act of 1971. This law established the Director of the National
Cancer Institute as one of two Presidentially appointment posts within
all of the National Institutes of Health. In addition, the '71 Act gave
the Director the ability to bypass the normal budget process and submit
the NCI budget directly to the President, a privilege that is entirely
unique throughout the Executive Branch. With our declaration of war our
Nation saw the establishment of the President's Cancer Panel, the
National Cancer Advisory Board, the International Cancer Research Data
Bank and the first cancer center. The stated goal of the country that
had just landed a man on the moon was to cure cancer within a decade.
Since 1971, we have seen 31 years pass, six Presidents sworn in, 15
sessions of Congress, and ten different bills signed into law with the
goal of ending the prolonged war on cancer. This year over half a
million Americans will die from cancer. It is for them, and for the 1.2
million Americans who will be diagnosed with cancer, and for the
millions of cancer survivors who are living beyond this disease that we
introduce this bill today.
Ours is the time is history when we must reinvigorate the battle.
Thanks to advances in treatment and increased screening and early
detection, between 1990 and 1997, for the first time in history, the
number of cancer deaths and diagnoses have declined. However, to whom
much is given, much is expected. The National Cancer Act of 2002,
answers the call and lays out a battle plan for the next, and hopefully
final attack in the war on cancer.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I am very pleased this morning to introduce
this bill with my good friend Senator Brownback. Our bill, the National
Cancer Act of 2002, is an important step forward in making survivorship
of cancer the rule in this Nation and cancer mortality the rare
exception. I want to thank our good friends in the cancer and pain care
communities who have provided critical feedback during the development
of the Act. Our bill will: Enhance coordination between State
registries and between those registries and Federal cancer control and
research efforts, with a focus on developing interoperability and
compatible hardware/software infrastructure. Reauthorize the successful
CDC Breast and Cervical Cancer screening program, with expansion
encouraged for colorectal cancer screening. Improve NIH efforts in the
area of pain and palliative care research and dissemination of
information to patients and providers. Expand access for patients to
experimental therapies, both in NIH-funded clinical trials, privately-
funded manufacturer trials and access for terminal patients to
therapies that have not yet been approved by FBA. Encourage Congress
and the Administration to address several of the most significant
cancer-related problems in the Medicare system.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on the HELP Committee to
move this important piece of legislation this year. I know that we all
share the agenda of combating this public health problem facing so many
Americans.
______
By Mr. FEINGOLD:
S. 2956. A bill to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to
submit a semi-annual report to Congress regarding the effectiveness
with which information is exchanged between the Department of Homeland
Security, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and State and local law
enforcement authorities; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, first let me commend the Chairman and
Ranking Member of the Governmental Affairs Committee for all of their
efforts in crafting the Homeland Security measure before the Senate
today.
As I have listened to the various proposals to create a Department of
Homeland Security one of my primary concerns is what are we going to do
to improve the role of the FBI as an intelligence gathering agency. I
rise today to introduce legislation on this matter, and I send a copy
of this legislation to the desk.
I also rise to offer the same legislation as an amendment to the
Homeland Security bill, and I send a copy of the amendment to the desk.
The need for this amendment is clear. We have heard, over and over
again, that one of the chief purposes of the new Department is to
enable one agency to serve as a central clearinghouse for all terrorism
related information, regardless of the source. For the consumers of
intelligence information, like the Department of Homeland Security, it
should not matter whether the information comes from a CIA agent in the
Middle East, an FBI agent listening to a wire-tap from overseas or a
cop on a street corner in New York City.
I am concerned that we have not done enough to insure that the
relevant information gathered by the FBI is passed on to those who can
analyze it and evaluate a potential threat against our Nation's safety.
Simply put, I wonder about what type of information the FBI will be
providing to the new Department and what the new Department will do
with the information. I am concerned about the lack of policies and
procedures in place for the new Department to request follow-up
investigation from the FBI and local law enforcement.
I have offered this amendment, entitled the Intelligence Analysis
Reporting Act of 2002, to assist Congress in determining if the
division of investigative responsibilities between the Department of
Homeland Security and the FBI is working effectively. This amendment
will provide Congress with the information necessary to determine if
the FBI is taking competent steps to provide information to the new
Department and to respond to intelligence requests in a useful manner.
Presently, the FBI does not have the technological nor personnel
capacity to provide information to the Department of Homeland Security
or to any other intelligence agency in a highly useful form. This is
because criminal investigations, which involve grand jury testimony,
witness interviews and wire-taps, are not conducive to the standards of
intelligence gathering which require some sifting of the material
before it is disseminated to consumers like a Department of Homeland
Security.
This amendment would require the new Department to report to Congress
on policies and procedures implemented to insure that it can adequately
request information and investigation from the FBI and local law
enforcement. In addition, it requires the Department of Homeland
Security to report on what types of intelligence information have been
turned over such as summary interviews, transcripts and warrants from
the FBI and other law enforcement agencies.
I firmly believe that no matter how many agencies are moved into a
Department of Homeland Security or how much money we spend on putting
up a new building, the only test of our success will be how effective
we are in protecting ourselves against future threats. This amendment
will allow us to determine if the critical intelligence information we
need to prevent a possible attack is being provided to people at the
Department of Homeland Security who can act on it promptly and
effectively.
I urge my colleagues to support this measure.
______
By Mr. JOHNSON:
S. 2963: A bill to reform the United States Army Corps of Engineers;
to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2963
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
[[Page S8759]]
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Corps of Engineers Reform
Act of 2002''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Corps.--The term ``Corps'' means the Corps of
Engineers.
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Army.
SEC. 3. INLAND WATERWAY REFORM.
(a) Construction.--Section 102(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2212(a)) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by striking ``One-half of the
costs of construction'' and inserting ``Forty-five percent of
the costs of construction''; and
(2) by striking the second sentence and inserting ``Fifty-
five percent of those costs shall be paid only from amounts
appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.''.
(b) Operation and Maintenance.--Section 102 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2212) is amended
by striking subsections (b) and (c) and inserting the
following:
``(b) Operation and Maintenance.--
``(1) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of
operation and maintenance shall be 100 percent in the case
of--
``(A) a project described in paragraph (1) or (2) of
subsection (a); or
``(B) the portion of the project authorized by section 844
that is allocated to inland navigation.
``(2) Source of federal share.--
``(A) General fund.--In the case of a project described in
paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a) with respect to which
the cost of operation and maintenance is less than or equal
to 1 cent per ton mile, or in the case of the portion of the
project authorized by section 844 that is allocated to inland
navigation, the Federal share under paragraph (1) shall be
paid only from amounts appropriated from the general fund of
the Treasury.
``(B) General fund and inland waterways trust fund.--In the
case of a project described in paragraph (1) or (2) of
subsection (a) with respect to which the cost of operation
and maintenance is greater than 1 but less than or equal to
10 cents per ton mile--
``(i) 45 percent of the Federal share under paragraph (1)
shall be paid only from amounts appropriated from the general
fund of the Treasury; and
``(ii) 55 percent of the Federal share under paragraph (1)
shall be paid only from amounts appropriated from the Inland
Waterways Trust Fund.
``(C) Inland waterways trust fund.--In the case of a
project described in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a)
with respect to which the cost of operation and maintenance
is greater than 10 cents per ton mile, 100 percent of the
Federal share under paragraph (1) shall be paid only from
amounts appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.''.
SEC. 4. INDEPENDENT REVIEW.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Affected state.--The term ``affected State'', with
respect to a water resources project, means a State or
portion of a State that--
(A) is located, at least partially, within the drainage
basin in which the project is carried out; and
(B) would be economically or environmentally affected as a
result of the project.
(2) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of
Independent Review appointed under subsection (c)(1).
(b) Projects Subject to Independent Review.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall ensure that each draft
feasibility report, draft general reevaluation report, and
draft environmental impact statement for each water resources
project described in paragraph (2) is subject to review by an
independent panel of experts established under this section.
(2) Projects subject to review.--A water resources project
shall be subject to review under paragraph (1) if--
(A) the project has an estimated total cost of more than
$30,000,000, including mitigation costs;
(B) the Governor of an affected State, or the Director of a
Federal agency with jurisdiction over resources affected by
the proposed project requests the establishment of a panel of
independent experts to review the project; and
(C) the Secretary determines under paragraph (3) that the
proposed project is controversial.
(3) Written requests.--Not later than 30 days after the
date on which the Secretary receives a written request of an
interested party, or on the initiative of the Secretary, the
Director shall determine whether a water resources project is
controversial.
(c) Director of Independent Review.--
(1) Appointment.--The Secretary of the Army shall appoint
in the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of
the Army a Director of Independent Review.
(2) Qualifications.--The Secretary of the Army shall select
the Director from among individuals who are distinguished
experts in biology, hydrology, engineering, economics, or
another discipline relating to water resources management.
(3) Limitation on appointments.--The Army Inspector General
shall not appoint an individual to serve as the Director if
the individual has a financial interest in or close
professional association with any entity with a strong
financial interest in a water resources project that, on the
date of appointment of the Director, is--
(A) under construction;
(B) in the preconstruction engineering and design phase; or
(C) under feasibility or reconnaissance study by the Corps.
(4) Terms.--
(A) In general.--The term of a Director appointed under
this subsection shall be 6 years.
(B) Term limit.--An individual may serve as the Director
for not more than 2 nonconsecutive terms.
(5) Duties.--The Director shall establish a panel of
experts to review each water resources project that is
subject to review under subsection (b).
(d) Establishment of Panels.--
(1) In general.--After the date on which the Secretary
issues a draft feasibility report, draft general reevaluation
report, or draft environmental impact statement relating to a
water resources project that is subject to review under
subsection (b)(2), the Director shall establish a panel of
experts to review the project.
(2) Membership.--A panel of experts established by the
Director for a water resources project shall be composed of
not less than 5 nor more than 9 independent experts
(including 1 or more biologists, engineers, and economists)
who represent a range of areas of expertise.
(3) Limitation on appointments.--The Director shall not
appoint an individual to serve on a panel of experts for a
project if the individual has a financial interest in or
close professional association with any entity with a strong
financial interest in the project.
(4) Consultation.--The Director may consult with the
Academy in developing lists of individuals to serve on panels
of experts under this section.
(5) Compensation.--An individual serving on a panel of
experts under this section shall be compensated at a rate of
pay to be determined by the Inspector General.
(6) Travel expenses.--A member of a panel of experts under
this section shall be allowed travel expenses, including per
diem in lieu of subsistence, at rates authorized for an
employee of an agency under subchapter I of chapter 57 of
title 5, United States Code, while away from the home or
regular place of business of the member in the performance of
the duties of the panel.
(e) Duties of Panels.--A panel of experts established for a
water resources project under this section shall--
(1) review each draft feasibility report, draft general
reevaluation report, and draft environmental impact statement
prepared for the project to identify--
(A) technical errors;
(B) outdated and inaccurate data; and
(C) flawed economic and environmental methodologies and
models;
(2) receive from the public written and oral comments
concerning the project; and
(3) not later than the deadline established under
subsection (f), submit to the Secretary a report concerning
the economic, engineering, and environmental analysis of the
project, including the conclusions and recommendations of the
panel.
(f) Duration of Project Reviews.--Not later than 180 days
after the date of establishment of a panel of experts for a
water resources project under this section, the panel shall
complete each required review of the project and all other
duties of the panel relating to the project.
(g) Final Issuance of Reports and Statements.--Before
issuing a final feasibility report, final general
reevaluation report, or final environmental impact statement
for a water resources project, the Secretary shall--
(1) take into consideration any recommendations contained
in the report described in subsection (e)(3) for the water
resources project; and
(2) prepare and include in the final feasibility report,
final general reevaluation report, or final environmental
impact statement--
(A) the report of the panel; and
(B) for any recommendations of the panel not adopted by the
Secretary, a written explanation of the reasons why the
recommendations were not adopted.
(h) Costs.--The cost of conducting a review of a water
resources project under this section--
(1) shall not exceed $250,000;
(2) shall be considered to be part of the total cost of the
project; and
(3) shall be a Federal expense.
(i) Applicability of Federal Advisory Committee Act.--The
Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall apply to
a panel of experts established under this section.
SEC. 5. MITIGATION.
(a) Concurrent Mitigation.--Section 906(a) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283(a)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``(a)(1) In the case'' and inserting the
following:
``(a) Mitigation.--
``(1) In general.--In the case'';
(2) in paragraph (1), by indenting subparagraphs (A) and
(B) appropriately;
(3) in paragraph (2), by striking ``(2) For the purposes''
and inserting the following:
``(3) Commencement of construction.--For the purposes'';
and
(4) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
[[Page S8760]]
``(2) Implementation of mitigation.--
``(A) In general.--To ensure concurrent mitigation, the
Secretary shall implement required mitigation under paragraph
(1) as expeditiously as practicable, but not later than--
``(i) the last day of construction of the project or
separable element of the project; or
``(ii) in a case in which completion of mitigation by the
date described in clause (i) is physically impracticable
because 1 or more sites for the remaining mitigation are or
will be disturbed by project construction (as determined by
the Secretary), not later than the end of the next fiscal
year immediately following the last day of construction.
``(B) Availability of funds.--Funds made available for
preliminary engineering and design, construction, or
operations and maintenance may be used to carry out this
subsection.''.
(b) Full Mitigation.--Section 906(d) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283(d)) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(1) Plans and proposals.--
``(A) In general.--After November 17, 1986, the Secretary
shall not submit any proposal for the authorization of any
water resources project to Congress, and shall not choose a
project alternative in any final record of decision,
environmental impact statement, or environmental assessment,
unless the proposal contains--
``(i) a specific plan to fully mitigate fish and wildlife
losses created by the project; or
``(ii) a determination by the Secretary that the project
will have negligible adverse impact on fish and wildlife.
``(B) Forests.--A specific mitigation plan described in
subparagraph (A)(i) shall ensure, to the maximum extent
practicable, that impacts to bottomland hardwood forests are
mitigated in kind.
``(C) Consultation.--In carrying out this subsection, the
Secretary shall consult with appropriate Federal and non-
Federal agencies.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Standards for mitigation.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall not recommend a
water resources project alternative or select a project
alternative in any final record of decision, environmental
impact statement, or environmental assessment completed after
the date of enactment of this paragraph unless the Secretary
determines that the mitigation plan has a high probability of
successfully mitigating the adverse impacts of the project on
aquatic and other resources, hydrologic functions, and fish
and wildlife.
``(B) Requirements.--A mitigation plan described in
subparagraph (A) shall--
``(i) provide for the acquisition and restoration of at
least 1 acre of superior or equivalent habitat of the same
type to replace each acre of habitat negatively affected by
the project;
``(ii) ensure that mitigation will result in replacement of
all functions of the habitat negatively affected by the
project, including--
``(I) spatial distribution; and
``(II) natural hydrologic and ecological characteristics;
``(iii) contain sufficient detail regarding the mitigation
sites and restoration activities selected to permit a
thorough evaluation of--
``(I) the likelihood of the ecological success of the plan;
and
``(II) resulting aquatic and other resource functions and
habitat values;
``(iv) include a detailed and specific plan to monitor
mitigation implementation and success; and
``(v) include specific ecological success criteria by which
the success of the mitigation will be evaluated.''.
(c) Mitigation Tracking System.--Section 906 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(h) Mitigation Tracking System.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall
establish a recordkeeping system to track for each water
resources project constructed, operated, or maintained by the
Secretary, and for each permit issued under section 404 of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344)--
``(A) the quantity and type of wetland and other types of
habitat affected by the project or permitted activity;
``(B) the quantity and type of mitigation required for the
project or permitted activity;
``(C) the quantity and type of mitigation that has been
completed for the project or permitted activity; and
``(D) the status of monitoring for the mitigation carried
out for the project or permitted activity.
``(2) Required information and organization.--The
recordkeeping system shall--
``(A) include information on impacts and mitigation
described in subsection (a) that occur after December 31,
1969; and
``(B) be organized by watershed, project, permit
application, and zip code.
``(3) Availability of information.--The Secretary shall
make information contained in the recordkeeping system
available to the public (including through the Internet).''.
SEC. 6. MODERN ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS.
Section 209 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C.
1962-2) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 209. CONGRESSIONAL STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES.
``(a) In General.--It is the intent of Congress that
economic development and environmental protection and
restoration be coequal goals of water resources planning and
development.
``(b) Revision of Principles and Guidelines.--Not later
than 1 year after the date of enactment of the Army Corps
Reform Act of 2002, the Secretary of the Army, in
consultation with the National Academy of Sciences, shall
revise the principles and guidelines of the Corps of
Engineers for water resources projects (consisting of
Engineer Regulation 1105-2-100 and Engineer Pamphlet 1165-2-
1) to reflect modern methods of measuring benefits and costs
of water resources projects.
``(c) Revision of Guidance.--The Secretary of the Army
shall revise the Guidance for Conducting Civil Works Planning
Studies (ER 1105-2-100) to comply with this section.''.
______
By Mr. LEVIN (for himself, Ms. Collins, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. DeWine,
Mr. Reed, Mr. Warner, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Akaka,
Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Inouye, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr.
Bayh):
S. 2964. A bill to amend the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance
Prevention and Control Act of 1990 to reauthorize and improve that Act;
to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
____________________