[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 95 (Thursday, July 14, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H5810-H5880]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1145
                WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2005

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Pursuant to House Resolution 
346 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 2864.

                              {time}  1145


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2864) 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, with Mr. Bonilla in the 
chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) and the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure.
  (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
legislation. I want to thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) 
and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) for their 
hard work.
  This is a bill that has been from very bipartisan work together, 
which made it, in fact, a great bill.
  And I urge everybody to vote against the Flake amendment. Keep that 
in mind. The Flake amendment is not a good amendment for this bill. If 
we want to relieve our congestion on our highways, we have to use our 
waterways.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  First, let me thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), our chairman and ranking 
member, and the chair of the subcommittee for their leadership. I am 
delighted to acknowledge that this committee works bipartisanly.
  Today, we consider the Water Resources Development Act of 2005. And 
this bill addresses what the Congress failed to do for the past 5 
years, to enact a Water Resources Development Act.
  I support biennial legislation for the Corps water resources program. 
It is critical to maintain a 2-year cycle to provide continuity to the 
program and certainly to the nonfederal sponsors who support the Corps 
projects.
  A biennial cycle also affords Congress the opportunity to monitor 
and, if necessary, amend the workings of the Corps program, often in 
response to changing circumstances.
  H.R. 2864 authorizes projects for the entirety of the Corps civil 
works program. It includes major flood control, navigation, 
environmental restoration, and other water resources projects. This 
legislation represents roughly 5\1/2\ years of project requests and 
modifications, as well as oversight over how the Corps of Engineers 
carries out its business.
  As in the past, projects included in this bill were included not on 
the basis of whether they were Democratic projects or Republican 
projects but on their individual merit. And this is as it should be.
  Many of these projects provide vital public safety and economic 
benefits to our constituents. Their approval should not be withheld 
solely for partisan reasons. Again, I thank the gentleman from Alaska 
(Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), the chairman 
of the subcommittee, for working with me and with individual Members on 
both sides of the aisle to accommodate their requests for this 
important legislation. All of us know that the more we delay projects 
like this, the more costly they become and sometimes the conditions 
worsen.
  I also acknowledge our leadership of the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Oberstar), our ranking member, who cannot be here because he is 
attending the funeral of his mother-in-law, but he certainly has 
interest and a great deal of expertise in water resources issues.
  I strongly support this legislation and recommend that my colleagues 
vote in favor of final passage.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise to urge all Members to support H.R. 2864, the Water Resources 
Development Act of 2005. I want to first acknowledge the great 
assistance, the hard work, and especially the bipartisan nature of all 
the efforts of the staff on both sides and the gentleman from Alaska 
(Chairman Young), our great chairman; the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar), our ranking member, who has worked on this committee as a 
staff member and as a member since being elected to the House and has 
seniority over all of us on that; and my close friendship and good 
working relationship with the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie

[[Page H5811]]

Bernice Johnson), my ranking member. And I want to acknowledge also the 
hard work done by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello), the 
former ranking member, with whom we worked out so many contentious 
issues the first time this bill came up.
  The bill authorizes and directs the Corps to carry out various 
studies, projects, and programs relating to navigation, flood damage 
reduction, shoreline protection, dam safety, water supply, recreation, 
and environmental restoration and protection. H.R. 2864 is very similar 
to H.R. 2557 from the last Congress, which passed this House on 
September 24, 2003, by a vote of 412 to 8.
  At the beginning of this Congress, the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure leadership sent a Dear Colleague to all House 
Members to give them an opportunity to update their project requests. 
In response, the committee received more than 340 letters from Members 
making requests for more than 1,000 projects, studies and 
modifications. Given budgetary constraints, we could not accommodate 
every request. However, we were able to address over 600 separate 
matters.
  The bill also includes provisions that reform the planning and 
project development process of the Corps of Engineers, including the 
most extensive independent peer review process ever set forth in one of 
these water resources bills or any other bill. These provisions were 
worked out in a bipartisan manner in the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure last Congress and were in the WRDA bill that the 
House approved overwhelmingly at that time.
  We stand by the agreement that we made during the last Congress and 
have made only a few clarifying changes to these policy provisions. As 
a result, the main difference between H.R. 2864 and the bill from the 
last Congress is the addition of three large projects that were not 
ready for authorization during the last Congress but have now completed 
chief's reports from the Corps of Engineers. These projects are the 
Indian River Lagoon Everglades Restoration project, the Louisiana 
Coastal Area Ecosystem Restoration program, and the Upper Mississippi 
River and Illinois Waterway Navigation and Ecosystem Restoration 
program. Together, these projects represent $5 billion in federal 
authorization or about half the cost of this bill. We knew these 
chief's reports were coming, so, in the last Congress, the Water 
Resources and Environment Subcommittee held separate hearings on each. 
Later there will be debate on part of the Upper Mississippi River and 
Illinois Waterway chief's report, the authorization of the seven new 
locks there. This is a $1.8 billion authorization, but one half of that 
funding comes from the Inland Waterway Trust Fund, which is funded by a 
20 cents per gallon tax on inland waterway fuel.
  These lock authorizations are the number one priority of the Inland 
Waterway Users Board, the board representing the people who pay into 
the inland Waterway Trust Fund. It is important to understand that the 
Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway Navigation Authorization 
is not the most costly Corps project. The authorization of $1.8 billion 
is for seven different locks; so the per-project cost is really on 
average $257 million.
  At the subcommittee hearing on the Upper Mississippi River and 
Illinois Waterway project, the subcommittee received very strong 
testimony in support of this project from the Department of 
Agriculture, the Department of Transportation, and the Department of 
the Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency. All of the civil 
works projects in this bill, all of them, Mr. Chairman, are investments 
in America that save capital, make our exports more competitive, make 
our imports more affordable, and improve our environment and our 
quality of life.
  Over 200 organizations have sent us letters supporting this 
legislation, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who has stated 
that they will make this one of their key votes of the year; the 
American Farm Bureau; the American Association of Port Authorities; the 
American Society of Civil Engineers; the Associated General Contractors 
of America; the National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management 
Agencies; the National Corn Growers Association; the National 
Association of Wheat Growers; the National Council of Farmer 
Cooperatives; the National Mining Association; the National Stone, Sand 
and Gravel Association; the Portland Cement Association; seven 
different national labor unions. In fact, I do not believe that we will 
deal with any bill in the Congress this year that has more bipartisan 
and broad support from both labor and business than this legislation, 
and over 180 other organizations that would be too numerous to name, 
and it would take too much time.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to recognize again the expertise and 
friendship provided by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice 
Johnson), the ranking member of the subcommittee. It is an honor and 
privilege to work with her and also the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman 
Young) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), ranking member, 
and the entire committee. We have a bill that has the unanimous support 
of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
  Mr. Chairman, it is a good bill, and I urge all Members to support 
it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes 
to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello).
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time.
  I would also like to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), 
chairman of the full committee; the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar); the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), the chairman of 
the subcommittee, for all of his hard work; and of course the work of 
the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), our ranking 
member on the subcommittee, for a job well done for bringing this 
legislation to the floor today. Without their strong leadership, 
dedication and persistence, we would not have a bill before us to 
consider.
  H.R. 2864 authorizes projects for major flood control, navigation, 
environmental restoration, and other water resource projects, as well 
as it includes authorization of several important projects to restore 
and enhance the Nation's environmental infrastructure.
  The United States transportation system is the envy of the world. We 
have an extensive system of highways, ports, locks and dams, and 
airports. Yet we have neglected to upgrade and modernize our 
infrastructure over the years. We should not build infrastructure in 
this country and then walk away from it without maintaining it and 
modernizing it as it becomes antiquated like we have done with the 
Upper Mississippi River and the Illinois Waterways lock and dam system.
  This bill, after 15 years of talking and inaction, finally authorizes 
the modernization of the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Waterway 
system. The bill authorizes the replacement of 600-foot navigation 
locks with seven new 1,200-foot locks. In addition, the bill authorizes 
the largest environmental restoration program, next to the Florida 
Everglades, to ensure that the project goes forward respecting the 
environment and minimizing any adverse impact.
  At a time when other countries are investing and improving their 
navigation systems, we are still operating a lock and dam system that 
is well over a half century old, built to handle 600-foot barges, not 
the 1,200-foot barges of today, and a system that exceeded its life 
expectancy over 20 years ago and is very expensive to maintain and 
repair. Our current system loses about 10 percent of its capacity every 
year due to system failures and breakdowns.
  The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) and the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake), my friends, have offered an amendment that I urge 
all of my colleagues to oppose. In my opinion, if this amendment is 
adopted, it will further delay and most likely kill the modernization 
project. They raise questions about the need for the project and have 
concerns about the environment. They believe that, with the increased 
use of ethanol here in the United States, that traffic will decrease in 
the coming years on the Mississippi River and the Illinois waterways. 
On the question of the need to modernize for the future of the system, 
some studies have said that major increases in traffic will take place. 
Others have indicated that the demand

[[Page H5812]]

will decrease. It depends on which study we look at and read and which 
study we want to believe.
  What we do know for certain is that other countries are investing in 
modernizing their navigation system and our system on the Upper 
Mississippi and the Illinois waterway system outlived its life 
expectancy over 20 years ago. The system cannot handle today's traffic 
in an efficient and cost-effective manner, and it is costing taxpayers 
tens of millions of dollars to patch it together, let alone the cost in 
time and money.
  On the issue of ethanol, I agree with my friends that there will be 
an increase in the production of ethanol and more of a demand here at 
home.

                              {time}  1200

  Let me also say that increase in demand here at home will require 
that we transport both grain and DDGS both in the United States and 
abroad. Already, in the first quarter of this year, we have seen an 11 
percent increase in DDGS shipped to other countries using ethanol 
through the New Orleans Port.
  Lastly, the environment. I am as concerned about the environment as 
anyone. I would not support the modernization of the Upper Mississippi 
without the safeguards in this bill that respect the environment. This 
project will have the second largest environmental restoration program 
in the Nation.
  Finally, we do not need another study. We do not need further delays. 
We need to move forward with the project to modernize the navigation 
system, while providing congressional oversight in making certain that 
the environmental restoration protections are implemented.
  The gentleman from Tennessee (Chairman Duncan) has indicated that 
this bill probably has more support from the business community and 
labor unions than any bill that we will consider this year.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller), a member of the 
committee.
  (Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in 
support of H.R. 2864, the Water Resources Development Act of 2005. This 
important legislation is long overdue in addressing the needs of our 
Nation's water resources infrastructure. I commend the gentleman from 
Alaska (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Chairman 
Duncan) for their hard work and dedication in drafting a water 
infrastructure policy that sets our Nation on the course to an 
economically and environmentally sustainable future.
  The dependability of our Nation's water infrastructure could not be 
more vital to the health, safety, and overall quality of life of every 
American. As a Representative from Southern California, where we face 
significant water supply challenges, a safe and reliable water supply 
infrastructure system is particularly important to me.
  The work to implement needed flood control measures is critical to 
preventing loss of life and property to our Nation's communities. This 
bill is critical to accommodating the many more flood control projects 
awaiting authorization. In addition, this bill streamlines the 
feasibility study process and enforces policies that are based on sound 
science.
  The enactment of this bill is of critical importance to the Nation's 
environmental and economic well-being. For every $1 billion spent on 
water resources development activities, approximately 40,000 jobs are 
created. In addition, an estimated $706 billion in damages has been 
prevented through flood reduction projects, representing a 6-to-1 
return on investment.
  Congress must commit to infrastructure investments now to leave 
behind a legacy of economic security and opportunity for future 
generations.
  This bill provides a Federal commitment to such infrastructure 
investments, leaving behind a legacy of safe and reliable water 
infrastructure systems.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this important bill to ensure our 
Nation has an economically and environmentally sound water resources 
infrastructure.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes 
to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Eddie Bernice Johnson) for her leadership and the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), and the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). I also want to thank the staff 
on both sides, but the staff on our side has kept us well informed of 
the progress of the bill, worked with us on the projects that we 
needed; and I greatly appreciate the work that they have all done on 
this.
  I support the underlying bill. I am looking forward to the manager's 
amendment from the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young). Many of us 
throughout the Nation have projects in here. I just want to stress a 
couple that are important to my own constituents in Imperial and San 
Diego counties in California.
  The New River in my district starts in Mexico, flows into the Salton 
Sea, one of the biggest bodies of water in the United States which I 
share with the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono). This river, the 
New River, has been described as the world's most polluted river. Due 
to grossly inadequate sewage treatment and solid waste facilities in 
Mexico, raw sewage, industrial waste, and garbage, up to 50 million 
gallons a day, are constantly released into the New River.
  It violates every water quality standard we have. Plants and animals 
cannot survive in the New River, and it threatens the health and safety 
of the residents of my district. It also runs through the Imperial 
County farmlands that supply many of our Nation's winter crops. By 
supplying the funds to treat and clean up this river in this bill, we 
are assuring the health and well-being of the food that we feed to the 
children of our Nation.
  The New River also runs through the city of Brawley, California, 
which has its own water quality problems. The city's proximity to the 
United States-Mexico border makes both their air and water vulnerable 
to pollution that comes up from Mexico. This legislation will provide 
funds to the Brawley area to improve the conditions in their water.
  Finally, WRDA provides the appropriate funding level to San Diego 
County for the removal of non-native exotic species from the drinking 
water in the Sweetwater Reservoir. My constituents, like everyone 
throughout the country, deserve clean water. This legislation provides 
them with the resources to make this a reality.
  As our speakers have said, this is a bipartisan, well-written bill 
which will not only help in creating jobs across the Nation, but will 
help provide safe and clean water for our future. So please join me in 
supporting this bill and the manager's amendment. We are truly voting 
to ensure America's future.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Mack), an outstanding member of our committee.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong support for 
the Water Resources Development Act of 2005, also known as WRDA. This 
important legislation affirms our continuing commitment to our Nation's 
water resources infrastructure and will help protect and preserve our 
Nation's freedom, security, and prosperity.
  Today's WRDA bill includes several projects that are significant for 
southwest Florida. Before I highlight one of those projects, I would 
like to thank our colleague and my subcommittee chairman, the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), for his partnership and leadership in his 
efforts to produce a WRDA bill that addresses the needs of our Nation. 
I also want to thank the subcommittee staff for all of their hard work 
in getting this critical legislation to the floor.
  Mr. Chairman, the Water Resources Development Act is important 
legislation that sets forth a comprehensive national water resources 
policy, together with authorization of civil works projects that are 
investments in America. It will improve our transportation 
infrastructure, bolster our environment, and enhance our quality of 
life.
  This legislation is vitally important to Florida. In particular, this 
bill will support restoration of the Everglades, one of our Nation's 
most precious ecosystems. South Florida, which includes

[[Page H5813]]

my district, is home to millions of Americans, several of the fastest-
growing cities in the country, and a huge tourism industry, and also 
contains one of the most unique environmental resources in the country.
  Over the past century, manmade changes to the region's water flow 
have provided important economic benefits to the region, but have also 
had devastating effects on the environment. The Federal Government and 
the State of Florida have begun a long-term partnership to restore the 
ecosystem and preserve it for future generations.
  Make no mistake: environmental restoration projects like these 
improve water quality and habitats, benefit our people and wildlife. 
The actions we are considering today will support this continued 
partnership.
  Mr. Chairman, the Water Resources Development Act of 2005 is good for 
my district in southwest Florida, it is good for the State of Florida, 
and it is good for the Nation. I encourage my colleagues to vote for 
this critical legislation.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the 
purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
  (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I will submit my statement for 
the Record in support of this legislation and in support of the Halls 
Bayou Federal Flood Control Project in Houston, Texas.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the Subcommittee on Water 
Resources and the full Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for 
reporting out the Water Resources Development Act, WRDA, of 2005. I 
appreciate your inclusion of our language for the Halls Bayou Federal 
Flood Control Project in Houston, Texas.
  Historic flooding along Halls Bayou has been severe and frequent in 
some neighborhoods. During Tropical Storm Allison in June 2001, Halls 
Bayou was hit very hard, with more than 8,000 homes flooding within the 
watershed. No project can keep all homes from flooding, but a project 
can help reduce the risk of flooding for a significant number of 
families, reducing the need for Federal assistance, property damage, 
and loss of life.
  The purpose of section 5128 of this legislation which pertains to 
Halls Bayou is to allow the Harris County Flood Control District, 
HCFCD, to conduct the GRR and any subsequent Federal interest project 
on Halls Bayou. The Corps is limited in its staff, resources, and time 
with the many projects in the Galveston District and the Southwest 
Division. Local project sponsors with the necessary expertise, like 
Harris County, can provide efficiency by becoming more involved.
  Halls Bayou, a major tributary of Greens Bayou, was authorized in 
WRDA 1990 as part of the Buffalo Bayou and Tributaries Project. The 
original Halls Bayou authorization assumed the Greens Bayou project in 
place, which is now finishing a General Reevaluation Review, GRR. 
Results indicate that the work on Greens Bayou downstream of Halls 
Bayou will not have Federal work although it will have significant 
local projects. Therefore, a GRR is now needed for Halls Bayou as well.
  While conducting the GRR to find a possible Federal interest, Harris 
County can begin project implementation in order to reduce future flood 
damage as soon as possible. Adding Halls Bayou to section 211(f) allows 
Harris County to be reimbursed if the project is later approved by the 
Secretary. I thank the Subcommittee and full Committee for their work 
on this issue.
  I support the bill and the balance that it strikes between the need 
to improve water resources for human purposes and to preserve our water 
uses for the environment and future generations.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes 
to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy 
in permitting me to speak on this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, this Water Resources Development Act is an important 
start to change the way that we do business. I salute the hard work 
from our chairman, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young); the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Ranking Member Oberstar); the gentlewoman from Texas 
(Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson); and a special note of thanks to 
the vision and hard work of my friend, the gentleman from Tennessee 
(Mr. Duncan), to move forward with ways that we ought to be dealing 
with water resources.
  Usually, in the past, Congress has produced just a collection of 
projects and, too often in the past, things that make the Corps of 
Engineers' job harder: Too little money to deal with a huge backlog 
that contains the good, the bad, the ugly, and the obsolete. We make 
the job of the Corps of Engineers even harder, since they are operating 
under outdated principles and guidelines that have not been updated 
since 1983. You would not go to a heart surgeon or a brain surgeon 
under that circumstance. The Corps of Engineers is facing an almost $60 
billion backlog, and only $2 billion a year of construction money for 
these critical projects, and this makes it intensely political.
  Well, this brings me to the dinosaur of the navigation projects that 
is in this bill which has been referenced by my good friend, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello). The Upper Mississippi Lock 
Project is going to be the most expensive navigation project in 
history. Where I must take modest exception to my friend, the gentleman 
from Illinois, we are not walking away. We have not walked away. He 
would not let us walk away from the problems of Mississippi navigation.
  In fact, I think we have an $88 million renovation project that is 
occurring right now immediately adjacent to where there is going to be 
a massive new lock built. We have invested appropriately almost $1 
billion, almost $1 billion in the last 25 years. So, any hint that we 
have walked away or that we do not care about the Mississippi sysem is 
wrong. Congress has proven that it does care, and it has invested. Have 
we invested everything that one would want in all of these locks? Look 
at your district and see if Congress has ever invested everything that 
you want and need. But given a $60 billion backlog, we have done a 
pretty good job dealing with this channel.
  Now, I deeply, deeply respect the work the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Costello) has done in the past. I do not know who is opposing this 
project on environmental grounds. Those words have not come from my 
mouth. I appreciate the hard work that the gentleman did earlier, I 
think that this is very important environmental restoration work, and 
it is work that is long overdue. We have treated the Mississippi River 
as a machine for well over a century; and the wildlife, the people who 
depend on it for recreation, for the environmental health, they need 
these environmental investments, they deserve it, and I hope it 
happens. But I think what we need to be focusing on is how we are going 
to deal with this massive project.
  Now, I am not here today to say that it should be eliminated. I again 
take modest exception to the notion that you must pick studies, dueling 
studies. The independent studies from the National Academy of Science 
time and time and time again have documented that the economic 
justification is not there. In fact, we had the Inspector General find 
that the corps, under intense political pressure, cooked the books, two 
generals and a colonel lost their job. It was a scandal, and a 
whistleblower had to get protection because he was going to be fired 
for just telling the truth.
  Well, what we have offered as an amendment is a safety valve that if 
the experts, the independent experts are wrong and barge traffic is 
going to go up, not decline, then the project goes ahead, because the 
corps cannot build this project for another 4 or 5 years anyway. It 
goes ahead, and we continue spending lots of money renovating the 
existing locks. But our amendment is a safety valve and a reality 
check.
  Now, I think this bill is a good start. I hope our amendment is 
approved, because there is an effort here to accelerate the good work 
that the committee, past and present, has done. We are going to 
strongly urge that we make the transition to make sure that given the 
troubled history of this project, given the fact that it will impact 
every district across the country competing for scarce resources, we 
ought to have this safety valve and reality check.
  I strongly urge approval of the bill and approval of the Flake-
Blumenauer amendment at the appropriate time.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to share my admiration for 
the good work of the subcommittee. I have enjoyed my service, and I 
look

[[Page H5814]]

forward to working as it moves forward through the legislative process.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Foley), a strong proponent of the Everglades portion of 
this legislation.
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman from Tennessee 
(Chairman Duncan) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello) and 
the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) for all of their 
work in helping us improve the quality of life in Florida.
  This provision in this bill is critically needed for the State of 
Florida and for our national treasure, the Everglades. It is being 
polluted. It is being destroyed. And much like a patient, it is waiting 
for emergency surgery. This bill finally allocates, after many years of 
attempts, to fund the necessary reconstruction and replumbing of 
Florida's Everglades, specifically, the Indian River Lagoon, which is a 
project of massive proportion that is important to the restoration of 
the Everglades and cleaning up our tributaries, our lagoons, and our 
estuaries.

                              {time}  1215

  I want to thank our local and State and Federal parties who have 
worked tirelessly to ensure this plan would be included in the bill. My 
constituents in Martin County have come on repeated occasions to our 
Nation's Capital at their own expense, to plead for funding for this 
important Indian River Lagoon Project. They have organized rallies. 
They have written letters. And they have passed on themselves a half-
penny sales tax to show their commitment is not only through deeds but 
through fiscal actions.
  So they have taken it upon themselves to assist in raising the 
necessary moneys to complete this project. I want to thank the U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers, the Jacksonville District, who worked 
tirelessly with our State partner, the South Florida Water Management 
District, Governor Bush and the cabinet have worked and have weighed in 
on this issue, and I have to thank the White House as well for paving 
the way to make this very, very important financial commitment to the 
restoration of America's treasured Everglades.
  The committee has listened to me many, many years pleading for this 
project to be included. I thank them for listening. Time now is for 
action, for not only the House to pass WRDA, to include the Indian 
River Lagoon, but for the Senate to act accordingly and bring this to 
fruition. I thank all parties involved, and I hope we have a very 
strong vote in support.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the 
time. I thank her for her very hard and thoughtful work on this bill.
  I thank the gentleman from Tennessee, (Chairman Duncan) as well. I 
appreciated the hearings you had trying to press us really to new 
plateaus on water projects. I am grateful for the inclusion in the 
manager's amendment of an amendment that would require the Secretary to 
coordinate with the governor, the mayors, for a 10-year plan for 
restoration of the Anacostia River which flows within sight of the 
Congress. In many ways, it is the Congressional River, not only because 
it is so near, but because if you will forgive me, when Congressional 
toilets flush on a rainy day, the waste from the Anacostia, the waste 
goes into the Anacostia River and finds its way all of the way down to 
the Chesapeake Bay, one of the great wonders of the United States.
  This is about more than beauty, however; it is about health and the 
ecologically integrity of the waterways of this entire region. The 
Federal Government is a major offender. One-third of the sewer system 
here serves the Federal presence. The Federal Government is a rate 
payer; it would not be a rate payer, of course, if it was not strongly 
and significantly involved. The Federal Government built the sewer 
system here 100 years ago. The Corps of Engineers still runs it.
  But the Federal Government is not a major contributor to the billion 
dollar combined sewer overflow problem, much of it of its own Federal 
making.
  There are many projects in this bill. We do have $55 million in this 
bill, for which I am very grateful, but historically, if you look over 
the last 20 years, there have been projects, large amounts of money to 
jurisdictions and projects which have absolutely no relationship to the 
Federal sector.
  Here we have the Federal sector deeply involved, a billion-dollar 
problem, and we have yet to really get to the bottom of it.
  I want to particularly thank you for the way in which the Chairman 
and the ranking member have understood this problem, and for the ways 
they have made us understand that part of the problem is a larger one, 
our approach to water rehabilitation, which is starkly different from 
the way we understand we have to rehabilitate roads. We cannot see what 
is happening in our water structures. We can see what is happening on 
our roads. It is time we saw what is happening to our health when we do 
not deal with our waterways in the same way.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman I yield 1 minute at this time to the 
gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson.)
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, you will hear today and you have heard 
today that modernizing our locks and dams on the Mississippi River is a 
financial boondoggle. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
  And economically, waterway transportation is the most efficient mode 
of transporting commercial freight. Our fleet today carries 800 tons of 
raw materials and finished goods each year, and it adds $5 billion to 
the United States' economy.
  A typical inland barge holds a capacity of 15 tons greater than one 
rail car, and 60 times greater than one semi-trailer truck. Waterway 
transportation is also the most environmentally friendly mode of 
commercial transportation.
  I would like to remind my colleagues from Oregon and Arizona that 
modernization of the Ohio River navigation system has been ongoing for 
more than 40 years, and updated to current value, investments to 
restore that navigation system would far surpass the cost of 
improvements on the Upper Mississippi and Illinois waterways.
  You know, we ship millions of tons of agricultural commodities--oil, 
gas, chemicals, fertilizers, hazardous materials--up and down the 
Mississippi River because it is safer, and it is less costly. For this 
reason, we must continue the modernization process and defeat Flake-
Blumenauer when it comes up later today.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes 
to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz.)
  Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support 
of the Water Resources Development Act. I want to acknowledge the 
wonderful work, important work of the chairman and ranking member for 
their efforts and the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for their leadership in 
bringing this much needed bill to the floor today.
  It has been 5 years since Congress has passed a water resources bill, 
legislation that is significant in recognizing the Federal Government's 
commitment to improving the navigational safety of our waterways and 
upgrading our local water infrastructure.
  My colleagues, we cannot take the safety and security of our water 
for granted. Many of the sewer and drinking water pipes in our Nation 
today were installed 50 to 100 years ago. Those pipes are showing their 
age, leaking, cracking, breaking. By passing this legislation, we 
reaffirm Congress's commitment to providing clean and safe water in 
communities across the Nation.
  The bill also contains an important provision that compliments the--
recently passed in the House--bill, called the Delaware River 
Protection Act, legislation crafted by the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. LoBiondo), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), the gentleman from Delaware 
(Mr. Castle) and myself, to respond to the November 2004 oil spill that 
occurred alongside our districts in the Port of Philadelphia.
  The oil spill struck at the heart of our region, dumping 265,000 
gallons of oil in the Delaware River. Its effect was devastating, 
temporarily shutting

[[Page H5815]]

down a nuclear power plant, impeding trade, injuring, killing wildlife 
and putting the area's drinking water at risk.
  The Delaware River Protection Act will bolster our ability to better 
provide for the environmental integrity and economic vitality of the 
Delaware River and the greater Philadelphia area.
  Additionally, today's legislation gives the Army Corps of Engineers 
the authority to remove debris from the riverbed of the Delaware River, 
an authority we need to keep the river safe for navigation and to 
prevent a similar incident in the future.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this bill. It is 
time to let our local and State officials know that we will continue 
working with them to maintain our water infrastructure, something that 
is so important to protecting Americans' health.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Upton) for the purpose of making a brief statement and 
entering into a colloquy.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the committee on both sides 
of the aisle, particularly all of the parties. I just want to explain, 
when I was in Michigan this last week, over the July 4th recess, I met 
with my Corps of Engineers as it related to the harbor in St. Joe and 
Benton Harbor.
  They asked that we take steps necessary to lower the depth of the 
harbor from 21 feet to 23 feet, which would be consistent with the 
other harbors along Lake Michigan, Holland, as well as Muskegon and 
Traverse City.
  I realize that it is too late now, as the rule has been pending, to 
offer that as an amendment. And I would just like to receive an 
assurance from both sides that we will work together in conference to 
include the appropriate language, so that, at the end of the day, in 
fact, that we will be able to see this harbor dredged, obviously with 
the correct appropriation from the proper subcommittee.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. UPTON. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. DUNCAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. It is my 
understanding that this is a very fine project that the gentleman has 
endorsed and is strongly proposing here, and we will be glad to work 
with the gentleman in every way to assure that this ends up in the 
legislation.
  Mr. UPTON. Thank you.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that 
I agree to work with this change in conference.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Salazar.)
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from 
Texas for yielding me this time to speak on this important bill.
  I rise today to express my strong support for the Water Resource 
Development Act of 2005. As a new Member of Congress, I am also proud 
to be on a part of the committee that works in such a bipartisan way. I 
would like to recognize the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and 
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) the ranking member as well 
as the gentleman from Tennessee (Chairman Duncan) and the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) for their strong leadership.
  Today, each Member will have an opportunity to vote for a bill that 
is about investing in America. It is about investing in our 
infrastructure. And to me, it is about addressing rural Colorado's 
water resources needs.
  WRDA will authorize new projects for the Corps of Engineers, 
including certain environmental restoration projects in our rivers and 
our lakes. I am pleased that WRDA contains two projects that are 
critical to water resources in my district out in Colorado.
  The first project is out in the eastern part of my district and 
provides for water transmission infrastructure in Pueblo and Otero 
Counties for safe drinking water.
  The second will help the water and wastewater related infrastructure 
for the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe in southeastern Colorado. Like many 
areas, the needs of the Third Congressional District and the county 
resources are stretched thin. But assistance from the Army Corps will 
go far.
  I thank the leadership for the support of these projects. Water is 
the lifeblood of rural Colorado. After 5 years of delay, Congress 
should move quickly and put WRDA on the President's desk for signature. 
I urge my colleagues to vote yes for WRDA.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to a member of the 
committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), the chairman. I thank him for the work that he 
has done on this bill, and managing this bill on the floor today.
  Later on today, there will be an amendment coming forward that is 
being sponsored by my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Stupak) any myself.
  And what this amendment will do is it will ensure that the Corps of 
Engineers uses the criteria that it used in 2004 for the projects in 
the harbors that will be dredged under this bill. It is important to my 
district.
  I represent a district with over 200 miles of Lake Michigan 
shoreline, and a number of different harbors, and the Corps of 
Engineers had proposed a criteria that would have meant that a number 
of my harbors would no longer have qualified for dredging.
  Well, when you are along the shores of Lake Michigan, you begin to 
realize that, for many of these communities, both from an economic 
development, both recreational and commercial, the harbor is the 
lifeblood to these communities.
  When this amendment is brought forward, and it is going to be 
supported by the gentleman managing the bill, I thank him for his 
support. As that amendment becomes part of the bill, it will ensure 
that the harbors, these kinds of harbors will get the dredging that is 
necessary to keep them open.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes 
to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans).
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for H.R. 
2864, particularly the provisions authorizing the projects in the Upper 
Mississippi River Basin.
  As many of our colleagues know, the Corps began studying the locking 
needs on the river nearly 12 years ago. Those locks were designed a 
long time ago. They need to be modernized and improved sooner rather 
than later.
  Farmers in Brazil, China and other competing countries have had the 
advantage of government investment in infrastructure to ship their 
goods. We must invest in expanding our locks so that our farmers can 
compete.
  Additionally the bill addresses the ecosystem's needs for the areas 
of the river. The Corps projects will help restore the wildlife along 
the Mississippi. These resources put to improving the ecosystem are a 
necessary compliment to lock improvement.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this improvement and 
support H.R. 2864.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. LaHood), a former member of the committee.
  (Mr. LaHOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman very much for his 
leadership and certainly on the minority side, I thank them for their 
leadership over there to all the staff.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill and certainly against 
the Flake amendment. But the important part of this bill, I think, for 
the country is we are going to fix the potholes in the river. That is 
what I call the locks and dams. They have not been touched for over 50 
years. They need to be replaced. They need to be repaired. These are 
the pot holes; and if we have potholes in our roads, we fix them up. 
The potholes on the rivers are the locks and dams.
  This bill provides the authorization that will allow the Committee on 
Appropriations to come up with the money to implement the plan that has 
been long overdue and long coming with the Corps of Engineers' $3.2 
billion over 15 years that will help those who use the Illinois and 
Mississippi Rivers

[[Page H5816]]

to continue to have it be the navigable waterway that is so important 
for the transportation of the food and fiber that is used and produced 
all along those two waterways.
  I encourage all to support the bill and to vote against the Flake 
amendment.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes 
to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).
  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Eddie Bernice Johnson) for yielding me time, and I appreciate the great 
job that she and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) have done 
with this bill along with the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the 
ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
  I rise in support of this bill and the good work it does with the 
environment and with environmental restoration, but I must speak 
against the Flake-Blumenauer amendment. I know that these gentlemen 
have good intentions and good will in their hearts, but I have to tell 
you that I think they are terribly misguided.
  It is interesting to me that we have two folks opposed to something 
on the Mississippi River that live a thousand miles from there and live 
in States where they do not have any water. There are rivers in their 
States that are empty. They are just nothing but a hole in the ground. 
Those of us in the Mississippi River Valley understand what a critical, 
essential thing it is to our economy to have a navigable Mississippi 
River, and that is what we are talking about here is maintaining and 
improving the ability to have a superhighway into the international 
marketplace at a time when we are moving into a world economy for that 
part of the central United States.
  It would be absolutely insane not to complete the restoration of the 
navigation capacity of the upper Mississippi River, and that is why you 
should oppose the Flake-Blumenauer amendment.
  This is a good thing. It would make just as much sense for me to 
offer an amendment to do away with the maintenance on the interstate 
highways in the States of Arizona and Oregon. I would not do that. What 
we need to do is to expedite the repair and maintenance and restoration 
of the capacity to navigate the upper Mississippi River and the entire 
navigation system of this country. It is absolutely essential to our 
economic growth and our economic well-being in today's worldwide 
economy.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the very distinguished 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof).
  (Mr. HULSHOF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time. I rise to speak in favor of this long overdue Water Resources 
Development Act and to applaud the chairman and ranking member for 
bringing it to the floor, but specifically to speak strongly in 
opposition to the amendment offered by my colleagues, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Blumenauer).
  I grew up in the shadow of the levees along the Mississippi River 
that protect the fertile farm land in southeast Missouri and delivered 
grain from our family's farm to barge terminals; and those extra cents 
per bushel have helped keep food on our table and keep that family farm 
within our family.
  I am presently privileged to represent Missouri's ninth district 
which includes about 120 miles of the Mississippi, four of the locks in 
question, several important environmental projects, including 
mitigation and habitat restoration. Let me echo what the gentleman who 
just spoke, my friend from Arkansas, said, that it is a little bit 
frustrating for those of us who know and understand and appreciate the 
character and the many facets of the Mississippi River to deal with an 
amendment that has been offered by those whose personal knowledge of 
locks and dams is a seat on a plane 30,000 feet above these very 
structures which maintain the navigable waterway of the Mississippi 
River.
  When the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) was a signatory to a 
letter to the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Hobson) back in March of 
2004 urging a line item appropriation to dredge the Columbia River 
channel from 40 to 43 feet, I did not object because the gentleman 
should know his own district and how it affects his infrastructure in 
his area.
  Let me just address some of the concerns that have been raised by the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer). First of all, I have been 
hearing that this amendment by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) 
and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) is a compromise.
  The underlying bill is a compromise. There are 29 locks and dams on 
the upper Mississippi River. We are talking about modernizing five of 
those locks on the upper Mississippi along with two on the Illinois 
River.
  We have heard the discussion about this being a costly boondoggle, 
that the cost-benefit analysis does not justify modernization of locks 
and dams. Here are some facts. First of all, I did not hear from the 
gentleman offering the amendment that we should have a cost-benefit 
analysis for the environmental restoration portion of the bill. 
Secondly, as the chairman pointed out in his opening remarks, $900 
million, half of the cost of modernizing the locks and dams, is already 
being borne by the barge owners and operators with this 20-cent-per-
fuel excise tax that is now going into the Inland Waterway Trust Fund.
  What is interesting, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that 40 percent of the 
funds in that trust fund have been placed there by the upper 
Mississippi barge owners and operators, and yet only about 15 percent 
of the trust fund is used on projects that help those operators on the 
upper Mississippi.
  It is not the first time those of us in the Midwest helped subsidize 
infrastructure across the country. Highway 89 that cuts through the 
gentleman from Arizona's (Mr. Flake) district, those of us in the 
Midwest helped subsidize the maintenance of that highway.
  Just as the light rail project the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Blumenauer) has pushed for, about 48 cents out of a dollar is borne by 
the passengers of the light rail system. We pick up the rest of the 
cost. I think that is appropriate just as the users of the upper 
Mississippi are paying for half the cost.
  Let me say on the issue of traffic decreasing, because the gentleman 
talked about the $900 million that has been invested in modernization 
already. Even with those investments, these 1930s facilities, we are 
losing 10 percent a year and have for the last 10 years, 10 percent 
reliability. And so the fact is if a project is broken, it is time to 
fix it. You do not wait to see if it gets better.
  Traffic has been increasing on the inland waterway system everywhere 
except in the upper Mississippi because of the declining condition of 
these locks and dams. It is time we modernize them.
  I urge a vote for the water bill and a strong vote ``no'' against the 
Flake-Blumenauer amendment.
  I thank the gentleman for bringing forth a WRDA bill that balances 
all needs. I also want to thank both Chairman Young and Chairman Duncan 
for honoring my request and including the modernization of seven locks 
on the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway in this 
legislation.
  I urge all members to support the modernization of these locks and 
oppose the Flake-Blumenauer amendment that would ensure that the 
Mississippi and Illinois Rivers remain gravel roads in a world filled 
with interstates.
  No one would say that our Nation's trucks should transport materials 
on roads built in the 1930s. But we are forcing the barges on the 
Mississippi River to use locks built in that far-gone era. Doing so 
limits our access to export markets and increases the load on our 
already over-burdened road and rail system.
  Today we will hear supporters of this amendment say that river 
traffic has decreased; this is true but is very misleading. Barge 
traffic has decreased only in the section of river that contains these 
woefully outdated and undersized locks. When you look at stretches of 
the river that are unencumbered by 1930's technology, barge traffic is 
increasing.
  Why? Because this section is plagued by delays and unscheduled 
maintenance closures, in fact, the capacity of the system is decreasing 
by 10 percent per year because of these closures. Thus, shippers are 
forced to stay away from this section of the river and

[[Page H5817]]

must use road or rail to transport their crops. Doing so increases 
transportation costs by almost 30 percent.
  When something is broke you don't wait to see if it will get better 
on its own, you fix it before the problem gets worse. Yet Congressmen 
Flake and Blumenauer publicly say they want to wait and see if the 
situation improves. In reality they are using these costly lock delays 
and the shippers' regrettable but understandable lack of confidence in 
1930's technology to achieve their goal of eliminating this project, 
saying, ``If they come we might build it.''
  Additionally, the Flake-Blumenauer amendment contains no exceptions 
for droughts, floods or other factors outside of anyone's control that 
could impact the amount of cargo transported during their three-year 
window. Quite frankly, acts of God should not preclude us from helping 
farmers secure export markets.
  Nor should we be forced to justify this project during a very small 
window of time; we need to look long term. The long-term effects of 
inaction more than justify the project. If we allow the delays at our 
outdated locks to continue, farmers will lose $562 million per year, 
the Nation would lose more than 20,000 jobs and our trade deficit will 
increase by $264 million. Moreover, corn exports will be decreased by 
68 million bushels per year, soybean exports by 10 million per year, 
all before the year 2020.
  And every day we delay is a day where more cargo is taken off of the 
river and put on trucks and rails. These are dangerous options for all 
Americans, dangerous to the driving public because every tow and barge 
that is taken off the river is replaced by 870 trucks on our highways, 
increasing the likelihood of accidents by 5,967 percent. And dangerous 
for the shipper because every barge is replaced by 225 rail cars that 
even the rail industry says it does not have, creating a situation 
where farmers will be able to grow crops and even sell crops but never 
be able to ship these crops.
  If you support trade, providing farmers access to as many markets as 
possible and oppose adding 4 million semi trucks to our overcrowded 
roads, come join me and the American Farm Bureau, the Carpenters Union, 
the Illinois Chamber of Commerce, the National Corn Growers, and the 
American Soybean Association--to name a few--in our opposition to the 
Flake-Blumenauer Amendment.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes 
to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell).
  (Mr. BOSWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate sharing with the committee I 
used to serve on.
  As you know, Mr. Chairman, we just came from talking to Iowa corn 
growers a few minutes ago, and this is a terribly important thing to 
Iowa and many States which I will mention as we discuss this very 
important matter.
  Today we have the opportunity to support and extend the vitality of 
the Nation's economy by supporting the upper Mississippi River locks 
and dams projects included in this bill.
  The upper Mississippi River waterway system is in severe need of 
update and repair. Until these projects are completed, many of our 
farmer owners who ship out of Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, 
Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Nebraska, Kansas, and 
Missouri will continue to experience costly delays and inefficient 
transportation.
  This legislation is crucial to preserving U.S. agricultural 
competitiveness in markets worldwide.
  Last year we saw an emergency closure of Lock & Dam 27 in Granite 
City, Illinois. The effect of a 2-week closure at a single site can be 
felt in the pocketbooks of many of my constituents. If we do not act 
now to repair these locks and dams, we continue to risk shut-down at 
any number of sites, the effect of which would be disastrous.
  Barge traffic on the Mississippi River represents the most efficient, 
most cost-effective, most environmentally sound means of transporting 
commodity goods from this region of the country to market. If we move 
away from the barge traffic, the expense we would have of creating new 
roads and rail to accommodate this traffic would be daunting. Each year 
hundreds of millions of tons of commerce move through the upper 
Mississippi River system; this is equivalent to roughly 67,000 barges. 
To replace barge traffic with truck and rail traffic would require 1 
million rail cars or 4 million trucks. This is the most cost-efficient 
way to support and maintain the agriculture economy in our Nation.
  The 2005 Water Resources Development Act is important in many ways; 
but at its heart it is about job creation, reducing the burden of 
transportation costs of American producers, promoting U.S. agriculture 
exports, and supporting the most environmental friendly mode of 
transportation.
  For the good of our environment, the good of the economy, and the 
good of the Nation, I strongly urge support of the upper Mississippi 
locks and dams project.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes 
to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Water Resources 
Development Act.
  As Congressman Mo Udall used to say, Everything that has been said 
has been said. It just has not been said by everybody that needs to say 
it.
  There are a lot of good things in this bill. I am particularly 
supportive of the sections pertaining to the Mississippi and Illinois 
rivers.
  Enlarging and improving the navigation on these rivers will create 
jobs, promote economic growth, and also strengthen the environment by 
providing $1.6 billion in environmental restoration funding. This is 
good for the economy and the environment.
  If everything we did in this country was like this legislation on 
other pieces of legislation, other problems that we were trying to 
tackle in this country, we would be a better place and a better 
country.
  Navigation in the upper Mississippi supports more than 400,000 jobs 
and 90,000 high-paying manufacturing jobs. Every year, shipping in the 
upper Mississippi River adds up to about $1.2 billion to our economy. 
Lock modernization will provide 48 million man hours of labor for 
Midwest workers. But just as important, the bill provides $1.6 billion 
in Federal funding for environmental restoration which will also be 
important economically. In fact, under the bill, for every dollar spent 
on construction, we spend $2 on environmental restoration.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. It is a balanced approach. It is 
right for the economy. It is right for the environment, and it is good 
for the Nation.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, how much time is 
remaining?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Latham). The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Eddie Bernice Johnson) has 4 minutes remaining. The gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) has 10\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes 
to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy 
in permitting me to speak.
  I wanted to just clarify something. I really appreciate the 
interaction that we are having here, but there is an element of 
confusion.
  Some of the talking points that the opposition to our amendment in 
the upper Mississippi have been distributing contain the notion that we 
have ignored the upper Mississippi River, that the locks are ignored. 
They are antiquated. They are crumbling. We have not done anything. One 
of my colleagues from Illinois said that we had not touched them for 50 
years.
  Now, it may be in the talking points, but it is not true. Right now 
there is $88 million that is being spent on Lock 24 for important 
reconstruction. And I appreciated the anecdote that my friend from 
Missouri pointed out in terms of a problem that occurred when there was 
a visitation recently to the big 1,200-foot lock where there were seven 
bolts that were sheared off. That story he shared with me is exactly 
the point.

                              {time}  1245

  We need to spend money to maintain what we have in place right now. 
We have spent almost $1 billion. We are not adequately maintaining the 
current locks. My friends are confusing building elaborate expensive 
new construction, which may or may not happen in its entirety, with 
adequate

[[Page H5818]]

maintenance for what is there now. This is missing the point. I 
respectfully suggest that we not in the course of this debate confuse 
these points.
  I take modest exception to the notion that just because we are moving 
forward with efforts to invest in America's infrastructure and trying 
to protect what we have, that we are somehow alleging that we have this 
vast river system that we are ignoring. We have not, we are not, and we 
will not ignore the river's needs.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Hulshof).
  Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Chairman, to my friend from Oregon I would 
personally invite him to come out and view these. Some of these locks, 
built, again, Mr. Chairman, in the 1930s, are standing just out of 
habit, with bailing wire and duct tape. And the Corps of Engineers has 
done a magnificent job.
  Here is the reason, which I did not get to address earlier as far as 
the trigger that is in the gentleman's amendment. The trigger, the 
tonnage requirement the gentleman has in his amendment, does not take 
into account, for instance, the weather. A year ago, because of high 
water, the river was shut down as far as barge navigation. In low-water 
years, barges can only fill halfway, for instance.
  So by putting this trigger mechanism in place, it does not take into 
account the many variables like weather, like the failure of one of the 
locks, which I did share with the gentleman, a bad harvest year, 
fluctuating market prices that may mean farmers choose to store their 
grain rather than ship their grain.
  Again, I certainly acknowledge the intent with which the gentleman is 
bringing this amendment; but, again, because of the age of these locks 
and dams, it is time for modernization.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have no further 
requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
I think everyone here knows that I am one of the most fiscally 
conservative Members of this Congress, but this is a very fiscally 
conservative bill. It is not fiscally conservative to let a very 
important asset to deteriorate, and so I urge passage of this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this 
time.
  I did not plan to come and speak before the amendment was offered, 
but hearing the debate on the floor now, I am wondering which amendment 
is being described. Surely it cannot be the one we are offering, 
because the one we are offering does not scrub the project and does not 
say it cannot go forward. It simply says it should go forward only if 
the minimum requirements that have been laid out are met in terms of it 
being economically viable and useful. That is all we are saying. It is 
a pretty darn low bar.
  We are saying, let us take the bottom standard that the corps, the 
National Academy of Sciences, CRS, and other groups have said is 
feasible in order to make the project go forward. If it is not, it 
should not be built. If it is met, it should be built.
  I heard some discussion about, well, we would not go to your district 
and say you should not build that road or should not build that 
waterway or whatever if it is something you want. Well, if I say I need 
a road and it is going to carry 1,000 people per day, and over the next 
3 years we find out it is only going to carry 800 per day or 500 per 
day, I hope my colleagues vote against it. They ought to. That is why 
they are here. That is why we are all here in this position.
  We have a near-$400 billion deficit this year; a nearly $8 trillion 
debt. If we are not willing to husband our resources better than that, 
what hope do we have of getting ahold over this debt and deficit?
  Our amendment, again to be clear, does not say this project should 
not go forward. It simply says it ought to meet the requirements that 
have been laid out by those who are advocating the project itself. So 
this amendment that has been spoken of, I can assure all of my 
colleagues, it is not being offered. The amendment that is being 
offered, the Flake-Blumenauer amendment, says that the requirements 
simply need to be met. It needs to be economically viable and feasible.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to protect taxpayer resources and make sure 
that they are spent prudently. That is what this amendment is all 
about; and I would urge my colleagues, when it comes time, to vote for 
the Flake-Blumenauer amendment.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
Water Resources Development Act.
  I'd first like to thank Chairmen Young and Duncan, Ranking Members 
Oberstar and Johnson, and the committee staff. They have worked 
tirelessly on this bill. I appreciate all they have done to be 
responsive to member requests, and to work across the aisle to reach 
bipartisan agreement on many contentious issues.
  This bill is important for me for both its regional and national 
significance.
  In Louisiana, we will see a very direct impact from this legislation. 
Louisiana is losing its coastline from erosion at the staggering rate 
of a 15,000 acres per year. USGS estimates that the state has already 
lost about 1.22 million acres of coastal wetland in the past 70 years, 
which is roughly equivalent to the area of Delaware.
  As ``America's Wetlands'', the coast of Louisiana provides much of 
the seafood and shellfish, oil and natural gas, and agricultural 
commodities enjoyed by the rest of the country. In fact, more than 80 
percent of the country's offshore oil and gas is produced off our 
coast, and 25 percent of the foreign and domestic oil used in this 
country comes ashore through our ports. It is estimated that more than 
25 percent of the seafood consumed in the country comes through 
Louisiana, and that more than 75 percent of the marine species in the 
northern Gulf of Mexico spend a portion of their lifecycles in the 
wetlands of Louisiana. The land also serves as a buffer against ocean 
storms and protects industries and cities located further inland. 
Without the shelter provided by our wetlands, the damage done by a 
major hurricane could be catastrophic in terms of dollars and life. The 
loss of our coast is more than Louisiana's problem; it's America's 
problem. I appreciate the committee's recognition of this problem, and 
strongly support provisions in this bill that address Coastal 
Louisiana.
  This bill is good for more than just Louisiana, though; it is good 
for the nation. H.R. 2864 contains important reform provisions that 
will improve the way the Corps does business. It streamlines the 
approval process for projects; it encourages the Corps of Engineers to 
carry out projects in partnerships with its local sponsors; and it 
streamlines the process for entering into agreements with local 
sponsors. In the end, these reform provisions will save taxpayers money 
and speed up the completion time for projects.
  H.R. 2864 also benefits American consumers by improving on the 
nation's greatly outdated water infrastructure. Shipping via waterway 
is the single most cost-effective way to get goods to market, and 
improving our waterways will make American exports more competitive and 
our imports more affordable.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this legislation and urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for H.R. 
2864, particularly the provisions authorizing the projects in the Upper 
Mississippi River basin.
  As many of my colleagues know, the Corps began studying the locking 
needs on the Mississippi River nearly 12 years ago. These locks were 
built in the 1930s, and were never expected to carry the workload that 
they have as long as they have. Today, over 100 million tons of 
materials are carried along the Mississippi and Illinois waterways.
  Because of their age and their use, the locks are deteriorating and 
breaking down. The Corps has done its best to maintain these locks, but 
their efforts are compromised due to lack of funding. We have locks 
using temporary gates, crumbling concrete, and a host of other concerns 
through out the lock system. This leads to costly delays and increased 
costs to everyone.
  Additionally, the process of double locking, made necessary by the 
smaller lock chambers, doubles the workload and the chance for serious 
accidents at all of these locks. The added costs and the added risks 
could easily be overcome by building 1,200-foot locks.
  The locks on the Mississippi and Illinois rivers are vital to the 
regions economy creating a cheaper method to ship goods to ports and 
then overseas. However, these locks are facing many potential problems 
and are getting older every day. They need to be modernized and 
improved sooner rather than later.
  While some people have expressed concerns about the need to expand 
the locks, the people whose livelihood is dependant on them know the 
necessity of this project. Farmers in Brazil, China, and other 
competing nations

[[Page H5819]]

have had the advantage of government investment in the infrastructure 
used to ship their goods. We must invest in expanding our locks so that 
our farmers can compete in the global market.
  Additionally, this bill also addresses the environmental needs of the 
Upper Mississippi River. Water systems are transportation routes for 
ships, homes for wildlife, and recreation areas for communities. By 
improving the environment of the Mississippi River Basin, we are 
investing in all three of these uses.
  The Corps projects will help restore the wildlife along the 
Mississippi and help with water management. By restoring wildlife 
habitat, we will bring back nesting grounds for the bald eagle. By 
restoring natural features to the river, we will help mitigate some of 
the flooding that can devastate the surrounding area. By restoring fish 
passages, we are bringing opportunities for families to come together 
to play and fish along the river. it
  The resources put in to improving the ecosystem are a necessary 
compliment to the lock improvements. The Corps efforts to improve the 
ecosystem surrounding the locks and dams will help mitigate the effects 
that we have on the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers. We have a 
responsibility to take advantage of the opportunity to provide the 
resources for these projects. I am pleased to see that the Committee 
took that opportunity.
  There are many other vital programs that are in this legislation. For 
example, the aquatic ecosystem restoration project at Emiquon in Fulton 
County, Illinois will provide researchers and the public an opportunity 
to learn about how wetlands work to protect and preserve the 
surrounding areas, on land and in the river. The inclusion of the 
authorization to complete the Upper Mississippi River Comprehensive 
Plan will allow the Corps to finish this vital study that will help 
communities along the river to protect themselves from disastrous 
flooding. There are many other such projects that will help us examine 
what we can do to improve our water resources and implement what we 
know.
  I urge my colleagues to support the vital Mississippi River lock 
improvements and support the underlying legislation.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to congratulate Chairman 
John Duncan and Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson--and of course 
Chairman Young and Ranking Member Oberstar--for bringing the Water 
Resources Development Act, H.R. 2864, to the floor.
  Congress has not enacted a new WRDA since 2000--and I applaud the 
leaders of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for bringing 
a bill to the floor of the House before this year's August recess.
  The WRDA Act guides the Army Corps of Engineers' management of our 
Nation's waterways and water resources by authorizing projects that in 
many cases have literally reshaped the rivers and waterways of our 
Nation. For example, past WRDA bills have authorized the massive 
restoration of the Florida Everglades--and this WRDA bill authorizes 
significant changes to the Upper Mississippi-Illinois Waterway and as 
well as projects to restore coastal wetlands in Louisiana.
  When we as a Nation assume this kind of control over our 
environment--particularly over elements as powerful as our rivers and 
coastal plains--I believe it is imperative that policies and procedures 
be in place that will ensure that the projects undertaken by the Corps 
will achieve clear objectives. It is also essential that the potential 
impact of such projects on our natural resources be fully studied and 
understood.
  We are the stewards of our planet's riches--and we must remember that 
we will bequeath them to generations yet unborn. I encourage Congress 
to continue to move thoughtfully as this bill is refined and 
deliberated through the conference process, which I hope will begin 
sooner rather than later.
  In closing, I want to thank the committee for authorizing a study in 
the 2005 WRDA that will enable us to undertake the kind of informed 
interventions that are necessary to preserve the health of the Patapsco 
River, which is a critical natural resource in my district in Baltimore 
and indeed in the State of Maryland.
  WRDA instructs the Corps to assess the impact of debris accumulating 
in the Patapsco River basin on wetlands, water quality, and public 
health. Using the results of this study, the Corps can assess the 
impact of this debris on wetlands, water quality, and public health, 
and can then develop strategies to help clean up Baltimore's Inner 
Harbor.
  I am hopeful that this project will be a component of a larger 
initiative planned to restore the water quality and habitat of the 
Patapsco River Basin--and I thank the Committee for their continued 
support.
  Mr. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
manager's amendment to the overall measure as introduced by the 
gentleman from Florida because it authorizes additional projects and 
calls for a series of additional studies. In addition to authorizing 
$349 million, with an estimated Federal cost of $174 million, for 
environmental restoration on Picayune Strand, FL; $193 million, with an 
estimated federal cost of $123 million, for navigation at Port of 
Iberia, LA.; $99 million, with an estimated Federal cost of $64 
million, for hurricane and storm-damage reduction in New Jersey; and 
other allocations for many critical projects across the country, it 
seeks to bring improvement projects to my district of Houston, Texas.
  I applaud the Chairman for the inclusion of section 4104 that calls 
for a ``study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project 
for flood damage reduction'' in Harris County. Tropical Storm Allison 
destroyed expansive areas of my district in June 2001. More than 1,400 
homes in the Bellaire section received serious flood damage. About 90 
percent of Bellaire is in the Brays Bayou flood plain, according to new 
maps drawn by the Harris County Flood Control District after that 
storm, and I did submit requests in the fiscal year 2006 Energy and 
Water Development Appropriations Act for $12,500,000 to be used to fund 
for ongoing contracts and to initiate additional construction contracts 
to mitigate some of this residual damage.
  In addition, it is pleasing that this legislation contains a 
provision, section 5123, that will extend funding from the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, hazard mitigation grant program to 
``the project for flood control, Upper White Oak Bayou, Texas, 
authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
1986.'' Upper White Oak Bayou, almost in its entirety, serves the 
northwest corridor of the 18th Congressional District and communities 
such as the Heights, Lazybrook-Timbergrove, Oak Forest, Garden Oaks, 
and many others.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope that as negotiations begin with the other body 
that these important projects are retained for their tremendous value 
to the communities that have been affected by flood damage.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2863, 
The Water Resources and Development Act of 2005, WRDA 05. I commend the 
chairman for including in this bill provisions I requested that are 
important to Port Canaveral and my constituents in Brevard County, 
Florida.
  This bill includes several provisions that are important to the 
residents of Brevard County as a whole and those living in what has 
been referred to as the ``Mid-Reach'' or ``wormrock'' area in 
particular.
  First, the bill makes it clear that the Corps of Engineers is to 
accept the ICE report that was completed by and independent panel 
assessing the true impact of Canaveral inlet on the beach south of that 
inlet. The ICE report concluded that considerably larger share of the 
costs of the Brevard County Storm Damage Protection Project should have 
been borne by the federal government. The provision in WRDA 05 will 
ensure that Brevard County, Florida is able to recover, as a part of 
future renourishment activities, that portion of the costs of the 
original renourishment project that should have been borne by the 
Federal government.
  Second, the bill corrects an error that has been promulgated through 
several Corps documents since the mid-1990s and in WRDA 2000 that 
incorrectly calculated the length of the ``MidReach'' section of the 
Brevard County Storm Damage Protection Project as 7.1 miles rather than 
7.6 miles. This encompasses the shoreline from the north end of the 
``South Reach'' of the Brevard Beach project to the south end of 
Patrick Air Force Base. The correct length of this section of beach is 
7.6 miles and it is important that references to this section of beach 
be corrected in law.
  Third, H.R. 2864 directs the Corps to expedite the General 
Reevaluation Report, GRR, for the Mid-Reach section of the Brevard 
shoreline. This section of beach will be included as a part of the 
original project and mitigation and storm damage protection efforts can 
be undertaken.
  Finally, H.R. 2864 includes an important provision to ensure that a 
sediment trap can be constructed as a part of regular operation and 
maintenance at Port Canaveral. This sediment trap south of the approach 
channel and east of the south jetty will reduce the probability of a 
repeat of severe shoaling in the event of future hurricanes. It is 
appropriate to accomplish this work under the operation and maintenance 
since this measure is being taken to reduce future maintenance dredging 
of the Federal navigation channel. There will be cost savings if this 
is accomplished together with regular scheduled maintenance dredging.
  The hurricanes that occurred in September 2004 caused severe shoaling 
in the approach channel to Port Canaveral. This led to the shutting 
down of the port due to inadequate channel depth. This caused the loss 
of business and serious problems for cruise ships that had to be 
diverted to Miami, for oil tankers that could not deliver fuel to the 
port, and for the power station and cargo ships carrying

[[Page H5820]]

lumber and other building materials that were needed for repairs and 
reconstruction after the hurricanes. This also impacted access to the 
Navy submarine base and Port Canaveral.
  I thank the chairman for including these important provisions in this 
legislation and I look forward to passage of this legislation in the 
Senate.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, let me offer my congratulations to 
Chairman Young and Ranking Member Oberstar, and Subcommittee Chairman 
Duncan and Congresswoman Johnson, for shepherding this Water Resources 
bill to the House floor.
  After 5 long years, we know this bill is well overdue.
  The bipartisan nature of this WRDA bill, and of the operation of our 
committee in general, should be a model for the entire Congress. It is 
a credit to this committee that the work of the Corps translates into a 
better economy, a cleaner environment, and improved livability for the 
people of this Nation.
  The Corps has a record of accomplishment that has enhanced 
communities across America.
  Every year, billions of tons of commerce move over the navigable 
waterways the Corps maintains. This creates jobs and assures our 
leadership in the global economy. We know that maritime transportation 
will become even more critical in the years to come as we grow and 
expand our congested intermodal system.
  Another key element of the Corps mission is flood control. Death and 
displacement due to severe flooding has reoccurred throughout our 
Nation's history. Today, many of our major cities in the United States 
are protected by Corps of Engineers flood control structures. Flood 
protection on average prevents $16 billion in damages each year, saving 
us $6 for every $1 invested.
  The Passaic River Flood Basin is located smack in the middle of my 
Congressional District. People in my district are up in arms about what 
is too often a matter of life and death. Like along the Acid Brook in 
Pompton Lakes, New Jersey, it is important that the Corps has adequate 
authority to address and mitigate flooding issues.
  We know that Corps projects are sometimes described as pork barrel 
spending. Those who downplay the Corps' importance do not see the 
tangible benefit neighborhood by neighborhood. Members of Congress know 
their districts, we know what needs to be done, and by voting for this 
bill, we will reject the ``pork barrel'' label.
  That we have worked out bipartisan compromise on Corps reform, that 
we have agreed upon what the Corps needs to focus on in the years 
ahead, and that we are on the floor today is a huge victory for the 
American people.
  I would like to again thank the Committee leadership, especially the 
always fair-minded Chairman Duncan, for their strong and untiring 
effort to bring this bill to the floor.
  Let us urge the other body to complete its work as well, so we might 
finally renew our water resources program.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my concerns with the Water 
Resource Development Act of 2005.
  I would like to begin by thanking the committee for authorizing 
projects that are important to my district in their bill. Water and 
infrastructure are important issues to the sprawling, populated area 
that I represent. Each of these projects is important to the residents 
of central New Jersey and will enhance the quality of life in my 
district.
  Although I am pleased that this legislation includes important civil 
works projects that will better our nation, I am disappointed that this 
legislation does not include stronger reforms of the Army Corps of 
Engineers. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is charged with an 
important mission--operating our Nation's water resources and civil 
works projects. The projects they undertake provide our communities 
with clean drinking water, electric power production, river 
transportation, ecosystem restoration, and flood protection. 
Regrettably, the Army Corps has been plagued by mismanagement that has 
resulted in significant delays and distress to the communities that are 
in need of these projects.
  Although Congress specifically authorizes projects, the Army Corps 
has repeatedly ignored these guidelines and set their own priorities. 
For years, I have personally been frustrated with the Army Corps 
handling of projects in the 12th Congressional District. The most 
egregious example of the Army Corps disregard for authorized projects 
in my district is the environmental restoration of Grover's Mill Pond. 
Located at the site made famous by Orson Well's ``War of the Worlds'' 
radio broadcast, Grover's Mill is not only a historic site, but it is a 
recreation destination and the pond is a vital link to stream 
corridors. Years of sediment build-up and runoff from the watershed 
have caused the pond to become overrun with aquatic weeds and algae.
  In fiscal year 2003, Congress specifically designated $500,000 in 
funding for this project, but only a fraction of this amount has been 
spent by the Corps on Grover's Mill pond. This pond in its current 
condition is not only an eyesore for the community and the residents 
who live near it, but gives off an unpleasant smell in the summer. 
Completion of this project is long overdue and is just one example of 
how the Army Corps fiscal irresponsibility impacts projects across the 
Nation.
  The Army Corps should be a leading environmental organization, but 
too often environmental protection seems to be a secondary 
consideration. One large deficiency is their dependence on a planning 
policy that was created by the Water Resources Council in 1983. More 
than 20 years later, these policies have seen little revision. In 
addition, I am concerned with provisions of this bill that would give 
the Army Corps new authority to limit dramatically the alternatives it 
will consider during project planning and the National Environmental 
Policy Act, NEPA, review process. This will undermine NEPA and allow 
the Army Corps to proceed with projects before evaluating a full range 
of reasonable alternatives.

  The proposed plan for the Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway 
is another disconcerting provision in the bill. H.R. 2648 would allow 
the Army Corps to spend $1.8 billion to improve the water route and 
ease travel time. The Army Corps claims that this large project is 
necessary due to its projections that traffic will increase. However, 
both the National Academy of Sciences and the Congressional Research 
Service dispute this finding. Investing nearly 10 percent of total 
Corps spending into a project based on faulty predictions is simply 
unacceptable. I will support the amendment being offered by 
Representative Blumenauer and Representative Flake that will ensure 
that this project is economically justified by authorizing it only if 
the Army Corps meets their lowest projected traffic scenario.
  Although I have strong concerns that this bill does not go far enough 
in reforming the Army Corps, I believe that the projects and programs 
in this bill are important and need to be reauthorized. Therefore, I 
will reluctantly vote in favor of this legislation. I hope in the 
future that Congress will be able to enact reformative measure to 
address the Army Corps fiscal, environmental, and logistical 
oversights.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Water 
Resources Development Act, which authorizes flood protection and 
environmental restoration projects to be undertaken by the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers in order to reduce flood damage and improve 
environmental restoration. The House would not be considering this bill 
were it not for the hard work and leadership of Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee Chairman Don Young, and Water Resources and 
Environment Subcommittee Chairman John Duncan.
  In our ongoing efforts to manage our water supplies, this bill 
provides the critical partnership of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
to assist local water agencies in drought-proofing our region and 
improving our water infrastructure.
  Specifically, the bill authorizes $20 million for the cities of 
Arcadia and Sierra Madre, for their Water Environmental Infrastructure 
Program. This program will improve the water infrastructure that both 
cities rely upon, which is at risk due to deterioration from age and 
from the potential impact from a major seismic event in the region.
  The bill also authorizes $13 million for the city of Upland's storm 
drainage project for the Upland Basin to provide greater flood control 
retention and groundwater aquifer recharge capacities. This project 
will provide the opportunity to recharge 1326 acre-feet per year of 
storm flows that would otherwise be conveyed outside of the Chino 
Groundwater Basin. Additionally, the project will provide the 
opportunity to recharge approximately 2300 acre-feet per year of excess 
imported water supplies or potentially recycled water for future 
groundwater extraction and use during dry drought periods. Completion 
of the project will increase water conservation and increase water 
reliability for local water producers by utilizing the Chino 
Groundwater Basin for water storage, reducing the dependence on 
imported water during peak demands or drought periods.
  Additionally, the bill authorizes $5 million for the Raymond Basin 
Management Board's Southern California Foothill Communities Water 
Supply Reliability Program. The Raymond Basin Management Board 
encompasses the cities of La Canada, Sierra Madre, Pasadena, 
Arcadia and Alhambra, six water companies, three water districts, and 
three associations, and has brought together the communities along the 
San Gabriel mountain range and four groundwater basins in meeting the 
water needs in this region. The authorization will help in their 
planning, design and construction of groundwater quality and supply 
projects throughout the San Gabriel Mountain foothill region including 
the Six Basins, Chino, San Gabriel and Raymond groundwater basins.

[[Page H5821]]

  With the passage of the Water Resources Development Act, we can work 
with the Senate to send a good bill to the President for his signature. 
Again, I thank my colleagues on the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee for their dedication to providing this foundation for sound 
water management. I also want to applaud the hard work of the local 
water agencies and local governments that do such terrific work in our 
communities.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, the House of Representatives today passed 
the Water Resources Development Act of 2005, a bill that will have 
positive and lasting effects on communities throughout America, 
including southern West Virginia. I commend T&I Chairman Young, Ranking 
Member Oberstar, Subcommittee Chairman Duncan and Ranking Member 
Johnson for moving this important bill.
  WRDA, which traditionally follows a biannual schedule, was last 
enacted in 2000. Therefore, the Corps of Engineers has been forced to 
continue its work since then without any significant guidance from 
Congress. This is not how the program is supposed to work and has 
created considerable hardship for both local communities in need of 
assistance and the Corps itself. I hope today's action will be the 
first major step in reversing this five year trend.
  Mr. Chairman, southern West Virginia has been ravaged by significant 
flooding since WRDA was last enacted, and the people of southern West 
Virginia have suffered. Many live in homes that were built well before 
flood patterns and the risks associated were known. Absent action from 
Congress in the form of WRDA, families have been forced to move from 
their homes and businesses have picked up and moved out of the area. In 
many cases, a simple authorization and appropriation would have 
mitigated many of these problems.
  I have worked tirelessly with the Army Corps of Engineers and the 
Appalachian Regional Commission to combat flood damage, seeking to 
prevent future flooding. WRDA will help us in that endeavor.
  Mr. Chairman, the House today made a strong statement by 
overwhelmingly passing WRDA. I urge the other body to take up and pass 
the Water Resources Development Act of 2005, as further inaction by 
Congress will continue to negatively affect our Nation's communities.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the 
underlying bill, the Water Resources Development Act. In particular, I 
support the authorization given to the Army Corps of Engineers to begin 
work on renovating the locks and dams on the Mississippi River and to 
restore the diverse ecosystem of the river. I will oppose amendments 
meant to stop this construction from moving forward.
  I believe the bill's well-balanced approach will meet the needs of 
those who depend on the river for commerce, restore and protect the 
diverse natural environment, and enhance recreational opportunities.
  Much of the American Midwest's economy is dependent on the 
Mississippi river. In 1999, more than 151 million tons of commodities 
moved on the river system with a combined value of nearly $24 billion. 
The State of Minnesota sent about $1.4 billion worth of grain down the 
river--most of it traveled to New Orleans and Baton Rouge for export to 
foreign markets.
  Approximately 70 percent of our nation's agricultural exports travel 
along the Mississippi. A 2002 study determined that, if congestion 
increases on the river, $562 million could be lost in farm income 
alone. The Upper Mississippi supports more than 400,000 jobs in 
manufacturing, agriculture, and shipping--all of which support local 
businesses.
  Unfortunately, the day-to-day wear and tear on the river has taken 
its toll. The locks on the Mississippi river were built in the 1930s 
with 1930's technology and standards and for 1930's needs. They were 
designed for a 50-year life-span and are now more than 70 years old. 
Today's barge traffic is significantly different than when the locks 
were designed. The barges today average 1,100 feet in length while the 
current locks were built for barges only 600 feet in length. Towboats 
have to drop off half their barges in order to pass through the locks, 
and then reconnect, and then repeat the procedure upon arriving at the 
next lock. Building 1,200-foot locks will cut dock time and costs--and 
those savings are passed on to farmers, manufacturers, and consumers, 
creating jobs for our economy.
  Not only will refurbishing and expanding the locks facilitate 
commerce, but it will reduce stress on our roadways. A typical tow of 
15 barges down the river can carry as much as 870 semi-trucks with 60 
percent fewer emissions. One 15-barge tow can carry the same amount of 
grain as a three mile long train or 35 miles of trucks lined end to 
end. Clearly, using the River for transportation is much more efficient 
and makes our air cleaner.
  This project will not just benefit the transportation sector. I have 
spent time on the river and have seen the amazing ecosystem restoration 
projects that are underway and are sure to be continued under this 
plan. The Upper Mississippi valley provides habitat for 305 species of 
birds, 57 species of mammals, 45 species of amphibians and reptiles, 
and 134 species of fish. There are even bald eagles in the area, which 
can be seen year-round. In fact, the National Eagle Center is located 
along the Mississippi River, in Wabasha, Minnesota.
  The upper Mississippi is a haven for boating, fishing, hunting and 
other forms of recreation. Locals and tourists alike enjoy year-round 
fishing for walleye, northern pike, bass, perch, crappies, and catfish 
up and down the river. On summer days, thousands of private boaters 
enjoy the river, and hunters enjoy harvesting ducks in the fall.
  The river is a beautiful place. The proper balance between commerce, 
recreation, and the environment must be maintained. I ask for my 
colleagues to support the bill and reject amendments that prevent the 
modernization of the locks and dams from moving forward.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairmen Young 
and Duncan, and Mr. Oberstar and Ms. Johnson for their hard work in 
bringing this bill to the floor. Like the TEA-LU bill, we have been 
waiting several years to pass this important legislation.
  These water projects are extremely important for my home state of 
Florida and for my District. I have port dredging project that has been 
funded, but can not get started because the Corps of Engineers doesn't 
have authorization to do it. We are also still recovering from the 
ecological damage created by last year's hurricanes, and we can use 
this funding to continue to restore our state's waterways.
  Like all transportation projects, those included in this bill will 
put people back to work, improve our communities, and creates economic 
activity.
  By delaying the passage of this much needed legislation any further, 
we are doing a disservice to the people we represent.
  I encourage my colleagues here in the House and in the Senate to pass 
this legislation quickly so we can move forward with the critical 
projects this bill contains.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Water Resources 
Development Act, specifically the Upper Mississippi River-Illinois 
Waterway.
  This long overdue bill recommits the United States Government to the 
enhancement of our greatest national wonder--the Mississippi River 
basin. This national wonder is a kaleidoscope of beauty: birds, fish, 
fowl, the landscape of plains and valleys rolling into creeks, small 
rivers and other tributaries of a river that facilitates recreation as 
well as commerce.
  Our mightiest river demands our respect--for its beauty, for its 
sport, and not incidentally for its commerce. It is true that man has 
intruded with footprints on this river system with locks and dams. It 
is also true that these footprints have been restrained, particularly 
in relation to the commercial footprints that other transportation 
techniques have wrought in other environments.
  Indeed the introduction of a man-made channel has caused the river to 
be more hospitable to fish-life than that which existed when parts of 
the upper Mississippi were prone to persistent rapids and shallows. The 
maintenance of a constant channel has made possible more lake-like 
conditions for recreation boating and fishing. It has also made the 
Mississippi River basin part of world commerce. Indeed it has not only 
facilitated the marketing of grain to paying customers, but it has made 
possible the transfer of gifted grain to impoverished parts of the 
world to sustain lives that otherwise would have starved.
  Commerce, it must be understood, is not a four-letter word. Efficient 
transportation creates jobs. Barging grains, for instance, embellishes 
the livelihood of farm producers as it enables citizens of the world to 
be nourished. This bill which balances concern for the environment with 
realistic upgrading and maintenance of our lock and dam infrastructure 
deserves our support.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong support 
for H.R. 2864, the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2005. This 
historic legislation will provide funding for valuable projects across 
our Nation and the 11th Congressional District of Illinois.
  I want to thank and commend the Committee for including three 
projects specific to the 11th Congressional District of Illinois within 
H.R. 2864. Legislative language was included in the bill which will 
ensure the Army Corps continued commitment to the Village of Utica, the 
Illinois and Michigan Canal, and Ballard's Island in the Illinois 
River.
  The Village of Utica, IL has experienced periodic flood damage 
ranging from annual nuisance flooding to widespread flooding causing 
major damage. A majority of the commercial development in the village 
and multiple downtown municipal buildings are located in the 100-year 
floodplain. The impacts of recurring flood damage, along with the 
continuous risk of future damage, restrict the economic potential of 
the area. Additionally, since

[[Page H5822]]

much of the downtown was destroyed in a massive tornado during April of 
2004, rebuilding efforts have been hampered by having to adhere to 
floodplain guidelines.
  Changing the delineation of the 100-year floodplain is a complex 
process, and there is no easy way to immediately remove the downtown 
area from the plain as the post-tornado rebuilding proceeds. However, 
long-range flood protection options do exist including the construction 
of a flood control basin on Clark Run Creek upstream from downtown 
Utica, or the construction of a high flow bypass that would channel 
water typically flowing overland into downtown Utica into the Illinois 
and Michigan Canal instead. I am pleased that the Army Corps will be 
taking a closer look at these options.
  The City of LaSalle, IL has taken an aggressive approach to promoting 
itself as a historical tourism destination as a way to compensate for 
the loss of manufacturing. The highpoint of this project is the Port of 
LaSalle and the I & M Canal. The I & M Canal was integral to the 
success of Chicago as a transportation hub back in the 19th century as 
it connected the City to the Illinois River. While it fell into disuse 
and disrepair, the Canal Corridor Association and the City of LaSalle 
have remade a stretch at the Lock 14 site in LaSalle. A replica canal 
boat is planned to be constructed and act a tourist attraction and also 
a unique venue that can be rented for private functions to bring 
further revenue to the community.
  However, further contaminate testing (including cadmium and zinc) 
needs to be completed so that dredging may take place in order to 
create a long and deep enough channel for the canal boat to be 
successfully operated. I thank the committee for their continued 
support of this important project, and in making the Port of LaSalle 
initiative an Army Corps priority.
  Finally, I am pleased to thank the Committee for their support for 
studying the opening up of the Ballard's Island Channel in the Illinois 
River. The Army Corps completed its last dredging and stone removal at 
the Ballard's Island site in October 2003 with the intent to study the 
effects and ramifications. A significant time having passed, it is time 
for the Corps to continue with opening up this channel which the Corps 
closed almost 60 years ago. Cutting through the very large riparian bar 
which has built up over 60 years and which now blocks the original 
channel may be a means to this goal and I congratulate the Committee 
for their willingness to look further at this possibility.
  Passage of this all-important bill is not only important to the 11th 
Congressional District, but it is also imperative to the 
competitiveness and survival of Illinois and Midwestern agriculture 
within the global market. WRDA 2005 funds the Upper Mississippi and 
Illinois River Locks and Dams Restoration Project. This project will 
replace seven key 600-foot navigation locks with seven new 1,200-foot 
locks. Improvements to the inland water transportation system are long 
past due. Many structures were built over 60 years ago, when barge tows 
were less than 600 feet long. Today's barge tows are nearly 1,200 feet 
long, creating vast backlogs at many locks, and slowing the speed with 
which Illinois products can be shipped abroad.
  In order for U.S. agriculture to compete globally, we must have an 
updated water transportation system. Argentina, for example, has 
invested over $650 million in agricultural transportation. Brazil is 
reconstructing its waterway system in an effort to reduce the shipping 
costs of agricultural commodities by 75 percent. Due in large part to 
transportation advancements, these two countries have captured 50 
percent of the total growth in world soybean sales during the past 3 
years.
  The price farmers receive at their local market is often largely 
based on the price of transportation from the Mississippi River to the 
export markets. The lower the cost of transportation, the lower the 
cost of U.S. products on the world market; thus, the more demand for 
U.S. products in the global marketplace.
  Passage of H.R. 2864 with the inclusion of the Upper Mississippi and 
Illinois River Locks and Dams Restoration Project is also a jobs 
creation mechanism. According to the Army Corps of Engineers, 
construction of the 7 locks will provide at least 3,000-6,000 jobs per 
year for the construction period, estimated 12-20 years.
  I thank the Committee for their hard work on this important bill and 
strongly urge the Congress to join me in voting in support of WRDA 
2005's final passage.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2864, the Water 
Resources Development Act of 2005. This legislation fulfills the 
commitment of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to 
produce water resources legislation for the Nation on a biennial basis. 
Unfortunately, while the Committee produced a bill in the last 
Congress, it was not enacted into law.
  We are now nearly 5 years since the last water resources bill was 
enacted. That is too long.
  The Corps of Engineers has served the Nation well for 230 years. 
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. From its early works during 
the Revolutionary War, to navigation improvements, to the unrivaled 
efforts to reduce the devastating floods in the Mississippi River 
valley, to the current efforts to save the Everglades from extinction, 
the Corps is the entity that the people call upon to solve the problems 
facing the Nation's vast water resources.
  Few people today know that the Corps of Engineers, among its many 
responsibilities, 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 of 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 2 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, protecting the great resource of the 
Great Lakes--one fifth of all the fresh water on the face of the Earth.
  The bill before us today includes as great a variety of projects as 
have ever been included in water resources legislation. The scope of 
this bill includes projects and programs for the Nation's inland 
navigation system, flood protection, shoreline protection, and 
environmental protection and enhancement.
  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. Flood control and 
hurricane and storm damage reduction measures will help meet critical 
needs to protect lives and property.
  This legislation includes 30 projects for which the Chief of 
Engineers has submitted a report to Congress.
  In addition, the bill contains over 100 project modifications of 
existing or on-going projects, over 100 requests for Corps of 
Engineers' studies for future projects, and an equal number of requests 
for the Corps to carry out projects consistent with the primary 
missions of the Corps of navigation, flood control, and ecosystem 
restoration.
  All told, the bill, including additions adopted at Subcommittee, 
contains roughly $10 billion in new and modified project 
authorizations. This number should come as no surprise to those 
familiar with the Corps process, because this bill represents 
approximately 5\1/2\ years of requests since the last Water Resources 
Development Act of 2000.
  I am pleased that this legislation includes the legislative proposal 
developed in the previous Congress to address programmatic issues in 
the Corps program that have become collectively known as ``Corps 
Reform.'' This bi-partisan agreement calling for independent review of 
larger and more controversial projects will address many of the 
concerns raised by stakeholders, and outside academics, and will 
improve the process of moving project proposals from study to 
completion.
  There should be no doubt that I am a strong supporter of the Corps 
and the valuable work that it does for this country. This Nation needs 
the Corps of Engineers, but the Corps also needs to be free from 
outside criticisms. That is why I believe Congress must act to 
implement a few common sense revisions to the process by which the 
Corps develops and implements projects.
  Nothing in this bill hampers the ability of the Corps to study and 
recommend new projects. To the contrary, the Corps study process is 
improved by ensuring that completed studies can withstand outside 
scrutiny or challenge.
  This bill represents a fair effort to address the varied water 
resources needs of the Nation. It is worthy of bipartisan support, and 
I urge all Members to support the bill.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill which, among 
other things, authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' 
sustainability plan for the upper Mississippi River.

[[Page H5823]]

  The navigation and ecosystem sustainability in title VIII of the bill 
is the product of the Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway System 
Navigation feasibility study, which has had, unfortunately, a long and 
controversial history.
  As many will remember, a respected Army Corps economist filed a 
whistleblower complaint about the Corps' use of faulty data to justify 
lock and dam expansion. Partly in response to that incident, I 
introduced legislation to revamp the project review and authorization 
procedures at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The goals of my bill 
were to increase transparency and accountability; ensure fiscal 
responsibility; balance economic and environmental interests; and allow 
greater stakeholder involvement in proposed projects.
  Many elements of my reform measures are in this bill, though not to 
the degree I believe is still needed. For example, I believe the Corps' 
outdated principles and guidelines should be updated to reflect current 
laws and public values, and much more should be done to strengthen the 
peer review provisions--section 2030--to create a truly independent and 
effective review process. It is my hope the other body will include the 
full scope of these sensible reform measures in their version of this 
important bill.
  In addition, in the wake of the whistleblower scandal, my colleagues 
and I in the Army Corps reform caucus called for the scientific, 
nonpartisan, national research council to review the Corps' final 
recommended plan. Regrettably the NRC's report concluded there remained 
some questions about the Corps' commercial traffic predictions on the 
Mississippi--but expressed support for the Corps' inclusion of adaptive 
management ecosystem restoration components in their plan.
  While I remain troubled by the Corps' inability to fully justify the 
Model they used for their commercial traffic predictions, America 
clearly has an aging lock and dam infrastructure on the Mississippi. 
Most of the locks and dams on the upper Mississippi River system are 
over 60 years old and many are in serious need of repair and 
rehabilitation. For the past 19 years, the Corps has been undertaking 
major rehabilitation of individual facilities throughout the navigation 
system in an effort to extend their useful life. This work is critical 
to ensuring navigation reliability and safety.
  Furthermore, I represent a rural district where agriculture plays an 
important role in the economy and the life of many of its citizens. 
Updating this vital water transportation system by modernizing these 
aging locks will mean greater export opportunities for our farmers, and 
will create and sustain jobs throughout rural america which has been 
hit hard by the sluggish economy.
  Finally, the ecological health of the Mississippi River and its 
economic importance to the many people that make their living or seek 
their recreation is based on a healthy river system. Scientists 
studying the river agree that without significant efforts to restore 
habitat, this vital national resource will continue to decline. A 
strong and consistent Federal role for ecosystem restoration is 
necessary for the entire basin, both because of the large acreage of 
Federal lands, including the upper Mississippi River National Wildlife 
and Fish Refuge (the longest river refuge in the continental U.S.), as 
well as its major importance as a continental and international flyway 
for migratory birds, and as a habitat for federally listed threatened 
and endangered species.
  We must ensure Federal resources are balanced between lock 
construction and ecosystem needs. That is why I offered an amendment to 
this bill that seeks to do two things: First, it adds a new provision 
requiring the secretary to make an annual report to congress 
specifically on whether the lock and dam construction and ecosystem 
restoration projects are being carried out at comparable rates. In 
addition, the amendment makes it clear that congress intends to share 
the authority with the secretary in determining if the projects are 
moving forward at a comparable rate and adjust the annual funding 
accordingly. Mississippi lock and dam modernization and ecosystem 
restoration are an expensive provision of this bill and the American 
taxpayer deserves to know it is being done right.
  Mr. Chairman, the Mississippi River is one of America's national 
treasures. People come from all over the U.S., and all over the world 
come to its banks to see the natural splendor captured so well by 
authors like Mark Twain.
  As founder and co-chair of the upper Mississippi River Congressional 
task force, I have long sought to preserve the river's health and 
historical multiple uses, including as a natural waterway and a home to 
wildlife, for the benefit of future generations of Americans. While 
this is not a perfect bill, if implemented appropriately, I believe it 
will benefit both rural economies and the wildlife that depend on a 
healthy Mississippi River.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2864, the 
Water Resources Development Act of 2005. I want to begin by applauding 
Chairman Duncan for his continued effort to move this critical 
legislation forward. As a Member of the Water Resource Subcommittee, I 
have had the opportunity to see first hand his dedication to improving 
our Nation's infrastructure.
  I also want to express my thanks to Ranking Member Eddie Bernice 
Johnson, as well as our Leadership on the Committee, Chairman Young and 
Ranking Member Oberstar. They have always led our Committee in a 
bipartisan manner which places our Nation's interest ahead of politics.
  Mr. Chairman, wastewater infrastructure is not the flashiest of 
issues, but it is absolutely fundamental to improving quality of life, 
protecting the environment and enhancing economic development. My staff 
frequently gives me a hard time as I like to point out that if you 
cannot turn on the spicket and get clean and flush toilets you do not 
have basic sewer infrastructure in place, you simply cannot have 
economic development. It may not be the prettiest of analogies, but I 
find it is one that rings very true. And Mr. Chairman, that is why the 
bill we have before is so important.
  To emphasize this point, I would point to a project that took place 
in my home district in Pennsylvania. When I was first elected to this 
body, community officials came to me seeking funding for a small 
infrastructure project. A local creek, which flows into the Juniata 
River and eventually into the Susquehanna, was being filled with sewage 
from nearby houses because of lack of proper sewer lines. The health 
concerns, as well as the harm to the environment terribly hampered the 
quality of life for the local residents and prevented business from 
settling there.
  For the last four years, I have worked with officials to equip the 
community with a proper sewer system. I am happy to report that now 
roughly over 200 homes located in Broadtop Township are now properly 
hooked up to sewer lines. That may not seem like a big deal to some, 
but to my rural Pennsylvania district it means a great deal. And it 
would not be possible if it were not for the bill before us today.
  In short Mr. Chairman, the quality of life of the citizens of 
Pennsylvania and indeed throughout this Nation has been improved by the 
critical projects that are funded under this bill. Again, my 
congratulations to Chairman Duncan and the staff which has worked so 
diligently on this bill. I urge my colleagues to support the measure.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that today the House is considering the 
Water Resources Development Act of 2005.
  In this bill, we have been able to get past the rhetoric, identify 
real issues, and come up with workable, bipartisan, solutions that will 
actually help the Corps of Engineers carry out its missions.
  This negotiation involved a lot of give and take. The result does not 
represent my initial positions, or Mr. Oberstar's. That is the nature 
of a compromise.
  The compromise language gives the Corps of Engineers the tools it 
needs to improve and expedite water resources projects.
  These provisions earned the support of all the members of the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, received the support of 
412 Members of the House last Congress, and deserve the support of all 
the Members of the House this Congress.
  Now that the debate over ``Corps Reform'' is past us, both the 
Congress and the Corps of Engineers can focus on meeting the Nation's 
navigation, flood control, and environmental restoration needs to 
provide economic and national security and to improve our quality of 
life.
  Some complain about the cost of Corps of Engineers projects, but 
these investments are critically important to our economy.
  Over 13 million American jobs are dependent on trade, but our harbors 
are not ready to meet the increasing demands of international trade.
  Our farmers and our electric utilities depend on efficient waterways 
to move grain and coal, but over half of our locks are over 50 years 
old and two have been operating since the 19th century.
  Many communities along rivers and shores are not protected from 
hurricanes and flooding, even though the cost of recovering from a 
flood is on average six times greater than the cost of investing in the 
infrastructure needed to prevent those damages.
  Finally, there are worthwhile environmental restoration projects that 
provide both environmental and economic benefits.
  The Water Resources Development Act of 2005 addresses these needs in 
communities all over the country.
  I want to thank the ranking member of the committee, Mr. Oberstar, 
for his help in resolving some very contentious issues and I appreciate 
his willingness to work together in a bipartisan fashion.
  I want to commend Mr. Duncan and Ms. Johnson and the Water Resources 
and Environment Subcommittee for their hard work in crafting this 
legislation.

[[Page H5824]]

  I urge all Members to support H.R. 2864 and join me in encouraging 
the other body to act expeditiously once this bill has passed the 
House.
  Mr. FITZPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of Chairman 
Young's exemplary work on the Water Resources Development Act. In 
addition, I stand here to endorse The Chairman's Manager's Amendment--
which contains my bipartisan legislation--H.R. 1983.
  H.R. 1983 called for a new flood mitigation study of the Delaware 
River covering four states: Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New 
York. I would like to thank the effort and support of my bipartisan 
coalition of the Delaware River corridor: Representatives Dent, 
Hinchey, Kelly, Menendez, Smith and Holt.
  This is the first piece of legislation I introduced as a member of 
Congress. I would like to thank Chairman Young again for including H.R. 
1983 in the Manager's Amendment because this bill is needed for my 
constituents who were devastated by two floods in only six months.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Latham). All time for general debate has 
expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill 
for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be 
considered read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                               H.R. 2864

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Water 
     Resources Development Act of 2005''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--

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

                   TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS

Sec. 1001. Project authorizations.
Sec. 1002. Small projects for flood damage reduction.
Sec. 1003. Small projects for emergency streambank protection.
Sec. 1004. Small projects for navigation.
Sec. 1005. Small projects for improvement of the quality of the 
              environment.
Sec. 1006. Small projects for aquatic ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 1007. Small projects for shoreline protection.
Sec. 1008. Small projects for snagging and sediment removal.

                      TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 2001. Non-Federal contributions.
Sec. 2002. Harbor cost sharing.
Sec. 2003. Funding to process permits.
Sec. 2004. National shoreline erosion control development and 
              demonstration program.
Sec. 2005. Small shore and beach restoration and protection projects.
Sec. 2006. Written agreement for water resources projects.
Sec. 2007. Assistance for remediation, restoration, and reuse.
Sec. 2008. Compilation of laws.
Sec. 2009. Dredged material disposal.
Sec. 2010. Wetlands mitigation.
Sec. 2011. Remote and subsistence harbors.
Sec. 2012. Beneficial uses of dredged material.
Sec. 2013. Cost-sharing provisions for certain areas.
Sec. 2014. Revision of project partnership agreement.
Sec. 2015. Cost sharing.
Sec. 2016. Credit for work performed before partnership agreement.
Sec. 2017. Recreation user fee revenues.
Sec. 2018. Expedited actions for emergency flood damage reduction.
Sec. 2019. Watershed and river basin assessments.
Sec. 2020. Tribal partnership program.
Sec. 2021. Wildfire firefighting.
Sec. 2022. Credit for nonconstruction services.
Sec. 2023. Technical assistance.
Sec. 2024. Coordination and scheduling of Federal, State, and local 
              actions.
Sec. 2025. Project streamlining.
Sec. 2026. Lakes program.
Sec. 2027. Mitigation for fish and wildlife losses.
Sec. 2028. Cooperative agreements.
Sec. 2029. Project planning.
Sec. 2030. Independent peer review.
Sec. 2031. Training funds.
Sec. 2032. Access to water resource data.
Sec. 2033. Shore protection projects.
Sec. 2034. Ability to pay.
Sec. 2035. Aquatic ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 2036. Small flood damage reduction projects.
Sec. 2037. Leasing authority.
Sec. 2038. Cost estimates.
Sec. 2039. Studies and reports for water resources projects.
Sec. 2040. Fiscal transparency report.

                 TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS

Sec. 3001. King Cove Harbor, Alaska.
Sec. 3002. St. Paul Harbor, St. Paul Island, Alaska.
Sec. 3003. Sitka, Alaska.
Sec. 3004. Tatitlek, Alaska.
Sec. 3005. Grand Prairie Region and Bayou Meto basin, Arkansas.
Sec. 3006. Osceola Harbor, Arkansas.
Sec. 3007. Pine Mountain Dam, Arkansas.
Sec. 3008. Saint Francis Basin, Arkansas.
Sec. 3009. American River Watershed, California.
Sec. 3010. Compton Creek, California.
Sec. 3011. Grayson Creek/Murderer's Creek, California.
Sec. 3012. Hamilton Airfield, California.
Sec. 3013. John F. Baldwin Ship Channel and Stockton Ship Channel, 
              California.
Sec. 3014. Kaweah River, California.
Sec. 3015. Larkspur Ferry Channel, Larkspur, California.
Sec. 3016. Llagas Creek, California.
Sec. 3017. Los Angeles Harbor, California.
Sec. 3018. Magpie Creek, California.
Sec. 3019. Pacific Flyway Center, Sacramento, California.
Sec. 3020. Pinole Creek, California.
Sec. 3021. Prado Dam, California.
Sec. 3022. Sacramento and American Rivers Flood Control, California.
Sec. 3023. Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel, California.
Sec. 3024. Sacramento River, Glenn-Colusa, California.
Sec. 3025. Santa Cruz Harbor, California.
Sec. 3026. Seven Oaks Dam, California.
Sec. 3027. Upper Guadalupe River, California.
Sec. 3028. Walnut Creek Channel, California.
Sec. 3029. Wildcat/San Pablo Creek Phase I, California.
Sec. 3030. Wildcat/San Pablo Creek Phase II, California.
Sec. 3031. Yuba River Basin project, California.
Sec. 3032. Intracoastal Waterway, Delaware River to Chesapeake Bay, 
              Delaware and Maryland.
Sec. 3033. Brevard County, Florida.
Sec. 3034. Broward County and Hillsboro Inlet, Florida.
Sec. 3035. Canaveral Harbor, Florida.
Sec. 3036. Gasparilla and Estero Islands, Florida.
Sec. 3037. Jacksonville Harbor, Florida.
Sec. 3038. Lido Key Beach, Sarasota, Florida.
Sec. 3039. Miami Harbor, Florida.
Sec. 3040. Peanut Island, Florida.
Sec. 3041. Tampa Harbor-Big Bend Channel, Florida.
Sec. 3042. Tampa Harbor Cut B, Florida.
Sec. 3043. Allatoona Lake, Georgia.
Sec. 3044. Latham River, Glynn County, Georgia.
Sec. 3045. Dworshak Dam and Reservoir improvements, Idaho.
Sec. 3046. Beardstown Community Boat Harbor, Beardstown, Illinois.
Sec. 3047. Cache River Levee, Illinois.
Sec. 3048. Chicago River, Illinois.
Sec. 3049. Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Illinois.
Sec. 3050. Emiquon, Illinois.
Sec. 3051. LaSalle, Illinois.
Sec. 3052. Spunky Bottoms, Illinois.
Sec. 3053. Fort Wayne and vicinity, Indiana.
Sec. 3054. Koontz Lake, Indiana.
Sec. 3055. Little Calumet River, Indiana.
Sec. 3056. White River, Indiana.
Sec. 3057. Des Moines River and Greenbelt, Iowa.
Sec. 3058. Prestonsburg, Kentucky.
Sec. 3059. Amite River and Tributaries, Louisiana, East Baton Rouge 
              Parish Watershed.
Sec. 3060. Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana.
Sec. 3061. Bayou Plaquemine, Louisiana.
Sec. 3062. Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, Louisiana.
Sec. 3063. J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, Mississippi River to 
              Shreveport, Louisiana.
Sec. 3064. Mississippi Delta Region, Louisiana.
Sec. 3065. New Orleans to Venice, Louisiana.
Sec. 3066. West bank of the Mississippi River (East of Harvey Canal), 
              Louisiana.
Sec. 3067. Camp Ellis, Saco, Maine.
Sec. 3068. Union River, Maine.
Sec. 3069. Gwynns Falls Watershed, Baltimore, Maryland.
Sec. 3070. Boston Harbor, Massachusetts.
Sec. 3071. Detroit River Shoreline, Detroit, Michigan.
Sec. 3072. St. Joseph Harbor, Michigan.
Sec. 3073. Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan.
Sec. 3074. Ada, Minnesota.
Sec. 3075. Duluth Harbor, McQuade Road, Minnesota.
Sec. 3076. Grand Portage Harbor, Minnesota.
Sec. 3077. Granite Falls, Minnesota.
Sec. 3078. Knife River Harbor, Minnesota.
Sec. 3079. Red Lake River, Minnesota.
Sec. 3080. Silver Bay, Minnesota.
Sec. 3081. Taconite Harbor, Minnesota.
Sec. 3082. Two Harbors, Minnesota.
Sec. 3083. Deer Island, Harrison County, Mississippi.
Sec. 3084. Pearl River Basin, Mississippi.
Sec. 3085. Festus and Crystal City, Missouri.
Sec. 3086. Monarch-Chesterfield, Missouri.
Sec. 3087. River Des Peres, Missouri.
Sec. 3088. Antelope Creek, Lincoln, Nebraska.
Sec. 3089. Sand Creek watershed, Wahoo, Nebraska.
Sec. 3090. Lower Cape May Meadows, Cape May Point, New Jersey.
Sec. 3091. Passaic River Basin flood management, New Jersey.
Sec. 3092. Buffalo Harbor, New York.
Sec. 3093. Orchard Beach, Bronx, New York.
Sec. 3094. Port of New York and New Jersey, New York and New Jersey.
Sec. 3095. New York State Canal System.
Sec. 3096. Lower Girard Lake Dam, Ohio.
Sec. 3097. Mahoning River, Ohio.

[[Page H5825]]

Sec. 3098. Arcadia Lake, Oklahoma.
Sec. 3099. Waurika Lake, Oklahoma.
Sec. 3100. Willamette River temperature control, McKenzie Subbasin, 
              Oregon.
Sec. 3101. Delaware River, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware.
Sec. 3102. Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 3103. Sheraden Park Stream and Chartiers Creek, Allegheny County, 
              Pennsylvania.
Sec. 3104. Solomon's Creek, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 3105. South Central Pennsylvania.
Sec. 3106. Wyoming Valley, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 3107. Cedar Bayou, Texas.
Sec. 3108. Freeport Harbor, Texas.
Sec. 3109. Johnson Creek, Arlington, Texas.
Sec. 3110. Lake Kemp, Texas.
Sec. 3111. Lower Rio Grande Basin, Texas.
Sec. 3112. North Padre Island, Corpus Christi Bay, Texas.
Sec. 3113. Pat Mayse Lake, Texas.
Sec. 3114. Proctor Lake, Texas.
Sec. 3115. San Antonio Channel, San Antonio, Texas.
Sec. 3116. James River, Virginia.
Sec. 3117. Lee, Russell, Scott, Smyth, Tazewell, and Wise Counties, 
              Virginia.
Sec. 3118. Tangier Island Seawall, Virginia.
Sec. 3119. Duwamish/Green, Washington.
Sec. 3120. Yakima River, Port of Sunnyside, Washington.
Sec. 3121. Greenbrier River Basin, West Virginia.
Sec. 3122. Lesage/Greenbottom Swamp, West Virginia.
Sec. 3123. Northern West Virginia.
Sec. 3124. Manitowoc Harbor, Wisconsin.
Sec. 3125. Mississippi River headwaters reservoirs.
Sec. 3126. Continuation of project authorizations.
Sec. 3127. Project reauthorizations.
Sec. 3128. Project deauthorizations.
Sec. 3129. Land conveyances.
Sec. 3130. Extinguishment of reversionary interests and use 
              restrictions.

                           TITLE IV--STUDIES

Sec. 4001. John Glenn Great Lakes Basin program.
Sec. 4002. Lake Erie dredged material disposal sites.
Sec. 4003. Southwestern United States drought study.
Sec. 4004. Upper Mississippi River comprehensive plan.
Sec. 4005. Knik Arm, Cook Inlet, Alaska.
Sec. 4006. Kuskokwim River, Alaska.
Sec. 4007. St. George Harbor, Alaska.
Sec. 4008. Susitna River, Alaska.
Sec. 4009. Gila Bend, Maricopa, Arizona.
Sec. 4010. Searcy County, Arkansas.
Sec. 4011. Dry Creek Valley, California.
Sec. 4012. Elkhorn Slough estuary, California.
Sec. 4013. Fresno, Kings, and Kern Counties, California.
Sec. 4014. Los Angeles River, California.
Sec. 4015. Lytle Creek, Rialto, California.
Sec. 4016. Mokelumne River, San Joaquin County, California.
Sec. 4017. Napa River, St. Helena, California.
Sec. 4018. Orick, California.
Sec. 4019. Rialto, Fontana, and Colton, California.
Sec. 4020. Sacramento River, California.
Sec. 4021. San Diego County, California.
Sec. 4022. San Francisco Bay, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California.
Sec. 4023. South San Francisco Bay shoreline study, California.
Sec. 4024. Twentynine Palms, California.
Sec. 4025. Yucca Valley, California.
Sec. 4026. Boulder Creek, Boulder, Colorado.
Sec. 4027. Roaring Fork River, Basalt, Colorado.
Sec. 4028. Delaware and Christina Rivers and Shellpot Creek, 
              Wilmington, Delaware.
Sec. 4029. Collier County beaches, Florida.
Sec. 4030. Vanderbilt Beach Lagoon, Florida.
Sec. 4031. Meriwether County, Georgia.
Sec. 4032. Tybee Island, Georgia.
Sec. 4033. Kaukonahua-Helemano watershed, Oahu, Hawaii.
Sec. 4034. West Maui, Maui, Hawaii.
Sec. 4035. Boise River, Idaho.
Sec. 4036. Ballard's Island Side Channel, Illinois.
Sec. 4037. Chicago, Illinois.
Sec. 4038. South Branch, Chicago River, Chicago, Illinois.
Sec. 4039. Utica, Illinois.
Sec. 4040. Lake and Porter Counties, Indiana.
Sec. 4041. Salem, Indiana.
Sec. 4042. Buckhorn Lake, Kentucky.
Sec. 4043. Dewey Lake, Kentucky.
Sec. 4044. Louisville, Kentucky.
Sec. 4045. Bastrop-Morehouse Parish, Louisiana.
Sec. 4046. Offshore oil and gas fabrication ports, Louisiana.
Sec. 4047. Vermilion River, Louisiana.
Sec. 4048. West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana.
Sec. 4049. Patapsco River, Maryland.
Sec. 4050. Fall River Harbor, Massachusetts and Rhode Island.
Sec. 4051. Hamburg and Green Oak Townships, Michigan.
Sec. 4052. St. Clair River, Michigan.
Sec. 4053. Duluth-Superior Harbor, Minnesota and Wisconsin.
Sec. 4054. Wild Rice River, Minnesota.
Sec. 4055. Mississippi coastal area, Mississippi.
Sec. 4056. Northeast Mississippi.
Sec. 4057. St. Louis, Missouri.
Sec. 4058. Dredged material disposal, New Jersey.
Sec. 4059. Bayonne, New Jersey.
Sec. 4060. Carteret, New Jersey.
Sec. 4061. Elizabeth River, Elizabeth, New Jersey.
Sec. 4062. Gloucester County, New Jersey.
Sec. 4063. Perth Amboy, New Jersey.
Sec. 4064. Wreck Pond, Monmouth County, New Jersey.
Sec. 4065. Batavia, New York.
Sec. 4066. Big Sister Creek, Evans, New York.
Sec. 4067. East Chester Bay, Turtle Cove, New York.
Sec. 4068. Finger Lakes, New York.
Sec. 4069. Hudson-Raritan Estuary, New York and New Jersey.
Sec. 4070. Lake Erie Shoreline, Buffalo, New York.
Sec. 4071. Newtown Creek, New York.
Sec. 4072. Niagara River, New York.
Sec. 4073. Upper Delaware River watershed, New York.
Sec. 4074. Lincoln County, North Carolina.
Sec. 4075. Wilkes County, North Carolina.
Sec. 4076. Yadkinville, North Carolina.
Sec. 4077. Cincinnati, Ohio.
Sec. 4078. Euclid, Ohio.
Sec. 4079. Lake Erie, Ohio.
Sec. 4080. Ohio River, Ohio.
Sec. 4081. Sutherlin, Oregon.
Sec. 4082. Tillamook Bay and Bar, Oregon.
Sec. 4083. Ecosystem restoration and fish passage improvements, Oregon.
Sec. 4084. Walla Walla River Basin, Oregon.
Sec. 4085. Chartiers Creek watershed, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 4086. Kinzua Dam and Allegheny Reservoir, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 4087. North Central Pennsylvania.
Sec. 4088. Northampton and Lehigh Counties streams, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 4089. Western Pennsylvania flood damage reduction.
Sec. 4090. Williamsport, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 4091. Yardley Borough, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 4092. Rio Valenciano, Juncos, Puerto Rico.
Sec. 4093. Crooked Creek, Bennettsville, South Carolina.
Sec. 4094. Broad River, York County, South Carolina.
Sec. 4095. Georgetown and Williamsburg Counties, South Carolina.
Sec. 4096. Chattanooga, Tennessee.
Sec. 4097. Cleveland, Tennessee.
Sec. 4098. Cumberland River, Nashville, Tennessee.
Sec. 4099. Lewis, Lawrence, and Wayne Counties, Tennessee.
Sec. 4100. Wolf River and Nonconnah Creek, Memphis Tennessee.
Sec. 4101. Abilene, Texas.
Sec. 4102. Coastal Texas ecosystem protection and restoration, Texas.
Sec. 4103. Fort Bend County, Texas.
Sec. 4104. Harris County, Texas.
Sec. 4105. Port of Galveston, Texas.
Sec. 4106. Roma Creek, Texas.
Sec. 4107. Walnut Creek, Texas.
Sec. 4108. Grand County and Moab, Utah.
Sec. 4109. Southwestern Utah.
Sec. 4110. Chowan River Basin, Virginia and North Carolina.
Sec. 4111. James River, Richmond, Virginia.
Sec. 4112. Elliott Bay Seawall, Seattle, Washington.
Sec. 4113. Monongahela River Basin, Northern West Virginia.
Sec. 4114. Kenosha Harbor, Wisconsin.
Sec. 4115. Wauwatosa, Wisconsin.

                   TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 5001. Maintenance of navigation channels.
Sec. 5002. Watershed management.
Sec. 5003. Dam safety.
Sec. 5004. Structural integrity evaluations.
Sec. 5005. Flood mitigation priority areas.
Sec. 5006. Additional assistance for authorized projects.
Sec. 5007. Expedited completion of reports and construction for certain 
              projects.
Sec. 5008. Expedited completion of reports for certain projects.
Sec. 5009. Southeastern water resources assessment.
Sec. 5010. Upper Mississippi River environmental management program.
Sec. 5011. Missouri and Middle Mississippi Rivers enhancement project.
Sec. 5012. Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 5013. Great Lakes remedial action plans and sediment remediation.
Sec. 5014. Great Lakes tributary model.
Sec. 5015. Susquehanna, Delaware, and Potomac River Basins.
Sec. 5016. Chesapeake Bay Environmental Restoration and Protection 
              Program.
Sec. 5017. Chesapeake Bay oyster restoration.
Sec. 5018. Hypoxia assessment.
Sec. 5019. Potomac River Watershed Assessment and Tributary Strategy 
              Evaluation and Monitoring Program.
Sec. 5020. Lock and dam security.
Sec. 5021. Pinhook Creek, Huntsville, Alabama.
Sec. 5022. Tallapoosa, Alabama.
Sec. 5023. Alaska.
Sec. 5024. Barrow, Alaska.
Sec. 5025. Coffman Cove, Alaska.
Sec. 5026. Fort Yukon, Alaska.
Sec. 5027. Kotzebue Harbor, Alaska.
Sec. 5028. Lowell Creek Tunnel, Seward, Alaska.
Sec. 5029. St. Herman and St. Paul Harbors, Kodiak, Alaska.
Sec. 5030. Tanana River, Alaska.
Sec. 5031. Valdez, Alaska.
Sec. 5032. Whittier, Alaska.
Sec. 5033. Wrangell Harbor, Alaska.
Sec. 5034. Augusta and Clarendon, Arkansas.
Sec. 5035. Des Arc levee protection, Arkansas.
Sec. 5036. Helena and vicinity, Arkansas.
Sec. 5037. Loomis Landing, Arkansas.
Sec. 5038. St. Francis River Basin, Arkansas and Missouri.
Sec. 5039. White River basin, Arkansas.
Sec. 5040. Cambria, California.
Sec. 5041. Contra Costa Canal, Oakley and Knightsen, California; 
              Mallard Slough, Pittsburg, California.

[[Page H5826]]

Sec. 5042. Dana Point Harbor, California.
Sec. 5043. East San Joaquin County, California.
Sec. 5044. Eastern Santa Clara Basin, California.
Sec. 5045. Pine Flat Dam and Reservoir, California.
Sec. 5046. Sacramento deep water ship channel, California.
Sec. 5047. San Francisco, California.
Sec. 5048. San Francisco, California, waterfront area.
Sec. 5049. Santa Venetia, California.
Sec. 5050. Stockton, California.
Sec. 5051. Victor V. Veysey Dam, California.
Sec. 5052. Whittier, California.
Sec. 5053. Charles Hervey Townshend Breakwater, New Haven Harbor, 
              Connecticut.
Sec. 5054. Christina River shipwreck, Delaware.
Sec. 5055. Anacostia River, District of Columbia, Maryland, and 
              Virginia.
Sec. 5056. Florida Keys water quality improvements.
Sec. 5057. Lake Worth, Florida.
Sec. 5058. Lake Lanier, Georgia.
Sec. 5059. Riley Creek Recreation Area, Idaho.
Sec. 5060. Reconstruction of Illinois flood protection projects.
Sec. 5061. Kaskaskia River Basin, Illinois, restoration.
Sec. 5062. Floodplain mapping, Little Calumet River, Chicago, Illinois.
Sec. 5063. Natalie Creek, Midlothian and Oak Forest, Illinois.
Sec. 5064. Illinois River basin restoration.
Sec. 5065. Promontory Point, Lake Michigan, Illinois.
Sec. 5066. Burns Waterway Harbor, Indiana.
Sec. 5067. Calumet region, Indiana.
Sec. 5068. Floodplain mapping, Missouri River, Iowa.
Sec. 5069. Rathbun Lake, Iowa.
Sec. 5070. Cumberland River basin, Kentucky.
Sec. 5071. Louisville, Kentucky.
Sec. 5072. Mayfield Creek and tributaries, Kentucky.
Sec. 5073. North Fork, Kentucky River, Breathitt County, Kentucky.
Sec. 5074. Paducah, Kentucky.
Sec. 5075. Southern and eastern Kentucky.
Sec. 5076. Winchester, Kentucky.
Sec. 5077. Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
Sec. 5078. Calcasieu Ship Channel, Louisiana.
Sec. 5079. Cross Lake, Shreveport, Louisiana.
Sec. 5080. West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana.
Sec. 5081. Charlestown, Maryland.
Sec. 5082. Delmarva Conservation Corridor, Maryland and Delaware.
Sec. 5083. Massachusetts dredged material disposal sites.
Sec. 5084. Ontonagon Harbor, Michigan.
Sec. 5085. St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair, Michigan.
Sec. 5086. Crookston, Minnesota.
Sec. 5087. Garrison and Kathio Township, Minnesota.
Sec. 5088. Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Sec. 5089. Northeastern Minnesota.
Sec. 5090. Harrison, Hancock, and Jackson Counties, Mississippi.
Sec. 5091. Mississippi River, Missouri, and Illinois.
Sec. 5092. St. Louis, Missouri.
Sec. 5093. Acid Brook, Pompton Lakes, New Jersey.
Sec. 5094. Hackensack Meadowlands area, New Jersey.
Sec. 5095. Central New Mexico, New Mexico.
Sec. 5096. Atlantic Coast of New York.
Sec. 5097. College Point, New York City, New York.
Sec. 5098. Flushing Bay and Creek, New York City, New York.
Sec. 5099. Hudson River, New York.
Sec. 5100. Mount Morris Dam, New York.
Sec. 5101. Onondaga Lake, New York.
Sec. 5102. John H. Kerr Dam and Reservoir, North Carolina.
Sec. 5103. Stanly County, North Carolina.
Sec. 5104. W. Kerr Scott Dam and Reservoir, North Carolina.
Sec. 5105. Ohio.
Sec. 5106. Toussaint River, Ohio.
Sec. 5107. Eugene, Oregon.
Sec. 5108. John Day Lock and Dam, Lake Umatilla, Oregon and Washington.
Sec. 5109. Lowell, Oregon.
Sec. 5110. Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 5111. Lehigh River, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 5112. Northeast Pennsylvania.
Sec. 5113. Upper Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania and New York.
Sec. 5114. Cano Martin Pena, San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Sec. 5115. Beaufort and Jasper Counties, South Carolina.
Sec. 5116. Fritz Landing, Tennessee.
Sec. 5117. J. Percy Priest Dam and Reservoir, Tennessee.
Sec. 5118. Town Creek, Lenoir City, Tennessee.
Sec. 5119. Tennessee River partnership.
Sec. 5120. Upper Mississippi Embayment, Tennessee, Arkansas, and 
              Mississippi.
Sec. 5121. Bosque River watershed, Texas.
Sec. 5122. Dallas Floodway, Dallas, Texas.
Sec. 5123. Harris County, Texas.
Sec. 5124. Onion Creek, Texas.
Sec. 5125. Dyke Marsh, Fairfax County, Virginia.
Sec. 5126. Eastern Shore and southwest Virginia.
Sec. 5127. James River, Virginia.
Sec. 5128. Baker Bay and Ilwaco Harbor, Washington.
Sec. 5129. Hamilton Island campground, Washington.
Sec. 5130. Puget Island, Washington.
Sec. 5131. Willapa Bay, Washington.
Sec. 5132. Bluestone, West Virginia.
Sec. 5133. West Virginia and Pennsylvania flood control.
Sec. 5134. Lower Kanawha River Basin, West Virginia.
Sec. 5135. Central West Virginia.
Sec. 5136. Southern West Virginia.
Sec. 5137. Johnsonville Dam, Johnsonville, Wisconsin.
Sec. 5138. Construction of flood control projects by non-Federal 
              interests.
Sec. 5139. Use of Federal hopper dredge fleet.

                      TITLE VI--FLORIDA EVERGLADES

Sec. 6001. Hillsboro and Okeechobee Aquifer, Florida.
Sec. 6002. Pilot projects.
Sec. 6003. Maximum cost of projects.
Sec. 6004. Project authorization.
Sec. 6005. Credit.
Sec. 6006. Outreach and assistance.
Sec. 6007. Critical restoration projects.
Sec. 6008. Deauthorizations.
Sec. 6009. Modified water delivery.

                   TITLE VII--LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA

Sec. 7001. Definitions.
Sec. 7002. Additional Reports.
Sec. 7003. Coastal Louisiana ecosystem protection and restoration task 
              force.
Sec. 7004. Investigations.
Sec. 7005. Construction.
Sec. 7006. Non-Federal cost share.
Sec. 7007. Project justification.
Sec. 7008. Statutory Construction.

    TITLE VIII--UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND ILLINOIS WATERWAY SYSTEM

Sec. 8001. Definitions.
Sec. 8002. Navigation improvements and restoration.
Sec. 8003. Authorization of construction of navigation improvements.
Sec. 8004. Ecosystem restoration authorization.
Sec. 8005. Comparable progress.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF SECRETARY.

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

                   TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS

     SEC. 1001. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

       Except as otherwise provided in this section, the following 
     projects for water resources development and conservation and 
     other purposes are authorized to be carried out by the 
     Secretary substantially in accordance with the plans, and 
     subject to the conditions, described in the respective 
     reports designated in this section:
       (1) Akutan, alaska.--
       (A) In general.--The project for navigation, Akutan, 
     Alaska: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 20, 
     2004, at a total cost of $19,700,000.
       (B) Treatment of certain dredging.--The headlands dredging 
     for the mooring basin shall be considered a general 
     navigation feature for purposes of estimating the non-Federal 
     share of the cost of the project.
       (2) Haines small boat harbor, haines, alaska.--The project 
     for navigation, Haines Small Boat Harbor, Haines, Alaska: 
     Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 20, 2004, at 
     a total of $12,200,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $9,700,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $2,500,000.
       (3) Tanque verde creek, arizona.--The project for 
     environmental restoration, Tanque Verde Creek, Arizona: 
     Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated July 22, 2003, at a 
     total cost of $4,978,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $3,236,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $1,742,000.
       (4) Va shily' ay akimel, salt river restoration, arizona.--
     The project for ecosystem restoration, Va Shily' Ay Akimel, 
     Salt River, Arizona: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated 
     January 3, 2005, at a total cost of $138,968,000, with an 
     estimated Federal cost of $90,129,000 and an estimated non-
     Federal cost of $48,839,000.
       (5) Hamilton city, california.--The project for flood 
     damage reduction and ecosystem restoration, Hamilton City, 
     California: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 
     22, 2004, at a total cost of $50,600,000, with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $33,000,000 and estimated non-Federal cost of 
     $17,600,000.
       (6) Imperial beach, california.--The project for storm 
     damage reduction, Imperial Beach, California: Report of the 
     Chief of Engineers, dated December 30, 2003, at a total cost 
     of $11,862,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $7,592,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $4,270,000, and at an 
     estimated total cost of $38,004,000 for periodic beach 
     nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an 
     estimated Federal cost of $19,002,000 and an estimated non-
     Federal cost of $19,002,000.
       (7) Matilija dam, ventura county, california.--The project 
     for ecosystem restoration, Matilija Dam and Ventura River 
     Watershed, Ventura County, California: Report of the Chief of 
     Engineers dated December 20, 2004, at a total cost of 
     $130,335,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $78,973,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $51,362,000.
       (8) Middle creek, lake county, california.--The project for 
     ecosystem restoration and flood damage reduction, Middle 
     Creek, Lake County, California: Report of the Chief of 
     Engineers dated November 29, 2004, at a total cost of 
     $41,793,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $27,256,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $14,537,000.
       (9) Napa river salt marsh, california.--
       (A) In general.--The project for ecosystem restoration, 
     Napa River Salt Marsh, Nap River, California: Report of the 
     Chief of Engineers dated December 22, 2004, at a total cost 
     of $100,500,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $64,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $36,500,000.
       (B) Project features.--In carrying out the project, the 
     Secretary shall include construction of a recycled water 
     pipeline extending from the Sonoma Valley County Sanitation 
     District

[[Page H5827]]

     Waste Water Treatment Plant and the Napa Sanitation District 
     Waste Water Treatment Plant as part of the project and 
     restoration and enhancement of Salt Ponds 1, 1A, 2, and 3.
       (10) South platte river, denver, colorado.--The project for 
     environmental restoration Denver County Reach, South Platte 
     River, Denver, Colorado: Report of the Chief of Engineers, 
     dated May 16, 2003, at a total cost of $18,824,000, with an 
     estimated Federal cost of $12,236,000 and an estimated non-
     Federal cost of $6,588,000.
       (11) Miami harbor, miami-dade county, florida.--
       (A) In general.--The project for navigation, Miami Harbor, 
     Miami-Dade County, Florida: Report of the Chief of Engineers 
     dated April 25, 2005, at a total cost of $121,127,000, with 
     an estimated Federal cost of $64,843,000 and an estimated 
     non-Federal cost of $56,284,000.
       (B) General reevaluation report.--The non-Federal share of 
     the cost of the general reevaluation report that resulted in 
     the report of the Chief of Engineers referred to in 
     subparagraph (A) shall be the same percentage as the non-
     Federal share of cost of construction of the project.
       (C) Agreement.--The Secretary shall enter into a new 
     partnership with the non-Federal interest to reflect the cost 
     sharing required by subparagraph (B).
       (12) East st. louis and vicinity, illinois.--The project 
     for ecosystem restoration, East St. Louis and vicinity, 
     Illinois: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated December 22, 
     2004, at a total cost of $191,158,000, with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $123,807,000 and an estimated non-Federal 
     cost of $67,351,000.
       (13) Peoria riverfront, illinois.--The project for 
     environmental restoration, Peoria Riverfront, Illinois: 
     Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated July 28, 2003, at a 
     total cost of $16,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $10,400,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,600,000.
       (14) Bayou sorrel lock, louisiana.--The project for 
     navigation, Bayou Sorrel Lock, Louisiana: Report of the Chief 
     of Engineers dated January 3, 2005, at a total cost of 
     $9,000,000. The costs of construction of the project shall be 
     paid \1/2\ from amounts appropriated from the general fund of 
     the Treasury and \1/2\ from amounts appropriated from the 
     Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
       (15) Morganza to the gulf of mexico, louisiana.--
       (A) In general.--The project for hurricane and storm damage 
     reduction, Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico, Louisiana: Reports 
     of the Chief of Engineers, dated August 23, 2002, and July 
     22, 2003, at a total cost of $788,000,000 with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $512,200,000 and an estimated non-Federal 
     cost of $275,800,000.
       (B) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of design 
     and construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest 
     before the date of the partnership agreement for the project 
     if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 
     project.
       (16) Swope park industrial area, missouri.--The project for 
     flood damage reduction, Swope Park Industrial Area, Missouri: 
     Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated December 30, 2003, at 
     a total cost of $15,683,000, with an estimated Federal cost 
     of $10,194,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
     $5,489,000.
       (17) Manasquan to barnegat inlet, new jersey.--The project 
     for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Manasquan to 
     Barnegat Inlet, New Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers 
     dated December 30, 2003, at a total cost of $65,800,000, with 
     an estimated Federal cost of $42,800,000 and an estimated 
     non-Federal cost of $23,000,000, and at an estimated total 
     cost of $108,000,000 for periodic beach nourishment over the 
     50-year life of the project, with an estimated Federal cost 
     of $54,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
     $54,000,000.
       (18) South river, new jersey.--The project for hurricane 
     and storm damage reduction and environmental restoration, 
     South River, New Jersey: Report of the Chief of Engineers, 
     dated July 22, 2003, at a total cost of $112,623,000, with an 
     estimated Federal cost of $73,205,000 and an estimated non-
     Federal cost of $39,418,000.
       (19) Southwest valley, albuquerque, new mexico.--The 
     project for flood damage reduction, Southwest Valley, 
     Albuquerque, New Mexico: Report of the Chief of Engineers 
     dated November 29, 2004, at a total cost of $19,494,000, with 
     an estimated Federal cost of $12,671,000 and an estimated 
     non-Federal cost of $6,823,000.
       (20) Corpus christi ship channel, corpus christi, texas.--
     The project for navigation and environmental restoration, 
     Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Texas, Channel Improvement 
     Project: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated June 2, 2003, 
     at a total cost of $172,940,000, with an estimated Federal 
     cost of $80,086,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
     $92,823,000.
       (21) Gulf intracoastal waterway, high island to brazos 
     river, texas.--The project for navigation, Gulf Intracoastal 
     Waterway, Sabine River to Corpus Christi, Texas: Report of 
     the Chief of Engineers, dated April 16, 2004, at a total cost 
     of $13,104,000. The costs of construction of the project are 
     to be paid \1/2\ from amounts appropriated from the general 
     fund of the Treasury and \1/2\ from amounts appropriated from 
     the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
       (22) Matagorda bay, texas.--The project for navigation, 
     Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Brazos River to Port O'Connor, 
     Matagorda Bay Re-Route, Texas: Report of the Chief of 
     Engineers, dated December 24, 2002, at a total cost of 
     $15,960,000. The costs of construction of the project are to 
     be paid \1/2\ from amounts appropriated from the general fund 
     of the Treasury and \1/2\ from amounts appropriated from the 
     Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
       (23) Riverside oxbow, fort worth, texas.--
       (A) In general.--The project for environmental restoration, 
     Riverside Oxbow, Fort Worth, Texas: Report of the Chief of 
     Engineers dated May 29, 2003, at a total cost of $25,200,000, 
     with an estimated Federal cost of $10,400,000 and an 
     estimated non-Federal cost of $14,800,000.
       (B) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of design 
     and construction work carried out on the Beach Street Dam and 
     associated features by the non-Federal interest before the 
     date of the partnership agreement for the project if the 
     Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 
     project.
       (24) Deep creek, chesapeake, virginia.--The project for the 
     Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway Bridge Replacement, Deep 
     Creek, Chesapeake, Virginia: Report of the Chief of 
     Engineers, dated March 3, 2003, at a Federal cost of 
     $35,573,000.
       (25) Chehalis river, centralia, washington.--
       (A) In general.--The project for flood damage reduction, 
     Chehalis River, Centralia, Washington: Report of the Chief of 
     Engineers dated September 27, 2004, at a total cost of 
     $109,850,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $66,425,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $43,425,000.
       (B) Credit.--The Secretary shall--
       (i) credit up to $6,500,000 toward the non-Federal share of 
     the cost of the project for the cost of planning and design 
     work carried out by the non-Federal interest in accordance 
     with the project study plan dated November 28, 1999; and
       (ii) credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the 
     project the cost of design and construction work carried out 
     by the non-Federal interest before the date of the 
     partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary 
     determines that the work is integral to the project.
       (C) Additional flood storage at skookumchuck dam.--The 
     Secretary shall integrate into the project the locally 
     preferred plan to provide an additional 9,000 acre-feet of 
     storage capacity at Skookumchuck Dam, Washington, upon a 
     determination by the Secretary that providing such additional 
     storage capacity is feasible.

     SEC. 1002. SMALL PROJECTS FOR FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study for 
     each of the following projects and, if the Secretary 
     determines that a project is feasible, may carry out the 
     project under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 
     (33 U.S.C. 701s):
       (1) Haleyville, alabama.--Project for flood damage 
     reduction, Haleyville, Alabama.
       (2) Weiss lake, alabama.--Project for flood damage 
     reduction, Weiss Lake, Alabama.
       (3) Chino valley wash, arizona.--Project for flood damage 
     reduction, Chino Valley Wash, Arizona.
       (4) Little colorado river levee, arizona.--Project for 
     flood damage reduction, Little Colorado River Levee, Arizona.
       (5) Cache river basin, grubbs, arkansas.--Project for flood 
     damage reduction, Cache River Basin, Grubbs, Arkansas.
       (6) Barrel springs wash, palmdale, california.--Project for 
     flood damage reduction, Barrel Springs Wash, Palmdale, 
     California.
       (7) Borrego springs, california.--Project for flood damage 
     reduction, Borrego Springs, California.
       (8) Colton, california.--Project for flood damage 
     reduction, Colton, California.
       (9) Dunlap stream, san bernardino, california.--Project for 
     flood damage reduction, Dunlap Stream, San Bernardino, 
     California.
       (10) Hunts canyon wash, palmdale, california.--Project for 
     flood damage reduction, Hunts Canyon Wash, Palmdale, 
     California.
       (11) Wildwood creek, yucaipa, california.--Project for 
     flood damage reduction, Wildwood Creek, Yucaipa, California.
       (12) Utica and vicinity, illinois.--Project for flood 
     damage reduction, Utica and vicinity, Illinois.
       (13) Des moines and raccoon rivers, iowa.--Project for 
     flood damage reduction, Des Moines and Raccoon Rivers, Iowa.
       (14) Peabody, massachusetts.--Project for flood damage 
     reduction, Peabody, Massachusetts.
       (15) Salem, massachusetts.--Project for flood damage 
     reduction, Salem, Massachusetts.
       (16) Cass river, michigan.--Project for flood damage 
     reduction, Cass River, Vassar and vicinity, Michigan.
       (17) Crow river, rockford, minnesota.--Project for flood 
     damage reduction, Crow River, Rockford, Minnesota.
       (18) Itasca county, minnesota.--Project for flood damage 
     reduction, Trout Lake and Canisteo Pit, Itasca County, 
     Minnesota.
       (19) Marsh creek, minnesota.--Project for flood damage 
     reduction, Marsh Creek, Minnesota.
       (20) Roseau river, roseau, minnesota.--Project for flood 
     damage reduction, Roseau River, Roseau, Minnesota.
       (21) South branch of the wild rice river, borup, 
     minnesota.--Project for flood damage reduction, South Branch 
     of the Wild Rice River, Borup, Minnesota.
       (22) Blacksnake creek, st. joseph, missouri.--Project for 
     flood damage reduction, Blacksnake Creek, St. Joseph, 
     Missouri.
       (23) Cannisteo river, addison, new york.--Project for flood 
     damage reduction, Cannisteo River, Addison, New York.
       (24) Cohocton river, campbell, new york.--Project for flood 
     damage reduction, Cohocton River, Campbell, New York.
       (25) East river, silver beach, new york city, new york.--
     Project for flood damage reduction, East River, Silver Beach, 
     New York City, New York.
       (26) East valley creek, andover, new york.--Project for 
     flood damage reduction, East Valley Creek, Andover, New York.

[[Page H5828]]

       (27) Sunnyside brook, westchester county, new york.--
     Project for flood damage reduction, Sunnyside Brook, 
     Westchester County, New York.
       (28) Little yankee run, ohio.--Project for flood damage 
     reduction, Little Yankee Run, Ohio.
       (29) Little neshaminy creek, warrenton, pennsylvania.--
     Project for flood damage reduction, Little Neshaminy Creek, 
     Warrenton, Pennsylvania.
       (30) Southampton creek watershed, southampton, 
     pennsylvania.--Project for flood damage reduction, 
     Southampton Creek watershed, Southampton, Pennsylvania.
       (31) Spring creek, lower macungie township, pennsylvania.--
     Project for flood damage reduction, Spring Creek, Lower 
     Macungie Township, Pennsylvania.
       (32) Yardley aqueduct, silver and brock creeks, yardley, 
     pennsylvania.--Project for flood damage reduction, Yardley 
     Aqueduct, Silver and Brock Creeks, Yardley, Pennsylvania.
       (33) Surfside beach, south carolina.--Project for flood 
     damage reduction, Surfside Beach and vicinity, South 
     Carolina.
       (34) Congelosi ditch, missouri city, texas.--Project for 
     flood damage reduction, Congelosi Ditch, Missouri City, 
     Texas.
       (35) Dilley, texas.--Project for flood damage reduction, 
     Dilley, Texas.
       (b) Special Rules.--
       (1) Cache river basin, grubbs, arkansas.--The Secretary may 
     proceed with the project for the Cache River Basin, Grubbs, 
     Arkansas, referred to in subsection (a)(5), notwithstanding 
     that the project is located within the boundaries of the 
     flood control project, Cache River Basin, Arkansas and 
     Missouri, authorized by section 204 of the Flood Control Act 
     of 1950, (64 Stat. 172) and modified by section 99 of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 41).
       (2) Wildwood creek, yucaipa, california.--The Secretary 
     shall review the locally prepared plan for the project for 
     flood damage, Wildwood Creek, California, referred to in 
     subsection (a)(11) and, if the Secretary determines that the 
     plan meets the evaluation and design standards of the Corps 
     of Engineers and that the plan is feasible, the Secretary may 
     use the plan to carry out the project and shall provide 
     credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the 
     project for the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal 
     interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the 
     project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral 
     to the project.
       (3) Borup, minnesota.--In carrying out the project for 
     flood damage reduction, South Branch of the Wild Rice River, 
     Borup, Minnesota, referred to in subsection (a)(21) the 
     Secretary may consider national ecosystem restoration 
     benefits in determining the Federal interest in the project 
     and shall allow the non-Federal interest to participate in 
     the financing of the project in accordance with section 
     903(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 
     Stat. 4184) to the extent that the Secretary's evaluation 
     indicates that applying such section is necessary to 
     implement the project.
       (4) Itasca county, minnesota.--In carrying out the project 
     for flood damage reduction, Itasca County, Minnesota, 
     referred to in subsection (a)(18) the Secretary may consider 
     national ecosystem restoration benefits in determining the 
     Federal interest in the project.
       (5) Dilley, texas.--The Secretary shall carry out the 
     project for flood damage reduction, Dilley, Texas, referred 
     to in subsection (a)(35) if the Secretary determines that the 
     project is feasible.

     SEC. 1003. SMALL PROJECTS FOR EMERGENCY STREAMBANK 
                   PROTECTION.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the 
     following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a 
     project is feasible, may carry out the project under section 
     14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r):
       (1) Ouachita and black rivers, arkansas and louisiana.--
     Projects for emergency streambank protection, Ouachita and 
     Black Rivers, Arkansas and Louisiana.
       (2) Franklin point park, anne arundel county, maryland.--
     Project for emergency streambank protection, Franklin Point 
     Park, Anne Arundel County, Maryland.
       (3) Mayo beach park, anne arundel county, maryland.--
     Project for emergency streambank protection, Mayo Beach Park, 
     Anne Arundel County, Maryland.
       (4) Piney point lighthouse, st. mary's county, maryland.--
     Project for emergency streambank protection, Piney Point 
     Lighthouse, St. Mary's County, Maryland.
       (5) St. joseph harbor, michigan.--Project for emergency 
     streambank protection, St. Joseph Harbor, Michigan.
       (6) Pug hole lake, minnesota.--Project for emergency 
     streambank protection, Pug Hole Lake, Minnesota.
       (7) Middle fork grand river, gentry county, missouri.--
     Project for emergency streambank protection, Middle Fork 
     Grand River, Gentry County, Missouri.
       (8) Platte river, platte city, missouri.--Project for 
     emergency streambank protection, Platte River, Platte City, 
     Missouri.
       (9) Rush creek, parkville, missouri.--Project for emergency 
     streambank protection, Rush Creek, Parkville, Missouri, 
     including measures to address degradation of the creek bed.
       (10) Keuka lake, hammondsport, new york.--Project for 
     emergency streambank protection, Keuka Lake, Hammondsport, 
     New York.
       (11) Kowawese unique area and hudson river, new windsor, 
     new york.--Project for emergency streambank protection, 
     Kowawese Unique Area and Hudson River, New Windsor, New York.
       (12) Howard road outfall, shelby county, tennessee.--
     Project for emergency streambank protection, Howard Road 
     outfall, Shelby County, Tennessee.
       (13) Mitch farm ditch and lateral d, shelby county, 
     tennessee.--Project for emergency streambank protection, 
     Mitch Farm Ditch and Lateral D, Shelby County, Tennessee.
       (14) Wolf river tributaries, shelby county, tennessee.--
     Project for emergency streambank protection, Wolf River 
     tributaries, Shelby County, Tennessee.
       (15) Johnson creek, arlington, texas.--Project for 
     emergency streambank protection, Johnson Creek, Arlington, 
     Texas.
       (16) Wells river, newbury, vermont.--Project for emergency 
     streambank protection, Wells River, Newbury, Vermont.

     SEC. 1004. SMALL PROJECTS FOR NAVIGATION.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study for 
     each of the following projects and, if the Secretary 
     determines that a project is feasible, may carry out the 
     project under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 
     (33 U.S.C. 577):
       (1) Blytheville county harbor, arkansas.--Project for 
     navigation, Blytheville County Harbor, Arkansas.
       (2) Mahukona beach park, hawaii.--Project for navigation, 
     Mahukona Beach Park, Hawaii.
       (3) North kohala harbor, hawaii.--Project for navigation, 
     North Kohala Harbor in the vicinity of Kailua Kona, Hawaii.
       (4) Wailoa small boat harbor, hawaii.--Project for 
     navigation, Wailoa Small Boat Harbor, Hawaii.
       (5) Mississippi river ship channel, louisiana.--Project for 
     navigation, Mississippi River Ship Channel, Louisiana.
       (6) Port tobacco river and goose creek, maryland.--Project 
     for navigation, Port Tobacco River and Goose Creek, Maryland.
       (7) St. jerome creek, st. mary's county, maryland.--Project 
     for navigation, St. Jerome Creek, St. Mary's County, 
     Maryland.
       (8) East basin, cape cod canal, sandwich, massachusetts.--
     Project for navigation, East Basin, Cape Cod Canal, Sandwich, 
     Massachusetts.
       (9) Lynn harbor, lynn, massachusetts.--Project for 
     navigation, Lynn Harbor, Lynn, Massachusetts.
       (10) Merrimack river, haverhill, massachusetts.--Project 
     for navigation, Merrimack River, Haverhill, Massachusetts.
       (11) Oak bluffs harbor, oak bluffs, massachusetts.--Project 
     for navigation, Oak Bluffs Harbor, Oak Bluffs, Massachusetts.
       (12) Woods hole great harbor, falmouth, massachusetts.--
     Project for navigation, Woods Hole Great Harbor, Falmouth, 
     Massachusetts.
       (13) Au sable river, michigan.--Project for navigation, Au 
     Sable River in the vicinity of Oscoda, Michigan.
       (14) Traverse city harbor, traverse city, michigan.--
     Project for navigation, Traverse City Harbor, Traverse City, 
     Michigan.
       (b) Special Rules.--
       (1) Blytheville county harbor, arkansas.--The Secretary 
     shall carry out the project for navigation, Blytheville 
     County Harbor, Arkansas, referred to in subsection (a)(1) if 
     the Secretary determines that the project is feasible.
       (2) Traverse city harbor, traverse city, michigan.--The 
     Secretary shall review the locally prepared plan for the 
     project for navigation, Traverse City Harbor, Michigan, 
     referred to in subsection (a)(14), and, if the Secretary 
     determines that the plan meets the evaluation and design 
     standards of the Corps of Engineers and that the plan is 
     feasible, the Secretary may use the plan to carry out the 
     project and shall provide credit toward the non-Federal share 
     of the cost of the project for the cost of work carried out 
     by the non-Federal interest before the date of the 
     partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary 
     determines that the work is integral to the project.

     SEC. 1005. SMALL PROJECTS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE QUALITY OF 
                   THE ENVIRONMENT.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the 
     following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a 
     project is appropriate, may carry out the project under 
     section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
     (33 U.S.C. 2309a):
       (1) Ballona creek, los angeles county, california.--Project 
     for improvement of the quality of the environment, Ballona 
     Creek, Los Angeles County, California.
       (2) Ballona lagoon tide gates, marina del rey, 
     california.--Project for improvement of the quality of the 
     environment, Ballona Lagoon Tide Gates, Marina Del Rey, 
     California.
       (3) Rathbun lake, iowa.--Project for improvement of the 
     quality of the environment, Rathbun Lake, Iowa.
       (4) Smithville lake, missouri.--Project for improvement of 
     the quality of the environment, Smithville Lake, Missouri.
       (5) Delaware bay, new jersey and delaware.--Project for 
     improvement of the quality of the environment, Delaware Bay, 
     New Jersey and Delaware, for the purpose of oyster 
     restoration.
       (6) Tioga-hammond lakes, pennsylvania.--Project for 
     improvement of the quality of the environment, Tioga-Hammond 
     Lakes, Pennsylvania.

     SEC. 1006. SMALL PROJECTS FOR AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the 
     following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a 
     project is appropriate, may carry out the project under 
     section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
     (33 U.S.C. 2330):
       (1) Cypress creek, montgomery, alabama.--Project for 
     aquatic ecosystem restoration, Cypress Creek, Montgomery, 
     Alabama.
       (2) Ben lomond dam, santa cruz, california.--Project for 
     aquatic ecosystem restoration, Ben Lomond Dam, Santa Cruz, 
     California.
       (3) Dockweiler bluffs, los angeles county, california.--
     Project for aquatic ecosystem

[[Page H5829]]

     restoration, Dockweiler Bluffs, Los Angeles County, 
     California.
       (4) Salt river, california.--Project for aquatic ecosystem 
     restoration, Salt River, California.
       (5) Santa rosa creek, santa rosa, california.--Project for 
     aquatic ecosystem restoration, Santa Rosa Creek in the 
     vicinity of the Prince Memorial Greenway, Santa Rosa, 
     California.
       (6) Stockton deep water ship channel and lower san joaquin 
     river, california.--Project for aquatic ecosystem 
     restoration, Stockton Deep Water Ship Channel and lower San 
     Joaquin River, California.
       (7) Sweetwater reservoir, san diego county, california.--
     Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Sweetwater 
     Reservoir, San Diego County, California, including efforts to 
     address invasive aquatic plant species.
       (8) Bayou texar, pensacola, florida.--Project for aquatic 
     ecosystem restoration, Bayou Texar, Pensacola, Florida.
       (9) Biscayne bay, florida.--Project for aquatic ecosystem 
     restoration, Biscayne Bay, Key Biscayne, Florida.
       (10) Clam bayou and dinkins bayou, sanibel island, 
     florida.--Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Clam 
     Bayou and Dinkins Bayou, Sanibel Island, Florida.
       (11) Destin harbor, florida.--Project for aquatic ecosystem 
     restoration, Destin Harbor, Florida.
       (12) Chattahoochee fall line, georgia and alabama.--Project 
     for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Chattahoochee Fall Line, 
     Georgia and Alabama.
       (13) Longwood cove, gainesville, georgia.--Project for 
     aquatic ecosystem restoration, Longwood Cove, Gainesville, 
     Georgia.
       (14) City park, university lakes, louisiana.--Project for 
     aquatic ecosystem restoration, City Park, University Lakes, 
     Louisiana.
       (15) Mill pond, littleton, massachusetts.--Project for 
     aquatic ecosystem restoration, Mill Pond, Littleton, 
     Massachusetts.
       (16) Pine tree brook, milton, massachusetts.--Project for 
     aquatic ecosystem restoration, Pine Tree Brook, Milton, 
     Massachusetts.
       (17) Kalamazoo river watershed, battle creek, michigan.--
     Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Kalamazoo River 
     watershed, Battle Creek, Michigan.
       (18) Rush lake, minnesota.--Project for aquatic ecosystem 
     restoration, Rush Lake, Minnesota.
       (19) South fork of the crow river, hutchinson, minnesota.--
     Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, South Fork of the 
     Crow River, Hutchinson, Minnesota.
       (20) St. louis county, missouri.--Project for aquatic 
     ecosystem restoration, St. Louis County, Missouri.
       (21) Truckee river, reno, nevada.--Project for aquatic 
     ecosystem restoration, Truckee River, Reno, Nevada, including 
     features for fish passage.
       (22) Grover's mill pond, new jersey.--Project for aquatic 
     ecosystem restoration, Grover's Mill Pond, New Jersey.
       (23) Dugway creek, bratenahl, ohio.--Project for aquatic 
     ecosystem restoration, Dugway Creek, Bratenahl, Ohio.
       (24) Johnson creek, gresham, oregon.--Project for aquatic 
     ecosystem restoration, Johnson Creek, Gresham, Oregon.
       (25) Beaver creek, beaver and salem, pennsylvania.--Project 
     for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Beaver Creek, Beaver and 
     Salem, Pennsylvania.
       (26) Cementon dam, lehigh river, pennsylvania.--Project for 
     aquatic ecosystem restoration, Cementon Dam, Lehigh River, 
     Pennsylvania.
       (27) Delaware river, philadelphia naval shipyard, 
     pennsylvania.--Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, 
     Delaware River in the vicinity of the Philadelphia Naval 
     Shipyard, Pennsylvania.
       (28) Saucon creek, northampton county, pennsylvania.--
     Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Saucon Creek, 
     Northampton County, Pennsylvania.
       (29) Blackstone river, rhode island.--Project for aquatic 
     ecosystem restoration, Blackstone River, Rhode Island.
       (30) Wilson branch, cheraw, south carolina.--Project for 
     aquatic ecosystem restoration, Wilson Branch, Cheraw, South 
     Carolina.
       (31) White river, bethel, vermont.--Project for aquatic 
     ecosystem restoration, White River, Bethel, Vermont.

     SEC. 1007. SMALL PROJECTS FOR SHORELINE PROTECTION.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the 
     following projects and, if the Secretary determines that a 
     project is feasible, may carry out the project under section 
     3 of the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing Federal 
     participation in the cost of protecting the shores of 
     publicly owned property'', approved August 13, 1946 (33 
     U.S.C. 426g):
       (1) Nelson lagoon, alaska.--Project for shoreline 
     protection, Nelson Lagoon, Alaska.
       (2) Sanibel island, florida.--Project for shoreline 
     protection, Sanibel Island, Florida.
       (3) Apra harbor, guam.--Project for shoreline protection, 
     Apra Harbor, Guam.
       (4) Piti, cabras island, guam.--Project for shoreline 
     protection, Piti, Cabras Island, Guam.
       (5) Narrows and gravesend bay, upper new york bay, 
     brooklyn, new york.--Project for shoreline protection in the 
     vicinity of the confluence of the Narrows and Gravesend Bay, 
     Upper New York Bay, Brooklyn, New York.
       (6) Delaware river, philadelphia naval shipyard, 
     pennsylvania.--Project for shoreline protection, Delaware 
     River in the vicinity of the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, 
     Pennsylvania.
       (7) Port aransas, texas.--Project for shoreline protection, 
     Port Aransas, Texas.

     SEC. 1008. SMALL PROJECTS FOR SNAGGING AND SEDIMENT REMOVAL.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study for the following 
     project and, if the Secretary determines that the project is 
     feasible, the Secretary may carry out the project under 
     section 2 of the Flood Control Act of August 28, 1937 (33 
     U.S.C. 701g): Project for removal of snags and clearing and 
     straightening of channels for flood control, Kowawese Unique 
     Area and Hudson River, New Windsor, New York.

                      TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS

     SEC. 2001. NON-FEDERAL CONTRIBUTIONS.

       Section 103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
     (33 U.S.C. 2213) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(n) Non-Federal Contributions.--
       ``(1) Prohibition on solicitation of excess 
     contributions.--The Secretary may not solicit contributions 
     from non-Federal interests for costs of constructing 
     authorized water resources development projects or measures 
     in excess of the non-Federal share assigned to the 
     appropriate project purposes listed in subsections (a), (b), 
     and (c) or condition Federal participation in such projects 
     or measures on the receipt of such contributions.
       ``(2) Limitation on statutory construction.--Nothing in 
     this subsection shall be construed to affect the Secretary's 
     authority under section 903(c) of this Act.''.

     SEC. 2002. HARBOR COST SHARING.

       (a) Payments During Construction.--Section 101(a)(1) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 
     2211(a)(1); 100 Stat. 4082) is amended in each of 
     subparagraphs (B) and (C) by striking ``45 feet'' and 
     inserting ``53 feet''.
       (b) Operation and Maintenance.--Section 101(b)(1) of such 
     Act (33 U.S.C. 2211(b)(1)) is amended by striking ``45 feet'' 
     and inserting ``53 feet''.
       (c) Definitions.--Section 214 of such Act (33 U.S.C. 2241; 
     100 Stat. 4108) is amended in each of paragraphs (1) and (3) 
     by striking ``45 feet'' and inserting ``53 feet''.
       (d) Applicability.--The amendments made by subsections (a), 
     (b), and (c) shall apply only to a project, or separable 
     element of a project, on which a contract for physical 
     construction has not been awarded before October 1, 2003.
       (e) Revision of Partnership Agreement.--The Secretary shall 
     revise any partnership agreement entered into after October 
     1, 2003, for any project to which the amendments made by 
     subsections (a), (b), and (c) apply to take into account the 
     change in non-Federal participation in the project as a 
     result of such amendments.

     SEC. 2003. FUNDING TO PROCESS PERMITS.

       Section 214 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 
     (33 U.S.C. 2201 note; 114 Stat. 2594; 117 Stat. 1836) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a) by striking ``In fiscal years 2001 
     through 2005, the'' and inserting ``The''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Duration of Authority.--The authority provided under 
     this section shall be in effect from October 1, 2000, through 
     December 31, 2007.''.

     SEC. 2004. NATIONAL SHORELINE EROSION CONTROL DEVELOPMENT AND 
                   DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.

       (a) Extension of Program.--Section 5(a) of the Act entitled 
     ``An Act authorizing Federal participation in the cost of 
     protecting the shores of publicly owned property'', approved 
     August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 426h(a)), is amended by striking 
     ``6 years'' and inserting ``10 years''.
       (b) Extension of Planning, Design, and Construction 
     Phase.--Section 5(b)(1)(A) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 
     426h(b)(1)(A)) is amended by striking ``3 years'' and 
     inserting ``6 years''.
       (c) Cost Sharing; Removal of Projects.--Section 5(b) of 
     such Act (33 U.S.C. 426h(b)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs 
     (5) and (6), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3) Cost sharing.--The Secretary may enter into a cost 
     sharing agreement with a non-Federal interest to carry out a 
     project, or a phase of a project, under the erosion control 
     program in cooperation with the non-Federal interest.
       ``(4) Removal of projects.--The Secretary may pay all or a 
     portion of the costs of removing a project, or an element of 
     a project, constructed under the erosion control program if 
     the Secretary determines during the term of the program that 
     the project or element is detrimental to the environment, 
     private property, or public safety.''.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 5(e)(2) of 
     such Act (33 U.S.C. 426h(e)(2)) is amended by striking 
     ``$21,000,000'' and inserting ``$31,000,000''.

     SEC. 2005. SMALL SHORE AND BEACH RESTORATION AND PROTECTION 
                   PROJECTS.

       Section 3 of the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing Federal 
     participation in the cost of protecting the shores of 
     publicly owned property'', approved August 13, 1946 (33 
     U.S.C. 426g), is amended by striking ``$3,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$5,000,000''.

     SEC. 2006. WRITTEN AGREEMENT FOR WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS.

       (a) Partnership Agreements.--Section 221 of the Flood 
     Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``under the provisions'' and all that 
     follows through ``under any other'' and inserting ``under 
     any'';
       (B) by striking ``to furnish its required cooperation for'' 
     and inserting ``under which each party agrees to carry out 
     its responsibilities and requirements for implementation or 
     construction of''; and
       (C) by inserting after ``$25,000.'' the following: ``Such 
     agreement may include a provision for damages in the event of 
     a failure of one or more parties to perform.'';

[[Page H5830]]

       (2) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f); and
       (3) by inserting after subsection (d) the following:
       ``(e) Limitation.--Nothing in subsection (a) shall be 
     construed as limiting the authority of the Secretary to 
     ensure that an agreement under this section meets all 
     requirements of law and policies of the Secretary in effect 
     on the date of entry into the agreement.''.
       (b) Local Cooperation.--Section 912(b) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (101 Stat. 4190) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by striking ``shall'' the first place it appears and 
     inserting ``may''; and
       (B) by striking the last sentence; and
       (2) in paragraph (4)--
       (A) by inserting after ``injunction, for'' the following: 
     ``payment of damages or, for'';
       (B) by striking ``to collect a civil penalty imposed under 
     this section,''; and
       (C) by striking ``any civil penalty imposed under this 
     section,'' and inserting ``any damages,''.
       (c) Applicability.--The amendments made by subsections (a) 
     and (b) only apply to partnership agreements entered into 
     after the date of enactment of this Act; except that at the 
     request of a non-Federal interest for a project, the district 
     engineer for the district in which the project is located may 
     amend a project partnership agreement entered into on or 
     before such date and under which construction on the project 
     has not been initiated as of such date of enactment for the 
     purpose of incorporating such amendments.
       (d) Partnership and Cooperative Arrangements.--
       (1) In general.--A goal of agreements entered into under 
     section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 
     1962d-5(b)) shall be to further partnership and cooperative 
     arrangements, and the agreements shall be referred to as 
     ``partnership agreements''.
       (2) References to cooperation agreements.--Any reference in 
     a law, regulation, document, or other paper of the United 
     States to a cooperation agreement or project cooperation 
     agreement shall be considered to be a reference to a 
     partnership agreement or a project partnership agreement, 
     respectively.
       (3) References to partnership agreements.--Any reference to 
     a partnership agreement or project partnership agreement in 
     this Act (other than this section) shall be considered as a 
     reference to a cooperation agreement or a project cooperation 
     agreement, respectively.
       (e) Delegation of Authority.--Not later than September 30, 
     2006, the Secretary shall issue policies and guidelines for 
     partnership agreements that delegate to the district 
     engineers, at a minimum--
       (1) the authority to approve any policy in a partnership 
     agreement that has appeared in an agreement previously 
     approved by the Secretary;
       (2) the authority to approve any policy in a partnership 
     agreement the specific terms of which are dictated by law, or 
     by a final feasibility study, final environmental impact 
     statement, or other final decision document for a water 
     resources development project;
       (3) the authority to approve any partnership agreement that 
     complies with the policies and guidelines issued by the 
     Secretary; and
       (4) the authority to sign any partnership agreement for any 
     water resources development project unless, within 30 days of 
     the date of authorization of the project, the Secretary 
     notifies the district engineer in which the project will be 
     carried out that the Secretary wishes to retain the 
     prerogative to sign the partnership agreement for that 
     project.
       (f) Report to Congress.--Not later than 2 years after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, and every year thereafter, the 
     Secretary shall submit to Congress a report detailing the 
     following:
       (1) the number of partnership agreements signed by district 
     engineers and the number of partnership agreements signed by 
     the Secretary, and
       (2) for any partnership agreement signed by the Secretary, 
     an explanation of why delegation to the district engineer was 
     not appropriate.
       (g) Public Availability.--Not later than the 120th day 
     following the date of enactment of this Act, the Chief of 
     Engineers shall ensure that each district engineer has made 
     available on the Internet all partnership agreements entered 
     into under section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 
     U.S.C. 1962d-5(b)) within the preceding 10 years and all 
     partnership agreements for water resources development 
     projects currently being carried out in that district and 
     shall make any partnership agreements entered into after such 
     date of enactment available on the Internet within 7 days of 
     the date on which such agreement is entered into.

     SEC. 2007. ASSISTANCE FOR REMEDIATION, RESTORATION, AND 
                   REUSE.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may provide to State and 
     local governments assessment, planning, and design assistance 
     for remediation, environmental restoration, or reuse of areas 
     located within the boundaries of such State or local 
     governments where such remediation, environmental 
     restoration, or reuse will contribute to the improvement of 
     water quality or the conservation of water and related 
     resources of drainage basins and watersheds within the United 
     States.
       (b) Non-Federal Share.--The non-Federal share of the cost 
     of assistance provided under subsection (a) shall be 50 
     percent.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $30,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.

     SEC. 2008. COMPILATION OF LAWS.

       Within one year after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     the laws of the United States relating to the improvement of 
     rivers and harbors, flood control, beach erosion, and other 
     water resources development enacted after November 8, 1966, 
     and before January 1, 2006, shall be compiled under the 
     direction of the Secretary and the Chief of Engineers and 
     printed for the use of the Department of the Army, Congress, 
     and the general public. The Secretary shall reprint the 
     volumes containing such laws enacted before November 8, 1966. 
     In addition, the Secretary shall include an index in each 
     volume so compiled or reprinted. Not later than December 1, 
     2006, the Secretary shall transmit at least 25 copies of each 
     such volume to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate. The 
     Secretary shall also ensure that such compilations are 
     available through electronic means, including the Internet.

     SEC. 2009. DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL.

       Section 217 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
     (33 U.S.C. 2326a; 110 Stat. 3694-3696) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d);
       (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
       ``(c) Governmental Partnerships.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may enter into cost 
     sharing agreements with one or more non-Federal public 
     interests with respect to a project, or group of projects 
     within a geographic region if appropriate, for the 
     acquisition, design, construction, management, or operation 
     of a dredged material processing, treatment, contaminant 
     reduction, or disposal facility (including any facility used 
     to demonstrate potential beneficial uses of dredged material, 
     which may include effective sediment contaminant reduction 
     technologies) using funds provided in whole or in part by the 
     Federal Government. One or more of the parties of the 
     agreement may perform the acquisition, design, construction, 
     management, or operation of a dredged material processing, 
     treatment, or disposal facility. If appropriate, the 
     Secretary may combine portions of separate construction or 
     maintenance appropriations from separate Federal projects 
     with the appropriate combined cost sharing between the 
     various projects when the facility serves to manage dredged 
     material from multiple Federal projects located in the 
     geographic region of the facility.
       ``(2) Public financing.--
       ``(A) Agreements.--
       ``(i) Specified federal funding sources and cost sharing.--
     The cost-sharing agreement used shall clearly specify the 
     Federal funding sources and combined cost sharing when 
     applicable to multiple Federal navigation projects and the 
     responsibilities and risks of each of the parties related to 
     present and future dredged material managed by the facility.
       ``(ii) Management of sediments.--The cost-sharing agreement 
     may include the management of sediments from the maintenance 
     dredging of Federal navigation projects that do not have 
     partnership agreements. The cost-sharing agreement may allow 
     the non-Federal sponsor to receive reimbursable payments from 
     the Federal Government for commitments made by the sponsor 
     for disposal or placement capacity at dredged material 
     treatment, processing, contaminant reduction, or disposal 
     facilities.
       ``(iii) Credit.--The cost-sharing agreement may allow costs 
     incurred prior to execution of a partnership agreement for 
     construction or the purchase of equipment or capacity for the 
     project to be credited according to existing cost-sharing 
     rules.
       ``(B) Credit.--Nothing in this subsection supersedes or 
     modifies existing agreements between the Federal Government 
     and any non-Federal sponsors for the cost sharing, 
     construction, and operation and maintenance of Federal 
     navigation projects. Subject to the approval of the Secretary 
     and in accordance with existing laws, regulations, and 
     policies, a non-Federal public sponsor of a Federal 
     navigation project may seek credit for funds provided in the 
     acquisition, design, construction, management, or operation 
     of a dredged material processing, treatment, or disposal 
     facility to the extent the facility is used to manage dredged 
     material from the Federal navigation project. The non-Federal 
     sponsor shall be responsible for providing all necessary 
     lands, easements, rights-of-way, or relocations associated 
     with the facility and shall receive credit for these 
     items.''; and
       (3) in each of subsections (d)(1) and (d)(2)(A), as so 
     redesignated--
       (A) by inserting ``and maintenance'' after ``operation''; 
     and
       (B) by inserting ``processing, treatment, or'' after 
     ``dredged material'' the first place it appears.

     SEC. 2010. WETLANDS MITIGATION.

       In carrying out a water resources project that involves 
     wetlands mitigation and that has impacts that occur within 
     the service area of a mitigation bank, the Secretary, to the 
     maximum extent practicable and where appropriate, shall give 
     preference to the use of the mitigation bank if the bank 
     contains sufficient available credits to offset the impact 
     and the bank is approved in accordance with the Federal 
     Guidance for the Establishment, Use and Operation of 
     Mitigation Banks (60 Fed. Reg. 58605) or other applicable 
     Federal law (including regulations).

     SEC. 2011. REMOTE AND SUBSISTENCE HARBORS.

       (a) In General.--In conducting a study of harbor and 
     navigation improvements, the Secretary may recommend a 
     project without the need to demonstrate that the project is 
     justified solely by national economic development benefits if 
     the Secretary determines that--
       (1)(A) the community to be served by the project is at 
     least 70 miles from the nearest surface accessible commercial 
     port and has no direct rail or highway link to another 
     community served by a surface accessible port or harbor; or

[[Page H5831]]

       (B) the project would be located in the Commonwealth of 
     Puerto Rico, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
     Islands, or American Samoa;
       (2) the harbor is economically critical such that over 80 
     percent of the goods transported through the harbor would be 
     consumed within the community served by the harbor and 
     navigation improvement; and
       (3) the long-term viability of the community would be 
     threatened without the harbor and navigation improvement.
       (b) Justification.--In considering whether to recommend a 
     project under subsection (a), the Secretary shall consider 
     the benefits of the project to--
       (1) public health and safety of the local community, 
     including access to facilities designed to protect public 
     health and safety;
       (2) access to natural resources for subsistence purposes;
       (3) local and regional economic opportunities;
       (4) welfare of the local population; and
       (5) social and cultural value to the community.

     SEC. 2012. BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL.

       (a) In General.--Section 204 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326) is amended by 
     striking subsections (c) through (g) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(c) In General.--The Secretary may carry out projects to 
     transport and place sediment obtained in connection with the 
     construction, operation, or maintenance of an authorized 
     water resources project at locations selected by a non-
     Federal entity for use in the construction, repair, or 
     rehabilitation of projects determined by the Secretary to be 
     in the public interest and associated with navigation, flood 
     damage reduction, hydroelectric power, municipal and 
     industrial water supply, agricultural water supply, 
     recreation, hurricane and storm damage reduction, aquatic 
     plant control, and environmental protection and restoration.
       ``(d) Cooperative Agreement.--Any project undertaken 
     pursuant to this section shall be initiated only after non-
     Federal interests have entered into an agreement with the 
     Secretary in which the non-Federal interests agree to pay the 
     non-Federal share of the cost of construction of the project 
     and 100 percent of the cost of operation, maintenance, 
     replacement, and rehabilitation of the project in accordance 
     with section 103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213).
       ``(e) Special Rule.--Construction of a project under 
     subsection (a) for one or more of the purposes of protection, 
     restoration, or creation of aquatic and ecologically related 
     habitat, the cost of which does not exceed $750,000 and which 
     will be located in a disadvantaged community as determined by 
     the Secretary, may be carried out at Federal expense.
       ``(f) Determination of Construction Costs.--Costs 
     associated with construction of a project under this section 
     shall be limited solely to construction costs that are in 
     excess of those costs necessary to carry out the dredging for 
     construction, operation, or maintenance of the authorized 
     water resources project in the most cos- effective way, 
     consistent with economic, engineering, and environmental 
     criteria.
       ``(g) Selection of Sediment Disposal Method.--In developing 
     and carrying out a water resources project involving the 
     disposal of sediment, the Secretary may select, with the 
     consent of the non-Federal interest, a disposal method that 
     is not the least cost option if the Secretary determines that 
     the incremental costs of such disposal method are reasonable 
     in relation to the environmental benefits, including the 
     benefits to the aquatic environment to be derived from the 
     creation of wetlands and control of shoreline erosion. The 
     Federal share of such incremental costs shall be determined 
     in accordance with subsections (d) and (f).
       ``(h) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221 of 
     the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), for any 
     project carried out under this section, a non-Federal 
     interest may include a nonprofit entity, with the consent of 
     the affected local government.
       ``(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated $30,000,000 annually for projects under 
     this section of which not more than $3,000,000 annually may 
     be used for construction of projects described in subsection 
     (e). Such sums shall remain available until expended.
       ``(j) Regional Sediment Management Planning.--In 
     consultation with appropriate State and Federal agencies, the 
     Secretary may develop, at Federal expense, plans for regional 
     management of sediment obtained in conjunction with the 
     construction, operation, or maintenance of water resources 
     projects, including potential beneficial uses of sediment for 
     construction, repair, or rehabilitation of public projects 
     for navigation, flood damage reduction, hydroelectric power, 
     municipal and industrial water supply, agricultural water 
     supply, recreation, hurricane and storm damage reduction, 
     aquatic plant control, and environmental protection and 
     restoration.
       ``(k) Use of Funds.--
       ``(1) Non-federal interest.--The non-Federal interest for a 
     project described in this section may use, and the Secretary 
     shall accept, funds provided under any other Federal program, 
     to satisfy, in whole or in part, the non-Federal share of the 
     cost of such project if such funds are authorized to be used 
     to carry out such project.
       ``(2) Other federal agencies.--The non-Federal share of the 
     cost of construction of a project under this section may be 
     met through contributions from a Federal agency made directly 
     to the Secretary, with the consent of the affected local 
     government, if such funds are authorized to be used to carry 
     out such project. Before initiating a project to which this 
     paragraph applies, the Secretary shall enter into an 
     agreement with a non-Federal interest in which the non-
     Federal interest agrees to pay 100 percent of the cost of 
     operation, maintenance, replacement, and rehabilitation of 
     the project.''.
       (b) Repeal.--
       (1) In general.--Section 145 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1976 (33 U.S.C. 426j) is repealed.
       (2) Hold harmless.--The repeal made by paragraph (1) shall 
     not affect the authority of the Secretary to complete any 
     project being carried out under such section 145 on the day 
     before the date of enactment of this Act.
       (c) Priority Areas.--In carrying out section 204 of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326), the 
     Secretary shall give priority to the following:
       (1) A project at Little Rock Slackwater Harbor, Arkansas.
       (2) A project at Egmont Key, Florida.
       (3) A project in the vicinity of Calcasieu Ship Channel, 
     Louisiana.
       (4) A project in the vicinity of the Smith Point Park 
     Pavilion and the TWA Flight 800 Memorial, Brookhaven, New 
     York.
       (5) A project in the vicinity of Morehead City, North 
     Carolina.
       (6) A project in the vicinity of Galveston Bay, Texas.

     SEC. 2013. COST-SHARING PROVISIONS FOR CERTAIN AREAS.

       Section 1156 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
     (33 U.S.C. 2310; 100 Stat. 4256) is amended to read as 
     follows:

     ``SEC. 1156. COST-SHARING PROVISIONS FOR CERTAIN AREAS.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall waive local cost-
     sharing requirements up to $500,000 for all studies and 
     projects in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, 
     Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and 
     the United States Virgin Islands, in Indian country (as 
     defined in section 1151 of title 18, United States Code, and 
     including lands that are within the jurisdictional area of an 
     Oklahoma Indian tribe, as determined by the Secretary of the 
     Interior, and are recognized by the Secretary of the Interior 
     as eligible for trust land status under part 151 of title 25, 
     Code of Federal Regulations) or on land in the State of 
     Alaska owned by an Alaska Native Regional Corporation or an 
     Alaska Native Village Corporation (as those terms are defined 
     in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et 
     seq.)) or the Metlakatla Indian community.
       ``(b) Use of Funds.--The non-Federal interest for a study 
     or project for an area described in subsection (a) may use, 
     and the Secretary shall accept, funds provided under any 
     other Federal program, to satisfy, in whole or in part, the 
     non-Federal share of such study or project if such funds are 
     authorized to be used to carry out such study or project.''.

     SEC. 2014. REVISION OF PROJECT PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT.

       Upon authorization by law of an increase in the maximum 
     amount of Federal funds that may be allocated for a project 
     or an increase in the total cost of a project authorized to 
     be carried out by the Secretary, the Secretary shall revise 
     the project partnership agreement for the project to take 
     into account the change in Federal participation in the 
     project.

     SEC. 2015. COST SHARING.

       An increase in the maximum amount of Federal funds that may 
     be allocated for a project or an increase in the total cost 
     of a project authorized to be carried out by the Secretary 
     shall not affect any cost-sharing requirement applicable to 
     the project under title I of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211 et seq.).

     SEC. 2016. CREDIT FOR WORK PERFORMED BEFORE PARTNERSHIP 
                   AGREEMENT.

       If the Secretary is authorized to credit toward the non-
     Federal share the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal 
     interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the 
     project and such work has not been carried out as of the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall enter into an 
     agreement with the non-Federal interest for the project under 
     which the non-Federal interest shall carry out such work, and 
     the credit shall apply only to work carried out under the 
     agreement.

     SEC. 2017. RECREATION USER FEE REVENUES.

       Section 225 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 
     (113 Stat. 297-298) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1)--
       (A) by striking ``During fiscal years 1999 through 2002, 
     the'' and inserting ``The''; and
       (B) by striking ``$34,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$42,000,000''; and
       (2) in subsection (a)(3) by striking ``September 30, 2005'' 
     and inserting ``expended''.

     SEC. 2018. EXPEDITED ACTIONS FOR EMERGENCY FLOOD DAMAGE 
                   REDUCTION.

       The Secretary shall expedite any authorized planning, 
     design, and construction of any project for flood damage 
     reduction for an area that, within the preceding 5 years, has 
     been subject to flooding that resulted in the loss of life 
     and caused damage of sufficient severity and magnitude to 
     warrant a declaration of a major disaster by the President 
     under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster and Emergency Relief 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.).

     SEC. 2019. WATERSHED AND RIVER BASIN ASSESSMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 729 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2267a; 114 Stat. 2587-
     2588; 100 Stat. 4164) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (d)--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (4);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (5) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio;

[[Page H5832]]

       ``(7) Sauk River Basin, Snohomish and Skagit Counties, 
     Washington;
       ``(8) Niagara River Basin, New York; and
       ``(9) Genesee River Basin, New York.'';
       (2) by striking paragraph (1) of subsection (f) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(1) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of the 
     costs of an assessment carried out under this section on or 
     after December 11, 2000, shall be 25 percent.''; and
       (3) by striking subsection (g).
       (b) Revision of Partnership Agreement.--The Secretary shall 
     revise the partnership agreement for any assessment being 
     carried out under such section 729 to take into account the 
     change in non-Federal participation in the assessment as a 
     result of the amendments made by subsection (a).

     SEC. 2020. TRIBAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM.

       (a) Scope.--Section 203(b)(1)(B) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 2000 (33 U.S.C. 2269(b)(1)(B); 114 Stat. 
     2589) is amended by inserting after ``Code'' the following: 
     ``, and including lands that are within the jurisdictional 
     area of an Oklahoma Indian tribe, as determined by the 
     Secretary of the Interior, and are recognized by the 
     Secretary of the Interior as eligible for trust land status 
     under part 151 of title 25, Code of Federal Regulations''.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 203(e) of 
     such Act is amended by striking ``2006'' and inserting 
     ``2010''.

     SEC. 2021. WILDFIRE FIREFIGHTING.

       Section 309 of Public Law 102-154 (42 U.S.C. 1856a-1; 105 
     Stat. 1034) is amended by inserting ``the Secretary of the 
     Army,'' after ``the Secretary of Energy,''.

     SEC. 2022. CREDIT FOR NONCONSTRUCTION SERVICES.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to allow a 
     non-Federal interest credit toward its share of project costs 
     for any authorized water resources development project for 
     the cost of materials and in-kind services, including design 
     and management services but not including construction, 
     provided by the non-Federal interest for carrying out the 
     project.
       (b) Limitation.--Credit authorized under subsection (a)--
       (1) shall not exceed the non-Federal share of project 
     costs;
       (2) shall not alter any other requirements that require a 
     non-Federal interest to provide lands, easements, rights-of-
     way, and dredged material disposal areas for the project;
       (3) shall not exceed the actual and reasonable costs of the 
     materials or in-kind services provided by the non-Federal 
     interest, as determined by the Secretary; and
       (4) shall not be allowed unless the Secretary has 
     determined that such materials or services are integral to 
     the project.

     SEC. 2023. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

       Section 22 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974 
     (42 U.S.C. 1962d-16) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a) by striking ``The Secretary'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(a) Federal State Cooperation.--
       ``(1) Comprehensive plans.--The Secretary'';
       (2) by inserting after the last sentence in subsection (a) 
     the following:
       ``(2) Technical assistance.--
       ``(A) In general.--At the request of a governmental agency 
     or non-Federal interest, the Secretary may provide, at 
     Federal expense, technical assistance to such agency or non-
     Federal interest in managing water resources.
       ``(B) Types of assistance.--Technical assistance under this 
     paragraph may include provision and integration of 
     hydrologic, economic, and environmental data and analyses.'';
       (3) in subsection (b)(1) by striking ``this section'' each 
     place it appears and inserting ``subsection (a)(1)'';
       (4) in subsection (b)(2) by striking ``Up to 1/2 of the'' 
     and inserting ``The'';
       (5) in subsection (c) by striking ``(c) There is'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       ``(1) Federal and state cooperation.--There is'';
       (6) in subsection (c)(1) (as designated by paragraph (5))--
       (A) by striking ``the provisions of this section'' and 
     inserting ``subsection (a)(1);''; and
       (B) by striking ``$500,000'' and inserting ``$1,000,000'';
       (7) by inserting at the end of subsection (c) the 
     following:
       ``(2) Technical assistance.--There is authorized to be 
     appropriated $5,000,000 annually to carry out subsection 
     (a)(2), of which not more than $2,000,000 annually may be 
     used by the Secretary to enter into cooperative agreements 
     with nonprofit organizations to provide assistance to rural 
     and small communities.'';
       (8) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e); and
       (9) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
       ``(d) Annual Submission of Proposed Activities.--Concurrent 
     with the President's submission to Congress of the 
     President's request for appropriations for the Civil Works 
     Program for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and 
     Public Works of the Senate a report describing the individual 
     activities proposed for funding under subsection (a)(1) for 
     that fiscal year.''.

     SEC. 2024. COORDINATION AND SCHEDULING OF FEDERAL, STATE, AND 
                   LOCAL ACTIONS.

       (a) Notice of Intent.--Upon request of the non-Federal 
     interest in the form of a written notice of intent to 
     construct or modify a non-Federal water supply, wastewater 
     infrastructure, flood damage reduction, storm damage 
     reduction, ecosystem restoration, or navigation project that 
     requires the approval of the Secretary, the Secretary shall 
     initiate, subject to subsection (g)(1), procedures to 
     establish a schedule for consolidating Federal, State, and 
     local agency and Indian tribe environmental assessments, 
     project reviews, and issuance of all permits for the 
     construction or modification of the project. The non-Federal 
     interest shall submit to the Secretary, with the notice of 
     intent, studies and documentation, including environmental 
     reviews, that may be required by Federal law for 
     decisionmaking on the proposed project. All States and Indian 
     tribes having jurisdiction over the proposed project shall be 
     invited by the Secretary, but shall not be required, to 
     participate in carrying out this section with respect to the 
     project.
       (b) Procedural Requirements.--Within 15 days after receipt 
     of notice under subsection (a), the Secretary shall publish 
     such notice in the Federal Register. The Secretary also shall 
     provide written notification of the receipt of a notice under 
     subsection (a) to all State and local agencies and Indian 
     tribes that may be required to issue permits for the 
     construction of the project or related activities. The 
     Secretary shall solicit the cooperation of those agencies and 
     request their entry into a memorandum of agreement described 
     in subsection (c) with respect to the project. Within 30 days 
     after publication of the notice in the Federal Register, 
     State and local agencies and Indian tribes that intend to 
     enter into the memorandum of agreement with respect to the 
     project shall notify the Secretary of their intent in 
     writing.
       (c) Scheduling Agreement.--Within 90 days after the date of 
     receipt of notice under subsection (a) with respect to a 
     project, the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of 
     Commerce, and the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency, as necessary, and any State or local 
     agencies that have notified the Secretary under subsection 
     (b) shall enter into an agreement with the Secretary 
     establishing a schedule of decisionmaking for approval of the 
     project and permits associated with the project and with 
     related activities.
       (d) Contents of Agreement.--An agreement entered into under 
     subsection (c) with respect to a project, to the extent 
     practicable, shall consolidate hearing and comment periods, 
     procedures for data collection and report preparation, and 
     the environmental review and permitting processes associated 
     with the project and related activities. The agreement shall 
     detail, to the extent possible, the non-Federal interest's 
     responsibilities for data development and information that 
     may be necessary to process each permit required for the 
     project, including a schedule when the information and data 
     will be provided to the appropriate Federal, State, or local 
     agency or Indian tribe.
       (e) Revision of Agreement.--The Secretary may revise an 
     agreement entered into under subsection (c) with respect to a 
     project once to extend the schedule to allow the non-Federal 
     interest the minimum amount of additional time necessary to 
     revise its original application to meet the objections of a 
     Federal, State, or local agency or Indian tribe that is a 
     party to the agreement.
       (f) Final Decision.--Not later than the final day of a 
     schedule established by an agreement entered into under 
     subsection (c) with respect to a project, the Secretary shall 
     notify the non-Federal interest of the final decision on the 
     project and whether the permit or permits have been issued.
       (g) Reimbursement.--
       (1) Costs of coordination.--The costs incurred by the 
     Secretary to establish and carry out a schedule to 
     consolidate Federal, State, and local agency and Indian tribe 
     environmental assessments, project reviews, and permit 
     issuance for a project under this section shall be paid by 
     the non-Federal interest.
       (2) Costs incurred to expedite permits and reviews.--
       (A) Acceptance of non-federal funds.--The Secretary may 
     accept funds from the non-Federal interest to hire additional 
     staff or obtain the services of consultants, or to provide 
     financial, technical, and administrative support to agencies 
     that have entered into an agreement with the Secretary under 
     subsection (c) with respect to a project in order to 
     facilitate the timely processing, review, and completion of 
     applicable Federal, State, and local agency and Indian tribe 
     environmental assessments, project reviews, and permits for 
     the project.
       (B) Use of funds.--Funds accepted under this paragraph 
     shall be used to supplement existing resources of the 
     Secretary or a participating agency.
       (C) Assurance of level of service and impartiality.--The 
     Secretary shall ensure that the Department of the Army and 
     any participating agency that accepts funds under this 
     paragraph shall continue to provide the same level of service 
     to other projects and other responsibilities not covered by 
     this section as it would provide, notwithstanding any 
     activities carried out under this section, and that 
     acceptance of such funds will not impact impartial 
     decisionmaking either substantively or procedurally.
       (h) Report on Timesavings Methods.--Not later than 3 years 
     after the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary 
     shall prepare and transmit to Congress a report estimating 
     the time required for the issuance of all Federal, State, 
     local, and tribal permits for the construction of non-Federal 
     projects for water supply, wastewater infrastructure, flood 
     damage reduction, storm damage reduction, ecosystem 
     restoration, and navigation. The Secretary shall include in 
     that report recommendations for further reducing the amount 
     of time required for the issuance of those permits, including 
     any proposed changes in existing law.

     SEC. 2025. PROJECT STREAMLINING.

       (a) Policy.--The benefits of water resources projects are 
     important to the Nation's economy

[[Page H5833]]

     and environment, and recommendations to Congress regarding 
     such projects should not be delayed due to uncoordinated and 
     sequential environmental reviews or the failure to timely 
     resolve disputes during the development of water resources 
     projects.
       (b) Scope.--This section shall apply to each study 
     initiated after the date of enactment of this Act to develop 
     a feasibility report under section 905 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2282), or a reevaluation 
     report, for a water resources project if the Secretary 
     determines that such study requires an environmental impact 
     statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
     (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
       (c) Water Resources Project Review Process.--The Secretary 
     shall develop and implement a coordinated review process for 
     water resources projects.
       (d) Coordinated Reviews.--
       (1) In general.--The coordinated review process under this 
     section shall provide that all environmental reviews, 
     analyses, opinions, permits, licenses, and approvals that 
     must be issued or made by a Federal, State, or local 
     government agency or Indian tribe for a water resources 
     project will be conducted concurrently, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, and completed within a time period established 
     by the Secretary, in cooperation with the agencies identified 
     under subsection (e) with respect to the project.
       (2) Agency participation.--Each Federal agency identified 
     under subsection (e) shall formulate and implement 
     administrative, policy, and procedural mechanisms to enable 
     the agency to ensure completion of environmental reviews, 
     analyses, opinions, permits, licenses, and approvals 
     described in paragraph (1) in a timely and environmentally 
     responsible manner.
       (e) Identification of Jurisdictional Agencies.--With 
     respect to each water resources project, the Secretary shall 
     identify, as soon as practicable, all Federal, State, and 
     local government agencies and Indian tribes that may have 
     jurisdiction over environmental-related matters that may be 
     affected by the project or may be required by law to conduct 
     an environmental-related review or analysis of the project or 
     determine whether to issue an environmental-related permit, 
     license, or approval for the project.
       (f) State Authority.--If a coordinated review process is 
     being implemented under this section by the Secretary with 
     respect to a water resources project within the boundaries of 
     a State, the State, consistent with State law, may choose to 
     participate in such process and provide that all State 
     agencies that have jurisdiction over environmental-related 
     matters that may be affected by the project or may be 
     required by law to conduct an environmental-related review or 
     analysis of the project or determine whether to issue an 
     environmental-related permit, license, or approval for the 
     project, be subject to the process.
       (g) Memorandum of Understanding.--The coordinated review 
     process developed under this section may be incorporated into 
     a memorandum of understanding for a project between the 
     Secretary and the heads of other Federal, State, and local 
     government agencies and Indian tribes identified under 
     subsection (e) with respect to the project and the non-
     Federal interest for the project.
       (h) Effect of Failure to Meet Deadline.--
       (1) Notification of congress and ceq.--If the Secretary 
     determines that a Federal, State, or local government agency, 
     Indian tribe, or non-Federal interest that is participating 
     in a coordinated review process under this section with 
     respect to a project has not met a deadline established under 
     subsection (d) for the project, the Secretary shall notify, 
     within 30 days of the date of such determination, the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives, the Committee on Environment and Public 
     Works of the Senate, the Council on Environmental Quality, 
     and the agency, Indian tribe, or non-Federal interest 
     involved about the failure to meet the deadline.
       (2) Agency report.--Not later than 30 days after the date 
     of receipt of a notice under paragraph (1), the Federal, 
     State, or local government agency, Indian tribe, or non-
     Federal interest involved shall submit a report to the 
     Secretary, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
     of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Environment 
     and Public Works of the Senate, and the Council on 
     Environmental Quality explaining why the agency, Indian 
     tribe, or non-Federal interest did not meet the deadline and 
     what actions it intends to take to complete or issue the 
     required review, analysis, opinion, permit, license, or 
     approval.
       (i) Purpose and Need and Determination of Reasonable 
     Alternatives.--
       (1) In general.--As an official of the lead Federal agency 
     that is responsible for carrying out a study to which this 
     section applies and its associated process for meeting the 
     requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
     (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and as the Federal agency with 
     expertise in water resources development, the Secretary, in 
     carrying out such study and process, shall--
       (A) define the purpose and need for the proposed water 
     resources project; and
       (B) determine which alternatives are reasonable and may be 
     reasonably anticipated to meet project purposes and needs.
       (2) Streamlining study.--To streamline a study to which 
     this section applies and its associated process for meeting 
     the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 
     1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Secretary may eliminate 
     from consideration any alternatives the Secretary determines 
     are not reasonable or are not reasonably anticipated to meet 
     project purposes and needs.
       (j) Solicitation and Consideration of Comments.--In 
     applying subsection (i), the Secretary shall solicit, 
     consider, and respond to comments from interested persons and 
     governmental entities.
       (k) Categorical Exclusions.--Not later than 120 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall 
     develop and publish a list of categorical exclusions from the 
     requirement that an environmental assessment or an 
     environmental impact statement be prepared under the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) for 
     water resources projects.
       (l) Limitations.--Nothing in this section shall preempt or 
     interfere with--
       (1) any practice of seeking public comment;
       (2) any power, jurisdiction, or authority that a Federal, 
     State, or local government agency, Indian tribe, or non-
     Federal interest has with respect to carrying out a water 
     resources project; or
       (3) any obligation to comply with the provisions of the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4371 et 
     seq.) and the regulations issued by the Council on 
     Environmental Quality to carry out such Act.
       (m) Benchmarks.--Within 12 months of the date of enactment 
     of this Act, the Chief of Engineers shall establish 
     benchmarks for determining the length of time it should take 
     to conduct a feasibility study for a water resources 
     development project and its associated review process under 
     the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4371 
     et seq.). Benchmarks may be established for activities based 
     on project type, size, cost, and complexity. The Chief of 
     Engineers shall use such benchmarks as a management tool to 
     make the feasibility study process more efficient in all 
     districts of the Army Corps of Engineers.

     SEC. 2026. LAKES PROGRAM.

       Section 602(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1986 (100 Stat. 4148; 110 Stat. 3758; 113 Stat. 295) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at end of paragraph (18);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (19) and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(20) Kinkaid Lake, Jackson County, Illinois, removal of 
     silt and aquatic growth and measures to address excessive 
     sedimentation;
       ``(21) McCarter Pond, Borough of Fairhaven, New Jersey, 
     removal of silt and measures to address water quality;
       ``(22) Rogers Pond, Franklin Township, New Jersey, removal 
     of silt and restoration of structural integrity;
       ``(23) Greenwood Lake, New York and New Jersey, removal of 
     silt and aquatic growth;
       ``(24) Lake Rodgers, Creedmoor, North Carolina, removal of 
     silt and excessive nutrients and restoration of structural 
     integrity; and
       ``(25) Lake Luxembourg, Pennsylvania.''.

     SEC. 2027. MITIGATION FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE LOSSES.

       (a) Mitigation Plan Contents.--Section 906(d) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283(d)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Contents.--A mitigation plan shall include--
       ``(A) a description of the physical action to be undertaken 
     to achieve the mitigation objectives within the watershed in 
     which such losses occur and, in any case in which mitigation 
     must take place outside the watershed, a justification 
     detailing the rationale for undertaking the mitigation 
     outside of the watershed;
       ``(B) a description of the lands or interests in lands to 
     be acquired for mitigation and the basis for a determination 
     that such lands are available for acquisition;
       ``(C) the type, amount, and characteristics of the habitat 
     being restored;
       ``(D) success criteria for mitigation based on replacement 
     of lost functions and values of the habitat, including 
     hydrologic and vegetative characteristics; and
       ``(E) a plan for any necessary monitoring to determine the 
     success of the mitigation, including the cost and duration of 
     any monitoring and, to the extent practicable, the entities 
     responsible for any monitoring.
       ``(4) Responsibility for monitoring.--In any case in which 
     it is not practicable to identify in a mitigation plan for a 
     water resources project, the entity responsible for 
     monitoring at the time of a final report of the Chief of 
     Engineers or other final decision document for the project, 
     such entity shall be identified in the partnership agreement 
     entered into with the non-Federal interest.''.
       (b) Status Report.--
       (1) In general.--Concurrent with the President's submission 
     to Congress of the President's request for appropriations for 
     the Civil Works Program for a fiscal year, the Secretary 
     shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a 
     report on the status of construction of projects that require 
     mitigation under section 906 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283; 100 Stat. 4186) and 
     the status of such mitigation.
       (2) Projects included.--The status report shall include the 
     status of all projects that are under construction, all 
     projects for which the President requests funding for the 
     next fiscal year, and all projects that have completed 
     construction, but have not completed the mitigation required 
     under section 906 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1986.

     SEC. 2028. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.

       (a) In General.--For the purpose of expediting the cost-
     effective design and construction of wetlands restoration 
     that is part of an authorized water resources project, the 
     Secretary may enter into cooperative agreements under section 
     6305 of title 31, United States Code, with nonprofit 
     organizations with expertise in wetlands restoration to carry 
     out such design and construction on behalf of the Secretary.

[[Page H5834]]

       (b) Limitations.--
       (1) Per project limit.--A cooperative agreement under this 
     section shall not obligate the Secretary to pay the nonprofit 
     organization more than $1,000,000 for any single wetlands 
     restoration project.
       (2) Annual limit.--The total value of work carried out 
     under cooperative agreements under this section may not 
     exceed $5,000,000 in any fiscal year.

     SEC. 2029. PROJECT PLANNING.

       (a) Objectives.--
       (1) Flood damage reduction, navigation, and hurricane and 
     storm damage reduction projects.--The Federal objective of 
     any study of the feasibility of a water resources project 
     carried out by the Secretary for flood damage reduction, 
     navigation, or hurricane and storm damage reduction shall be 
     to maximize the net national economic development benefits 
     associated with the project, consistent with protecting the 
     Nation's environment.
       (2) Ecosystem restoration projects.--The Federal objective 
     of any study of the feasibility of a water resources project 
     for ecosystem restoration carried out by the Secretary shall 
     be to maximize the net national ecosystem restoration 
     benefits associated with the project, consistent with 
     national economic development.
       (3) Projects with multiple purposes.--In the case of a 
     study that includes multiple project purposes, the primary 
     and other project purposes shall be evaluated, based on the 
     relevant Federal objective identified under paragraphs (1) 
     and (2).
       (4) Selection of project alternatives.--
       (A) In general.--Notwithstanding the Federal objectives 
     identified in this subsection, the Secretary may select a 
     project alternative that does not maximize net benefits if 
     there is an overriding reason based upon other Federal, 
     State, local, or international concerns.
       (B) Flood damage reduction, navigation, and hurricane storm 
     damage reduction projects.--With respect to a water resources 
     project described in paragraph (1), an overriding reason for 
     selecting a plan other than the plan that maximizes national 
     economic development benefits may be if the Secretary 
     determines, and the non-Federal interest concurs, that an 
     alternative plan is feasible and achieves the project 
     purposes while providing greater ecosystem restoration 
     benefits.
       (C) Ecosystem restoration projects.--With respect to a 
     water resources project described in paragraph (2), an 
     overriding reason for selecting a plan other than the plan 
     that maximizes national ecosystem restoration benefits may be 
     if the Secretary determines, and the non-Federal interest 
     concurs, that an alternative plan is feasible and achieves 
     the project purposes while providing greater economic 
     development benefits.
       (b) Identifying Additional Benefits and Projects.--
       (1) Primarily economic benefits.--In conducting a study of 
     the feasibility of a project where the primary benefits are 
     expected to be economic, the Secretary may identify ecosystem 
     restoration benefits that may be achieved in the study area 
     and, after obtaining the participation of a non-Federal 
     interest, may study and recommend construction of additional 
     measures, a separate project, or separable project element to 
     achieve those benefits.
       (2) Primarily ecosystem restoration benefits.--In 
     conducting a study of the feasibility of a project where the 
     primary benefits are expected to be associated with ecosystem 
     restoration, the Secretary may identify economic benefits 
     that may be achieved in the study area and, after obtaining 
     the participation of a non-Federal interest, may study and 
     recommend construction of additional measures, a separate 
     project, or separable project element to achieve those 
     benefits.
       (3) Rules applicable to certain measures, projects, and 
     elements.--Any additional measures, separate project, or 
     separable element identified under paragraph (1) or (2) and 
     recommended for construction shall not be considered integral 
     to the underlying project and, if authorized, shall be 
     subject to a separate partnership agreement, unless a non-
     Federal interest agrees to share in the cost of the 
     additional measures, project, or separable element.
       (c) Calculation of Benefits and Costs for Flood Damage 
     Reduction Projects.--A feasibility study for a project for 
     flood damage reduction shall include, as part of the 
     calculation of benefits and costs--
       (1) a calculation of the residual risk of flooding 
     following completion of the proposed project;
       (2) a calculation of any upstream or downstream impacts of 
     the proposed project; and
       (3) calculations to ensure that the benefits and costs 
     associated with structural and nonstructural alternatives are 
     evaluated in an equitable manner.

     SEC. 2030. INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEW.

       (a) Project Studies Subject to Independent Peer Review.--
       (1) In general.--Project studies shall be subject to a peer 
     review by an independent panel of experts as determined under 
     this section.
       (2) Scope.--The peer review may include a review of the 
     economic and environmental assumptions and projections, 
     project evaluation data, economic analyses, environmental 
     analyses, engineering analyses, formulation of alternative 
     plans, methods for integrating risk and uncertainty, models 
     used in evaluation of economic or environmental impacts of 
     proposed projects, and any biological opinions of the project 
     study.
       (3) Project studies subject to peer review.--
       (A) Mandatory.--A project study shall be subject to peer 
     review under paragraph (1) if the project has an estimated 
     total cost of more than $50,000,000, including mitigation 
     costs, and is not determined by the Chief of Engineers to be 
     exempt from peer review under paragraph (6).
       (B) Discretionary.--A project study may be subject to peer 
     review if--
       (i) the Governor of an affected State requests a peer 
     review by an independent panel of experts;
       (ii) the head of a Federal or State agency charged with 
     reviewing the project study determines that the project is 
     likely to have a significant adverse impact on environmental, 
     cultural, or other resources under the jurisdiction of the 
     agency after implementation of proposed mitigation plans and 
     requests a peer review by an independent panel of experts; or
       (iii) the Chief of Engineers determines that the project 
     study is controversial.
       (4) Controversial projects.--Upon receipt of a written 
     request under paragraph (3)(B) or on the initiative of the 
     Chief of Engineers, the Chief of Engineers shall determine 
     whether a project study is controversial.
       (5) Factors to consider.--In determining whether a project 
     study is controversial, the Chief of Engineers shall consider 
     if--
       (A) there is a significant public dispute as to the size, 
     nature, or effects of the project; or
       (B) there is a significant public dispute as to the 
     economic or environmental costs or benefits of the project.
       (6) Project studies excluded from peer review.--Project 
     studies that may be excluded from peer review under paragraph 
     (1) are--
       (A) a study for a project the Chief of Engineers 
     determines--
       (i) is not controversial;
       (ii) has no more than negligible adverse impacts on scarce 
     or unique cultural, historic, or tribal resources;
       (iii) has no substantial adverse impacts on fish and 
     wildlife species and their habitat prior to the 
     implementation of mitigation measures; and
       (iv) has, before implementation of mitigation measures, no 
     more than a negligible adverse impact on a species listed as 
     endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species 
     Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1539 et seq.) or the critical habitat 
     of such species designated under such Act; and
       (B) a study for a project pursued under section 205 of the 
     Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), section 2 of the 
     Flood Control Act of August 28, 1937 (33 U.S.C. 701g), 
     section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r), 
     section 107(a) of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 
     577(a)), section 3 of the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing 
     Federal participation in the cost of protecting the shores of 
     publicly owned property'', approved August 13, 1946 (33 
     U.S.C. 426g), section 111 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 
     (33 U.S.C. 426i), section 3 of the Act entitled ``An Act 
     authorizing the construction, repair, and preservation of 
     certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for other 
     purposes'', approved March 2, 1945 (33 U.S.C. 603a), section 
     1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 
     U.S.C. 2309a), section 206 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330), or section 204 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326).
       (7) Appeal.--The decision of the Chief of Engineers whether 
     to peer review a project study shall be published in the 
     Federal Register and shall be subject to appeal by a person 
     referred to in paragraph (3)(B)(i) or (3)(B)(ii) to the 
     Secretary of the Army if such appeal is made within the 30-
     day period following the date of such publication.
       (8) Determination of project cost.--For purposes of 
     determining the estimated total cost of a project under 
     paragraph (3)(A), the project cost shall be based upon the 
     reasonable estimates of the Chief of Engineers at the 
     completion of the reconnaissance study for the project. If 
     the reasonable estimate of project costs is subsequently 
     determined to be in excess of the amount in paragraph (3)(A), 
     the Chief of Engineers shall make a determination whether a 
     project study should be reviewed under this section.
       (b) Timing of Peer Review.--The Chief of Engineers shall 
     determine the timing of a peer review of a project study 
     under subsection (a). In all cases, the peer review shall 
     occur during the period beginning on the date of the 
     completion of the reconnaissance study for the project and 
     ending on the date the draft report of the Chief of Engineers 
     for the project is made available for public comment. Where 
     the Chief of Engineers has not initiated a peer review of a 
     project study, the Chief of Engineers shall consider, at a 
     minimum, whether to initiate a peer review at the time that--
       (1) the without-project conditions are identified;
       (2) the array of alternatives to be considered are 
     identified; and
       (3) the preferred alternative is identified.
     Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to require the 
     Chief of Engineers to conduct multiple peer reviews for a 
     project study.
       (c) Establishment of Panels.--
       (1) In general.--For each project study subject to peer 
     review under subsection (a), as soon as practicable after the 
     Chief of Engineers determines that a project study will be 
     subject to peer review, the Chief of Engineers shall contract 
     with the National Academy of Sciences (or a similar 
     independent scientific and technical advisory organization), 
     or an eligible organization, to establish a panel of experts 
     to peer review the project study for technical and scientific 
     sufficiency.
       (2) Membership.--A panel of experts established for a 
     project study under this section shall be composed of 
     independent experts who represent a balance of areas of 
     expertise suitable for the review being conducted.
       (3) Limitation on appointments.--An individual may not be 
     selected to serve on a panel of experts established for a 
     project study under

[[Page H5835]]

     this section if the individual has a financial or close 
     professional association with any organization or group with 
     a strong financial or organizational interest in the project.
       (4) Congressional notification.--Upon identification of a 
     project study for peer review under this section, but prior 
     to initiation of any review, the Chief of Engineers shall 
     notify the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
     of the House of Representatives of such review.
       (d) Duties of Panels.--A panel of experts established for a 
     peer review for a project study under this section shall, 
     consistent with the scope of the referral for review--
       (1) conduct a peer review for the project study submitted 
     to the panel for review;
       (2) assess the adequacy and acceptability of the economic 
     and environmental methods, models, and analyses used by the 
     Chief of Engineers;
       (3) provide timely written and oral comments to the Chief 
     of Engineers throughout the development of the project study, 
     as requested; and
       (4) submit to the Chief of Engineers a final report 
     containing the panel's economic, engineering, and 
     environmental analysis of the project study, including the 
     panel's assessment of the adequacy and acceptability of the 
     economic and environmental methods, models, and analyses used 
     by the Chief of Engineers, to accompany the publication of 
     the project study.
       (e) Duration of Project Study Peer Reviews.--
       (1) Deadline.--A panel of experts shall--
       (A) complete its peer review under this section for a 
     project study and submit a report to the Chief of Engineers 
     under subsection (d)(4) within 180 days after the date of 
     establishment of the panel, or, if the Chief of Engineers 
     determines that a longer period of time is necessary, such 
     period of time established by the Chief of Engineers, but in 
     no event later than 90 days after the date a draft project 
     study is made available for public review; and
       (B) terminate on the date of submission of the report.
       (2) Failure to meet deadline.--If a panel does not complete 
     its peer review of a project study under this section and 
     submit a report to the Chief of Engineers under subsection 
     (d)(4) on or before the deadline established by paragraph (1) 
     for the project study, the Chief of Engineers shall continue 
     the project study for the project that is subject to peer 
     review by the panel without delay.
       (f) Recommendations of Panel.--
       (1) Consideration by the chief of engineers.--After 
     receiving a report on a project study from a panel of experts 
     under this section and before entering a final record of 
     decision for the project, the Chief of Engineers shall 
     consider any recommendations contained in the report and 
     prepare a written response for any recommendations adopted or 
     not adopted.
       (2) Public availability and transmittal to congress.--After 
     receiving a report on a project study from a panel of experts 
     under this section, the Chief of Engineers shall--
       (A) make a copy of the report and any written response of 
     the Chief of Engineers on recommendations contained in the 
     report available to the public; and
       (B) transmit to Congress a copy of the report, together 
     with any such written response, on the date of a final report 
     of the Chief of Engineers or other final decision document 
     for a project study that is subject to peer review by the 
     panel.
       (g) Costs.--
       (1) In general.--The costs of a panel of experts 
     established for a peer review under this section--
       (A) shall be a Federal expense; and
       (B) shall not exceed $500,000.
       (2) Waiver.--The Chief of Engineers may waive the $500,000 
     limitation contained in paragraph (1)(B) in cases that the 
     Chief of Engineers determines appropriate.
       (h) Applicability.--This section shall apply to--
       (1) project studies initiated during the 2-year period 
     preceding the date of enactment of this Act and for which the 
     array of alternatives to be considered has not been 
     identified; and
       (2) project studies initiated during the period beginning 
     on such date of enactment and ending 4 years after such date 
     of enactment.
       (i) Report.--Within 4 1/2 years of the date of enactment of 
     this section, the Chief of Engineers shall submit a report to 
     Congress on the implementation of this section.
       (j) Nonapplicability of FACA.--The Federal Advisory 
     Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to any peer 
     review panel established under this section.
       (k) Savings Clause.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to affect any authority of the Chief of Engineers 
     to cause or conduct a peer review of a water resources 
     project existing on the date of enactment of this section.
       (l) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       (1) Project study.--The term ``project study'' means a 
     feasibility study or reevaluation study for a project. The 
     term also includes any other study associated with a 
     modification or update of a project that includes an 
     environmental impact statement, including the environmental 
     impact statement.
       (2) Affected state.--The term ``affected State'', as used 
     with respect to a project, means a State all or a portion of 
     which is within the drainage basin in which the project is or 
     would be located and would be economically or environmentally 
     affected as a consequence of the project.
       (3) Eligible organization.--The term ``eligible 
     organization'' means an organization that--
       (A) is described in section 501(c)(3), and exempt from 
     Federal tax under section 501(a), of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986;
       (B) is independent;
       (C) is free from conflicts of interest;
       (D) does not carry out or advocate for or against Federal 
     water resources projects; and
       (E) has experience in establishing and administering peer 
     review panels.

     SEC. 2031. TRAINING FUNDS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may include individuals not 
     employed by the Department of the Army in training classes 
     and courses offered by the Corps of Engineers in any case in 
     which the Secretary determines that it is in the best 
     interest of the Federal Government to include those 
     individuals as participants.
       (b) Expenses.--
       (1) In general.--An individual not employed by the 
     Department of the Army attending a training class or course 
     described in subsection (a) shall pay the full cost of the 
     training provided to the individual.
       (2) Payments.--Payments made by an individual for training 
     received under paragraph (1), up to the actual cost of the 
     training--
       (A) may be retained by the Secretary;
       (B) shall be credited to an appropriation or account used 
     for paying training costs; and
       (C) shall be available for use by the Secretary, without 
     further appropriation, for training purposes.
       (3) Excess amounts.--Any payments received under paragraph 
     (2) that are in excess of the actual cost of training 
     provided shall be credited as miscellaneous receipts to the 
     Treasury of the United States.

     SEC. 2032. ACCESS TO WATER RESOURCE DATA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall carry out a program to 
     provide public access to water resource and related water 
     quality data in the custody of the Corps of Engineers.
       (b) Data.--Public access under subsection (a) shall--
       (1) include, at a minimum, access to data generated in 
     water resources project development and regulation under 
     section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
     U.S.C. 1344); and
       (2) appropriately employ geographic information system 
     technology and linkages to water resource models and 
     analytical techniques.
       (c) Partnerships.--To the maximum extent practicable, in 
     carrying out activities under this section, the Secretary 
     shall develop partnerships, including cooperative agreements 
     with State, tribal, and local governments and other Federal 
     agencies.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000 for 
     each fiscal year.

     SEC. 2033. SHORE PROTECTION PROJECTS.

       (a) In General.--In accordance with the Act of July 3, 1930 
     (33 U.S.C. 426), and notwithstanding administrative actions, 
     it is the policy of the United States to promote beach 
     nourishment for the purposes of flood damage reduction and 
     hurricane and storm damage reduction and related research 
     that encourage the protection, restoration, and enhancement 
     of sandy beaches, including beach restoration and periodic 
     beach renourishment for a period of 50 years, on a 
     comprehensive and coordinated basis by the Federal 
     Government, States, localities, and private enterprises.
       (b) Preference.--In carrying out the policy, preference 
     shall be given to--
       (1) areas in which there has been a Federal investment of 
     funds for the purposes described in subsection (a); and
       (2) areas with respect to which the need for prevention or 
     mitigation of damage to shores and beaches is attributable to 
     Federal navigation projects or other Federal activities.
       (c) Applicability.--The Secretary shall apply the policy to 
     each shore protection and beach renourishment project 
     (including shore protection and beach renourishment projects 
     constructed before the date of enactment of this Act).

     SEC. 2034. ABILITY TO PAY.

       (a) Criteria and Procedures.--Section 103(m)(2) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 
     2213(m)(2)) is amended by striking ``180 days after such date 
     of enactment'' and inserting ``August 31, 2005''.
       (b) Projects.--The Secretary shall apply the criteria and 
     procedures referred to in section 103(m) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(m)) to the 
     following projects:
       (1) St. johns bayou and new madrid floodway, missouri.--The 
     project for flood control, St. Johns Bayou and New Madrid 
     Floodway, Missouri, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4118).
       (2) Lower rio grande basin, texas.--The project for flood 
     control, Lower Rio Grande Basin, Texas, authorized by section 
     401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 
     Stat. 4125).
       (3) West virginia and pennsylvania projects.--The projects 
     for flood control authorized by section 581 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3790-3791).

     SEC. 2035. AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.

       Section 206(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330) is amended by striking ``$25,000,000'' 
     and inserting ``$40,000,000''.

     SEC. 2036. SMALL FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECTS.

       Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 
     701s) is amended by striking ``$50,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$60,000,000''.

     SEC. 2037. LEASING AUTHORITY.

       Section 4 of the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing the 
     construction of certain public works on rivers and harbors 
     for flood control, and other purposes'', approved December 
     22, 1944 (16 U.S.C. 460d) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``federally-recognized Indian tribes and'' 
     before ``Federal'' the first place it appears;

[[Page H5836]]

       (2) by inserting ``Indian tribes or'' after 
     ``considerations, to such''; and
       (3) by inserting ``federally-recognized Indian tribe'' 
     after ``That in any such lease or license to a''.

     SEC. 2038. COST ESTIMATES.

        The estimated Federal and non-Federal costs of projects 
     authorized to be carried out by the Secretary before, on, or 
     after the date of enactment of this Act are for informational 
     purposes only and shall not be interpreted as affecting the 
     cost sharing responsibilities established by law.

     SEC. 2039. STUDIES AND REPORTS FOR WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS.

       (a) Studies.--
       (1) Cost-sharing requirements.--Section 105(a) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2215(a)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Detailed project reports.--The requirements of this 
     subsection that apply to a feasibility study also shall apply 
     to a study that results in a detailed project report, except 
     that--
       ``(A) the first $100,000 of the costs of a study that 
     results in a detailed project report shall be a Federal 
     expense; and
       ``(B) paragraph (1)(C)(ii) shall not apply to such a 
     study.''.
       (2) Planning and engineering.--Section 105(b) of such Act 
     (33 U.S.C. 2215(b)) is amended by striking ``authorized by 
     this Act''.
       (3) Definitions.--Section 105 of such Act (33 U.S.C. 2215) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       ``(1) Detailed project report.--The term `detailed project 
     report' means a report for a project not specifically 
     authorized by Congress in law or otherwise that determines 
     the feasibility of the project with a level of detail 
     appropriate to the scope and complexity of the recommended 
     solution and sufficient to proceed directly to the 
     preparation of contract plans and specifications. The term 
     includes any associated environmental impact statement and 
     mitigation plan. For a project for which the Federal cost 
     does not exceed $1,000,000, the term includes a planning and 
     design analysis document.
       ``(2) Feasibility study.--The term `feasibility study' 
     means a study that results in a feasibility report under 
     section 905, and any associated environmental impact 
     statement and mitigation plan, prepared by the Corps of 
     Engineers for a water resources project. The term includes a 
     study that results in a project implementation report 
     prepared under title VI of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2680-2694), a general reevaluation 
     report, and a limited reevaluation report.''.
       (b) Reports.--
       (1) Preparation.--Section 905(a) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2282(a); 100 Stat. 4185) 
     is amended--
       (A) by striking ``(a) In the case of any'' and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(a) Preparation of Reports.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of any'';
       (B) by striking ``the Secretary, the Secretary shall'' and 
     inserting ``the Secretary that results in recommendations 
     concerning a project or the operation of a project and that 
     requires specific authorization by Congress in law or 
     otherwise, the Secretary shall perform a reconnaissance study 
     and'';
       (C) by striking ``Such feasibility report'' and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(2) Contents of feasibility reports.--A feasibility 
     report'';
       (D) by striking ``The feasibility report'' and inserting 
     ``A feasibility report''; and
       (E) by striking the last sentence and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(3) Applicability.--This subsection shall not apply to--
       ``(A) any study with respect to which a report has been 
     submitted to Congress before the date of enactment of this 
     Act;
       ``(B) any study for a project, which project is authorized 
     for construction by this Act and is not subject to section 
     903(b);
       ``(C) any study for a project which does not require 
     specific authorization by Congress in law or otherwise; and
       ``(D) general studies not intended to lead to 
     recommendation of a specific water resources project.
       ``(4) Feasibility report defined.--In this subsection, the 
     term `feasibility report' means each feasibility report, and 
     any associated environmental impact statement and mitigation 
     plan, prepared by the Corps of Engineers for a water 
     resources project. The term includes a project implementation 
     report prepared under title VI of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2680-2694), a general 
     reevaluation report, and a limited reevaluation report.''.
       (2) Projects not specicially authorized by congress.--
     Section 905 of such Act is further amended--
       (A) in subsection (b) by inserting ``Reconnaissance 
     Studies.--'' before ``Before initiating'';
       (B) by redesignating subsections (c), (d), and (e) as 
     subsections (d), (e), and (f), respectively;
       (C) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
       ``(c) Projects not Specifically Authorized by Congress.--In 
     the case of any water resources project-related study 
     authorized to be undertaken by the Secretary without specific 
     authorization by Congress in law or otherwise, the Secretary 
     shall prepare a detailed project report.'';
       (D) in subsection (d) (as so redesignated) by inserting 
     ``Indian Tribes.--'' before ``For purposes of''; and
       (E) in subsection (e) (as so redesignated) by inserting 
     ``Standard and Uniform Procedures and Practices.--'' before 
     ``The Secretary shall'' .

     SEC. 2040. FISCAL TRANSPARENCY REPORT.

       (a) In General.--On the third Tuesday of January of each 
     year beginning January 2006, the Chief of Engineers shall 
     submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of 
     the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a report on 
     the expenditures for the preceding fiscal year and estimated 
     expenditures for the current fiscal year and, for projects 
     and activities that are not scheduled for completion in the 
     current fiscal year, the estimated expenditures necessary in 
     the following fiscal year for each project or activity to 
     maintain the same level of effort being achieved in the 
     current fiscal year.
       (b) Contents.--In addition to the information described in 
     subsection (a), the report shall contain a detailed 
     accounting of the following information:
       (1) With respect to general construction, information on--
       (A) projects currently under construction, including--
       (i) allocations to date;
       (ii) the number of years remaining to complete 
     construction;
       (iii) the estimated annual Federal cost to maintain that 
     construction schedule; and
       (iv) a list of projects the Corps of Engineers expects to 
     complete during the current fiscal year; and
       (B) projects for which there is a signed cost-sharing 
     agreement and completed planning, engineering, and design, 
     including--
       (i) the number of years the project is expected to require 
     for completion; and
       (ii) estimated annual Federal cost to maintain that 
     construction schedule.
       (2) With respect to operation and maintenance of the inland 
     and intracoastal waterways under section 206 of Public Law 
     95-502 (33 U.S.C. 1804)--
       (A) the estimated annual cost to maintain each waterway for 
     the authorized reach and at the authorized depth; and
       (B) the estimated annual cost of operation and maintenance 
     of locks and dams to ensure navigation without interruption.
       (3) With respect to general investigations and 
     reconnaissance and feasibility studies--
       (A) the number of active studies;
       (B) the number of completed studies not yet authorized for 
     construction;
       (C) the number of initiated studies; and
       (D) the number of studies expected to be completed during 
     the fiscal year.
       (4) Funding received and estimates of funds to be received 
     for interagency and international support activities under 
     section 318(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 
     (33 U.S.C. 2323(a)).
       (5) Recreation fees and lease payments.
       (6) Hydropower and water storage fees.
       (7) Deposits into the Inland Waterway Trust Fund and the 
     Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
       (8) Other revenues and fees collected.

                 TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS

     SEC. 3001. KING COVE HARBOR, ALASKA.

       The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended 
     for the project for navigation, King Cove Harbor, Alaska, 
     being carried out under section 107 of the River and Harbor 
     Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), shall be $8,000,000.

     SEC. 3002. ST. PAUL HARBOR, ST. PAUL ISLAND, ALASKA.

       (a) Small Boat Harbor.--No elements of the project for 
     navigation, St. Paul Harbor, St. Paul Island, Alaska, 
     authorized by section 101(b)(3) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3667) and modified by 
     section 303 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 
     (113 Stat. 298) and section 105 of the Energy and Water 
     Development Appropriations Act, 2003 (117 Stat. 139), shall 
     be treated by the Secretary as separable.
       (b) Limitation on Non-Federal Share.--The non-Federal share 
     for the project shall not exceed $14,400,000.

     SEC. 3003. SITKA, ALASKA.

       The Thompson Harbor, Sitka, Alaska, element of the project 
     for navigation Southeast Alaska Harbors of Refuge, Alaska, 
     authorized by section 101 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4801), is modified to direct the 
     Secretary to take such action as may be necessary to correct 
     design deficiencies in such element, at a Federal expense of 
     $6,300,000.

     SEC. 3004. TATITLEK, ALASKA.

       The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended 
     for the project for navigation, Tatitlek, Alaska, being 
     carried out under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 
     1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), shall be $10,000,000.

     SEC. 3005. GRAND PRAIRIE REGION AND BAYOU METO BASIN, 
                   ARKANSAS.

       The Secretary shall review the general reevaluation report 
     for the Bayou Meto basin element of the project for Grand 
     Prairie Region and Bayou Meto Basin, Arkansas, reauthorized 
     by section 363(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1996 (110 Stat. 3730), and make a determination of whether 
     the element is feasible, regardless of mission priorities.

     SEC. 3006. OSCEOLA HARBOR, ARKANSAS.

       (a) In General.--The project for navigation, Osceola 
     Harbor, Arkansas, constructed under section 107 of the River 
     and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), is modified to allow 
     non-Federal interests to construct a mooring facility within 
     the existing authorized harbor channel, subject to all 
     necessary permits, certifications, and other requirements.
       (b) Limitation on Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this 
     section shall be construed as affecting the responsibility of 
     the Secretary to maintain the general navigation features of 
     the project at a bottom width of 250 feet.

     SEC. 3007. PINE MOUNTAIN DAM, ARKANSAS.

       The Pine Mountain Dam feature of the project for flood 
     protection, Lee Creek, Arkansas

[[Page H5837]]

     and Oklahoma, authorized by section 204 of the Flood Control 
     Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1078), is modified--
       (1) to add environmental restoration as a project purpose; 
     and
       (2) to direct the Secretary to finance the non-Federal 
     share of the cost of the project over a 30-year period in 
     accordance with section 103(k) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(k)).

     SEC. 3008. SAINT FRANCIS BASIN, ARKANSAS.

       The project for flood control, Saint Francis Basin, 
     Missouri and Arkansas, authorized by section 204 of the Flood 
     Control Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 172), is modified to authorize 
     the Secretary to construct improvements along Ditch No. 1 
     that consist of a gated culvert through the Saint Francis 
     Levee and related channel improvements.

     SEC. 3009. AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED, CALIFORNIA.

       Section 128 of Public Law 108-137 (117 Stat. 1838) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Dam Safety Modifications at L.L. Anderson Dam.--In 
     determining improvements for dam safety that are necessary at 
     the L.L. Anderson Dam, the Secretary shall consider the 
     without-project condition to be the dam as it existed on 
     December 1, 2003.
       ``(d) Cost Allocation.--In allocating costs for the project 
     authorized in subsection (a), the Secretary shall use the 
     project cost allocations for flood damage reduction and dam 
     safety that are contained in the American River Watershed, 
     California, long-term study final supplemental plan 
     formulation report dated February 2002.''.

     SEC. 3010. COMPTON CREEK, CALIFORNIA.

       The project for flood control, Los Angeles Drainage Area, 
     California, authorized by section 101(b) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4611), is 
     modified to add environmental restoration and recreation as 
     project purposes.

     SEC. 3011. GRAYSON CREEK/MURDERER'S CREEK, CALIFORNIA.

       The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Grayson 
     Creek/Murderer's Creek, California, being carried out under 
     section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
     (33 U.S.C. 2330), is modified to direct the Secretary to 
     credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the 
     project the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal 
     interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the 
     project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral 
     to the project and to authorize the Secretary to consider 
     national ecosystem restoration benefits in determining the 
     Federal interest in the project.

     SEC. 3012. HAMILTON AIRFIELD, CALIFORNIA.

        The project for environmental restoration, Hamilton 
     Airfield, California, authorized by section 101(b)(3) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 279), is 
     modified to direct the Secretary to construct the project 
     substantially in accordance with the report of the Chief of 
     Engineers dated July 19, 2004, at a total cost of 
     $205,226,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $153,840,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $51,386,000.

     SEC. 3013. JOHN F. BALDWIN SHIP CHANNEL AND STOCKTON SHIP 
                   CHANNEL, CALIFORNIA.

       The project for navigation, San Francisco to Stockton, 
     California, authorized by section 301 of the River and Harbor 
     Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1091) is modified--
       (1) to provide that the non-Federal share of the cost of 
     the John F. Baldwin Ship Channel and Stockton Ship Channel 
     element of the project may be provided in the form of in-kind 
     services and materials; and
       (2) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of such element the cost of 
     planning and design work carried out by the non-Federal 
     interest before the date of an agreement for such planning 
     and design if the Secretary determines that such work is 
     integral to such element.

     SEC. 3014. KAWEAH RIVER, CALIFORNIA.

       The project for flood control, Terminus Dam, Kaweah River, 
     California, authorized by section 101(b)(5) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3658), is 
     modified to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project, or provide 
     reimbursement not to exceed $800,000, for the costs of any 
     work carried out by the non-Federal interest before, on, or 
     after the date of the project partnership agreement if the 
     Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 
     project.

     SEC. 3015. LARKSPUR FERRY CHANNEL, LARKSPUR, CALIFORNIA.

       The project for navigation, Larkspur Ferry Channel, 
     Larkspur, California, authorized by section 601(d) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4148), is 
     modified to direct the Secretary to determine whether 
     maintenance of the project is feasible, and if the Secretary 
     determines that maintenance of the project is feasible, to 
     carry out such maintenance.

     SEC. 3016. LLAGAS CREEK, CALIFORNIA.

       The project for flood damage reduction, Llagas Creek, 
     California, authorized by section 501(a) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 333), is 
     modified to authorize the Secretary to carry out the project 
     at a total cost of $105,000,000.

     SEC. 3017. LOS ANGELES HARBOR, CALIFORNIA.

       The project for navigation, Los Angeles Harbor, California, 
     authorized by section 101(b)(5) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2577), is modified to 
     authorize the Secretary to carry out the project at a total 
     cost of $222,000,000.

     SEC. 3018. MAGPIE CREEK, CALIFORNIA.

       (a) In General.--The project for Magpie Creek, California, 
     authorized under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 
     (33 U.S.C. 701s), is modified to direct the Secretary to 
     apply the cost-sharing requirements of section 103(b) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4085) for 
     the portion of the project consisting of land acquisition to 
     preserve and enhance existing floodwater storage.
       (b) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of planning 
     and design work carried out by the non-Federal interest 
     before the date of the partnership agreement for the project 
     if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 
     project.

     SEC. 3019. PACIFIC FLYWAY CENTER, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA.

       The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Pacific 
     Flyway Center, Sacramento, California, being carried out 
     under section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330), is modified to authorize the Secretary 
     to expend $2,000,000 to enhance public access to the project.

     SEC. 3020. PINOLE CREEK, CALIFORNIA.

       The project for improvement of the quality of the 
     environment, Pinole Creek Phase I, California, being carried 
     out under section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a), is modified to direct the 
     Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost 
     of the project the cost of work carried out by the non-
     Federal interest before the date of the partnership agreement 
     for the project if the Secretary determines that the work is 
     integral to the project.

     SEC. 3021. PRADO DAM, CALIFORNIA.

       Upon completion of the modifications to the Prado Dam 
     element of the project for flood control, Santa Ana River 
     Mainstem, California, authorized by section 401(a) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4113), the 
     Memorandum of Agreement for the Operation for Prado Dam for 
     Seasonal Additional Water Conservation between the Department 
     of the Army and the Orange County Water District (including 
     all the conditions and stipulations in the memorandum) shall 
     remain in effect for volumes of water made available prior to 
     such modifications.

     SEC. 3022. SACRAMENTO AND AMERICAN RIVERS FLOOD CONTROL, 
                   CALIFORNIA.

       (a) Determination of Federal Costs Paid by Non-Federal 
     Interest.--
       (1) Federal costs paid by non-federal interest.--The 
     Secretary shall determine the amount paid by the Sacramento 
     Area Flood Control Agency towards the Federal share of the 
     cost of the project for the Natomas levee features authorized 
     by section 9159(b) of the Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Act, 1993 (106 Stat. 1944) of the project for 
     flood control and recreation, Sacramento and American Rivers, 
     California.
       (2) Reimbursements to non-federal interest.--The Secretary 
     shall determine the amount of reimbursements paid to the 
     Sacramento Flood Control Agency for payment of the Federal 
     share of the cost of the project referred to in paragraph 
     (1).
       (3) Determination of federal share.--In carrying out 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary shall include in the total cost 
     of the project all costs of the following activities that the 
     Secretary determines to be integral to the project:
       (A) Planning, engineering, and construction.
       (B) Acquisition of project lands, easements, and rights-of-
     way.
       (C) Performance of relocations.
       (D) Environmental mitigation for all project elements.
       (b) Credit.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of any flood damage reduction 
     project, authorized before the date of enactment of this Act, 
     for which the non-Federal interest is the Sacramento Area 
     Flood Control Agency an amount equal to the total amount 
     determined under subsection (a)(1) reduced by the amount 
     determined under subsection (a)(2).
       (2) Allocation of credit.--The Secretary shall allocate the 
     amount to be credited under paragraph (1) toward the non-
     Federal share of such projects as are requested by the 
     Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency.

     SEC. 3023. SACRAMENTO DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CALIFORNIA.

       The project for navigation, Sacramento Deep Water Ship 
     Channel, California, authorized by section 202(a) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4092), is 
     modified to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of planning 
     and design work carried out by the non-Federal interest 
     before the date of the partnership agreement for the project 
     if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 
     project.

     SEC. 3024. SACRAMENTO RIVER, GLENN-COLUSA, CALIFORNIA.

       The project for flood control, Sacramento River, 
     California, authorized by section 2 of the Act entitled ``An 
     Act to provide for the control of the floods of the 
     Mississippi River and of the Sacramento River, California, 
     and for other purposes'', approved March 1, 1917 (39 Stat. 
     949), and modified by section 102 of the Energy and Water 
     Development Appropriations Act, 1990 (103 Stat. 649), section 
     301(b)(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 
     Stat. 3110), title I of the Energy and Water Development 
     Appropriations Act, 1999 (112 Stat. 1841), and section 305 of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 299), 
     is further modified to direct the Secretary to credit the 
     non-Federal interest up to $4,000,000 toward the non-Federal 
     share of the cost of the project for costs incurred by the 
     non-Federal interest in carrying out activities (including 
     the provision of lands, easements, rights-of-way, 
     relocations,

[[Page H5838]]

     and dredged material disposal areas) associated with 
     environmental compliance for the project if the Secretary 
     determines that the activities are integral to the project.

     SEC. 3025. SANTA CRUZ HARBOR, CALIFORNIA.

       The project of navigation, Santa Cruz Harbor, California, 
     authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1958 
     (72 Stat. 300) and modified by section 809 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4168) and 
     section 526 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 
     (113 Stat. 346), is modified to direct the Secretary--
       (1) to renegotiate the memorandum of agreement with the 
     non-Federal interest to increase the annual payment to 
     reflect the updated cost of operation and maintenance that is 
     the Federal and non-Federal share as provided by law based on 
     the project purpose; and
       (2) to revise the memorandum of agreement to include terms 
     that revise such payments for inflation.

     SEC. 3026. SEVEN OAKS DAM, CALIFORNIA.

       The project for flood control, Santa Ana Mainstem, 
     authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4113) and modified by 
     section 104 of the Energy and Water Development 
     Appropriations Act, 1988 (101 Stat. 1329-11), section 102(e) 
     of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 
     4611), and section 311 of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1996 (110 Stat. 3713), is further modified to direct the 
     Secretary to conduct a study for the reallocation of water 
     storage at the Seven Oaks Dam, California, for water 
     conservation.

     SEC. 3027. UPPER GUADALUPE RIVER, CALIFORNIA.

       The project for flood damage reduction and recreation, 
     Upper Guadalupe River, California, described as the Bypass 
     Channel Plan of the Chief of Engineers dated August 19, 1998, 
     authorized by section 101(a)(9) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 275), is modified to 
     authorize the Secretary to construct the project, at a total 
     cost of $212,100,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $106,050,000, and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
     $106,050,000. The non-Federal share of the cost of the 
     project shall be subject to section 103(a)(3) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(a)(3)).

     SEC. 3028. WALNUT CREEK CHANNEL, CALIFORNIA.

       The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Walnut Creek 
     Channel, California, being carried out under section 206 of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330), 
     is modified to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of work 
     carried out by the non-Federal interest before the date of 
     the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary 
     determines that the work is integral to the project and to 
     authorize the Secretary to consider national ecosystem 
     restoration benefits in determining the Federal interest in 
     the project.

     SEC. 3029. WILDCAT/SAN PABLO CREEK PHASE I, CALIFORNIA.

       The project for improvement of the quality of the 
     environment, Wildcat/San Pablo Creek Phase I, California, 
     being carried out under section 1135 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a), is modified to 
     direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal share 
     of the cost of the project the cost of work carried out by 
     the non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership 
     agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that 
     the work is integral to the project.

     SEC. 3030. WILDCAT/SAN PABLO CREEK PHASE II, CALIFORNIA.

       The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Wildcat/San 
     Pablo Creek Phase II, California, being carried out under 
     section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
     (33 U.S.C. 2330), is modified to direct the Secretary to 
     credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the 
     project the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal 
     interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the 
     project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral 
     to the project and to authorize the Secretary to consider 
     national ecosystem restoration benefits in determining the 
     Federal interest in the project.

     SEC. 3031. YUBA RIVER BASIN PROJECT, CALIFORNIA.

       The project for flood damage reduction, Yuba River Basin, 
     California, authorized by section 101(a)(10) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 275), is 
     modified--
       (1) to authorize the Secretary to construct the project at 
     a total cost of $107,700,000, with an estimated Federal cost 
     of $70,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
     $37,700,000; and
       (2) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of work 
     carried out by the non-Federal interest before the date of 
     the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary 
     determines that the work is integral to the project.

     SEC. 3032. INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY, DELAWARE RIVER TO 
                   CHESAPEAKE BAY, DELAWARE AND MARYLAND.

       The project for navigation, Intracoastal Waterway, Delaware 
     River to Chesapeake Bay, Delaware and Maryland, authorized by 
     the first section of the Rivers and Harbors Act of August 30, 
     1935 (49 Stat. 1030), and section 101 of the River and Harbor 
     Act of 1954 (68 Stat. 1249), is modified to add recreation as 
     a project purpose.

     SEC. 3033. BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA.

       (a) Shoreline.--The project for shoreline protection, 
     Brevard County, Florida, authorized by section 101(b)(7) of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3667), 
     is modified--
       (1) to direct the Secretary to establish the reach of the 
     project as the reach between the Florida department of 
     environmental protection monuments 75.4 to 118.3, a distance 
     of 7.6 miles; and
       (2) to direct the Secretary to expedite the general 
     reevaluation report required by section 418 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2637).
       (b) Credit.--Section 310 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 301) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(d) Credit.--After completion of the study, the Secretary 
     shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the 
     project the cost of nourishment and renourishment associated 
     with the shore protection project incurred by the non-Federal 
     interest to respond to damages to Brevard County beaches that 
     are the result of a Federal navigation project, as determined 
     in the final report for the study.''.

     SEC. 3034. BROWARD COUNTY AND HILLSBORO INLET, FLORIDA.

       The project for shore protection, Broward County and 
     Hillsboro Inlet, Florida, authorized by section 301 of the 
     River and Harbor Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1090), and modified by 
     section 311 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 
     (113 Stat. 301), is further modified to direct the Secretary 
     to credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the 
     project the cost of mitigation construction and derelict 
     erosion control structure removal carried out by the non-
     Federal interest before the date of the partnership agreement 
     for the project if the Secretary determines that the work is 
     integral to the project.

     SEC. 3035. CANAVERAL HARBOR, FLORIDA.

       In carrying out the project for navigation, Canaveral 
     Harbor, Florida, authorized by section 101 of the River and 
     Harbor Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1174), the Secretary shall 
     construct a sediment trap.

     SEC. 3036. GASPARILLA AND ESTERO ISLANDS, FLORIDA.

       The project for shore protection, Gasparilla and Estero 
     Island segments, Lee County, Florida, authorized under 
     section 201 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1073) 
     by Senate Resolution dated December 17, 1970, and by House 
     Resolution dated December 15, 1970, and modified by section 
     309 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 
     2602), is further modified to direct the Secretary to credit 
     toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the 
     cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest before 
     the date of the partnership agreement for the project if the 
     Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 
     project.

     SEC. 3037. JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, FLORIDA.

       (a) In General.--The project for navigation, Jacksonville 
     Harbor, Florida, authorized by section 101(a)(17) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 276), is 
     modified to authorize the Secretary to extend the navigation 
     features in accordance with the Report of the Chief of 
     Engineers, dated July 22, 2003, at a total cost of 
     $14,658,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $9,636,000 and 
     an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,022,000.
       (b) General Reevaluation Reports.--The non-Federal share of 
     the cost of the general reevaluation report that resulted in 
     the report of the Chief of Engineers for the project and the 
     non-Federal share of the cost of the general reevaluation 
     report for Jacksonville Harbor, Florida, being conducted on 
     June 1, 2005, shall each be the same percentage as the non-
     Federal share of the cost of construction of the project.
       (c) Agreement.--The Secretary shall enter into new 
     partnership agreements with the non-Federal interest to 
     reflect the cost sharing required by subsection (b).

     SEC. 3038. LIDO KEY BEACH, SARASOTA, FLORIDA.

       (a) In General.--The project for shore protection, Lido Key 
     Beach, Sarasota, Florida, authorized by section 101 of the 
     River and Harbor Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1819), deauthorized 
     under section 1001(b) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(b)), and reauthorized by section 
     364(2)(A) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 
     Stat. 313), is modified to direct the Secretary to construct 
     the project substantially in accordance with the report of 
     the Chief of Engineers dated December 22, 2004, at a total 
     cost of $14,809,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $9,088,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,721,000, 
     and at an estimated total cost of $58,635,000 for periodic 
     nourishment over the 50-year life of the project.
       (b) Construction of Shoreline Protection Projects by Non-
     Federal Interests.--The Secretary shall enter into a 
     partnership agreement with the non-Federal sponsor in 
     accordance with section 206 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 426i-1) for the modified 
     project.

     SEC. 3039. MIAMI HARBOR, FLORIDA.

       The project for navigation, Miami Harbor Channel, Florida, 
     authorized by section 101(a)(9) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4606) and modified by 
     section 315 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 
     (113 Stat. 302), is further modified--
       (1) to include as a project purpose environmental 
     mitigation required before July 18, 2003, by a Federal, 
     State, or local environmental agency for unauthorized or 
     unanticipated environmental impacts within, or in the 
     vicinity of, the authorized project; and
       (2) to direct the Secretary to reimburse the non-Federal 
     interest for costs it has incurred in construction of the 
     project in accordance with section 204 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2232).

     SEC. 3040. PEANUT ISLAND, FLORIDA.

       The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended 
     for the project for improvement of the quality of the 
     environment, Peanut Island, Palm Beach County, Florida, being 
     carried out under section 1135 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a) shall be 
     $9,750,000.

[[Page H5839]]

     SEC. 3041. TAMPA HARBOR-BIG BEND CHANNEL, FLORIDA.

       The project for navigation, Tampa Harbor-Big Bend Channel, 
     Florida, authorized by section 101(a)(18) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 276) is modified 
     to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-Federal 
     share of the cost of the project the cost of planning, 
     design, and construction work carried out by the non-Federal 
     interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the 
     project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral 
     to the project.

     SEC. 3042. TAMPA HARBOR CUT B, FLORIDA.

       (a) In General.--The project for navigation, Tampa Harbor, 
     Florida, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor 
     Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1818), is modified to authorize the 
     Secretary to construct passing lanes in an area approximately 
     3.5 miles long and centered on Tampa Harbor Cut B if the 
     Secretary determines that such improvements are necessary for 
     navigation safety.
       (b) General Reevaulation Report.--The non-Federal share of 
     the cost of the general reevaluation report for Tampa Harbor, 
     Florida, being conducted on June 1, 2005, shall be the same 
     percentage as the non-Federal share of the cost of 
     construction of the project.
       (c) Agreement.--The Secretary shall enter into a new 
     partnership agreement with the non-Federal interest to 
     reflect the cost sharing required by subsection (b).

     SEC. 3043. ALLATOONA LAKE, GEORGIA.

       (a) Land Exchange.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may exchange lands above 863 
     feet in elevation at Allatoona Lake, Georgia, identified in 
     the Real Estate Design Memorandum prepared by the Mobile 
     district engineer, April 5, 1996, and approved October 8, 
     1996, for lands on the north side of Allatoona Lake that are 
     needed for wildlife management and for protection of the 
     water quality and overall environment of Allatoona Lake.
       (2) Terms and conditions.--The basis for all land exchanges 
     under this subsection shall be a fair market appraisal so 
     that lands exchanged are of equal value.
       (b) Disposal and Acquisition of Lands, Allatoona Lake, 
     Georgia.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may also sell lands above 
     863 feet in elevation at Allatoona Lake, Georgia, identified 
     in the memorandum referred to in subsection (a)(1) and may 
     use the proceeds to pay costs associated with the purchase of 
     lands needed for wildlife management and for protection of 
     the water quality and overall environment of Allatoona Lake.
       (2) Terms and conditions.--Land sales and purchases to be 
     conducted under this subsection shall be subject to the 
     following terms and conditions:
       (A) Lands acquired under this subsection shall be by 
     negotiated purchase from willing sellers only.
       (B) The basis for all transactions under the program shall 
     be a fair market appraisal acceptable to the Secretary.
       (C) The purchasers shall share in the associated 
     environmental and real estate costs, to include surveys and 
     associated fees in accordance with the memorandum referred to 
     in subsection (a)(1).
       (D) Any other conditions that the Secretary may impose.
       (c) Repeal.--Section 325 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4849) is repealed.

     SEC. 3044. LATHAM RIVER, GLYNN COUNTY, GEORGIA.

       The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended 
     for the project for improvement of the quality of the 
     environment, Latham River, Glynn County, Georgia, being 
     carried out under section 1135 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a) shall be 
     $6,175,000.

     SEC. 3045. DWORSHAK DAM AND RESERVOIR IMPROVEMENTS, IDAHO.

       The Secretary may carry out improvements to recreational 
     facilities at the Dworshak Dam and Reservoir, North Fork, 
     Clearwater River, Idaho, authorized by section 203 of the 
     Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1193), to accommodate 
     lower pool levels.

     SEC. 3046. BEARDSTOWN COMMUNITY BOAT HARBOR, BEARDSTOWN, 
                   ILLINOIS.

       (a) Partnership Agreement.--The project for navigation, 
     Muscooten Bay, Illinois River, Beardstown Community Boat 
     Harbor, Beardstown, Illinois, constructed under section 107 
     of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), is 
     modified to direct the Secretary to enter into a partnership 
     agreement with the city of Beardstown to replace the August 
     18, 1983, local cooperation agreement with the Beardstown 
     Community Park District. The partnership agreement shall 
     include the same rights and responsibilities as the 
     agreement, changing only the identity of the non-Federal 
     sponsor.
       (b) Maintenance.--Following execution of the partnership 
     agreement referred to in subsection (a), the Secretary may 
     carry out maintenance of the project referred to in 
     subsection (a) on an annual basis.

     SEC. 3047. CACHE RIVER LEVEE, ILLINOIS.

       The Cache River Levee portion of the project for flood 
     control, Cache River, Illinois, authorized by the Act of June 
     28, 1938 (52 Stat. 1215), is modified to add environmental 
     restoration as a project purpose.

     SEC. 3048. CHICAGO RIVER, ILLINOIS.

       The navigation channel for the North Branch Canal portion 
     of the Chicago River, authorized by the first section of the 
     Rivers and Harbors Appropriations Act of March 3, 1899 (30 
     Stat. 1129), extending from 100 feet downstream of the 
     Halsted Street Bridge to 100 feet upstream of the Division 
     Street Bridge is modified to be no wider than 66 feet.

     SEC. 3049. CHICAGO SANITARY AND SHIP CANAL, ILLINOIS.

       (a) Existing Barrier.--The Secretary shall upgrade and make 
     permanent, at Federal expense, the existing Chicago Sanitary 
     and Ship Canal Dispersal Barrier Chicago, Illinois, 
     constructed as a demonstration project under section 
     1202(i)(3) of the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention 
     and Control Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 4722(i)(3)).
       (b) Operation and Maintenance.--The barrier referred to in 
     subsection (a) and the barrier in the Chicago Sanitary and 
     Ship Canal being constructed under section 1135 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a) shall be 
     operated and maintained, at Federal expense, as a system in a 
     manner to optimize effectiveness. Operation and maintenance 
     includes investigating and eliminating potential pathways 
     that may allow aquatic species in the Des Plaines River and 
     Illinois and Michigan Canal to bypass the barriers in the 
     Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal.
       (c) Feasibility Study.--The Secretary, in consultation with 
     appropriate Federal, State, local, and nongovernmental 
     entities, shall conduct a feasibility study, at Federal 
     expense, of the range of options and technologies available 
     to prevent the spread of aquatic species between the Great 
     Lakes and Mississippi River Basins through the Chicago 
     Sanitary and Ship Canal and other pathways.

     SEC. 3050. EMIQUON, ILLINOIS.

       (a) Maximum Amount.--The maximum amount of Federal funds 
     that may be expended for the project for aquatic ecosystem 
     restoration, Emiquon, Illinois, being carried out under 
     section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
     (33 U.S.C. 2330), shall be $7,500,000.
       (b) Limitation.--Nothing in this section shall affect the 
     eligibility of the project for emergency repair assistance 
     under section 5(a) of the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing 
     the construction of certain public works on rivers and 
     harbors for flood control, and for other purposes'', approved 
     August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n).

     SEC. 3051. LASALLE, ILLINOIS.

       In carrying out section 312 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4639-4640), the Secretary 
     shall give priority to work in the vicinity of LaSalle, 
     Illinois, on the Illinois and Michigan Canal.

     SEC. 3052. SPUNKY BOTTOMS, ILLINOIS.

       (a) Project Purpose.--The project for flood control, Spunky 
     Bottoms, Illinois, authorized by section 5 of the Flood 
     Control Act of June 26, 1936 (35 Stat. 1584), is modified to 
     add environmental restoration as a project purpose.
       (b) Maximum Amount.--The maximum amount of Federal funds 
     that may be expended for the project for improvement of the 
     quality of the environment, Spunky Bottoms, Illinois, being 
     carried out under section 1135 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a), shall be 
     $7,500,000.
       (c) Limitation.--Nothing in this section shall affect the 
     eligibility of the project for emergency repair assistance 
     under section 5(a) of the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing 
     the construction of certain public works on rivers and 
     harbors for flood control, and for other purposes'', approved 
     August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n).

     SEC. 3053. FORT WAYNE AND VICINITY, INDIANA.

       The project for flood control Fort Wayne, St. Mary's and 
     Maumee Rivers, Indiana, authorized by section 101(a)(11) of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4604), 
     is modified--
       (1) to direct the Secretary to provide a 100-year level of 
     flood protection at the Berry-Thieme, Park-Thompson, 
     Woodhurst, and Tillman sites along the St. Mary's River, Fort 
     Wayne and vicinity, Indiana, at a total cost of $5,300,000; 
     and
       (2) to allow the non-Federal interest to participate in the 
     financing of the project in accordance with section 903(c) of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4184) 
     to the extent that the Secretary's evaluation indicates that 
     applying such section is necessary to implement the project.

     SEC. 3054. KOONTZ LAKE, INDIANA.

       The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Koontz Lake, 
     Indiana, being carried out under section 206 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330) and 
     modified by section 520 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2655), is further modified to direct 
     the Secretary to seek to reduce the cost of the project by 
     using innovative technologies and cost reduction measures 
     determined from a review of non-Federal lake dredging 
     projects in the vicinity of Koontz Lake.

     SEC. 3055. LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, INDIANA.

       The project for flood control, Little Calumet River, 
     Indiana, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4115), is modified to 
     authorize the Secretary to carry out the project in 
     accordance with the postauthorization change report dated 
     August 2000, at a total cost of $198,000,000, with an 
     estimated Federal cost of $148,500,000 and an estimated non-
     Federal cost of $49,500,000.

     SEC. 3056. WHITE RIVER, INDIANA.

       The project for flood control, Indianapolis on West Fork of 
     White River, Indiana, authorized by section 5 of the Act 
     entitled ``An Act authorizing the construction of certain 
     public works on rivers and harbors for flood control, and for 
     other purposes'', approved June 22, 1936 (49 Stat. 1586), and 
     modified by section 323 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3716) and section 322 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 303-304), is 
     further modified--
       (1) to authorize the Secretary to undertake the riverfront 
     alterations described in the Central Indianapolis Waterfront 
     Concept Plan, dated February 1994, for the Fall Creek Reach 
     feature at a total cost of $28,545,000; and

[[Page H5840]]

       (2) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of 
     planning, design, and construction work carried out by the 
     non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership 
     agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that 
     the work is integral to the project.

     SEC. 3057. DES MOINES RIVER AND GREENBELT, IOWA.

       The project for the Des Moines Recreational River and 
     Greenbelt, Iowa, authorized by Public Law 99-88 and modified 
     by section 604 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
     (100 Stat. 4153), is modified to include enhanced public 
     access and recreational enhancements, at a Federal cost of 
     $3,000,000.

     SEC. 3058. PRESTONSBURG, KENTUCKY.

       The Prestonsburg, Kentucky, element of the project for 
     flood control, Levisa and Tug Fork of the Big Sandy and 
     Cumberland Rivers, West Virginia, Virginia, and Kentucky, 
     authorized by section 202(a) of the Energy and Water 
     Development Appropriations Act, 1981 (94 Stat. 1339), is 
     modified to direct the Secretary to take measures to provide 
     a 100-year level of flood protection for the city of 
     Prestonsburg.

     SEC. 3059. AMITE RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, LOUISIANA, EAST BATON 
                   ROUGE PARISH WATERSHED.

       The project for flood damage reduction and recreation, 
     Amite River and Tributaries, Louisiana, East Baton Rouge 
     Parish Watershed, authorized by section 101(a)(21) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 277) and 
     modified by section 116 of division D of Public Law 108-7 
     (117 Stat. 140), is further modified--
       (1) to direct the Secretary to carry out the project with 
     the cost sharing for the project determined in accordance 
     with section 103(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(a)), as in effect on October 11, 1996;
       (2) to authorize the Secretary to construct the project at 
     a total cost of $178,000,000; and
       (3) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of work 
     carried out by the non-Federal interest before the date of 
     the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary 
     determines that the work is integral to the project.

     SEC. 3060. ATCHAFALAYA BASIN, LOUISIANA.

       (a) In General.--Section 315(a)(1) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2603-2604) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(1) is authorized to study, design, construct, operate, 
     and maintain, at Federal expense, a Type A Regional Visitor 
     Center in the vicinity of Morgan City, Louisiana, in 
     consultation with the State of Louisiana, to provide 
     information to the public on the Atchafalaya River system and 
     other associated waterways that have influenced surrounding 
     communities, and national and local water resources 
     development of the Army Corps of Engineers in South Central 
     Louisiana; and''.
       (b) Technical Correction.--Section 315(b) of such Act is 
     amended by striking ``(a)'' and inserting ``(a)(2)''.
       (c) Donations.--Section 315 of such Act is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Donations.--In carrying out subsection (a)(1), the 
     Mississippi River Commission is authorized to accept the 
     donation of cash, funds, lands, materials, and services from 
     non-Federal governmental entities and nonprofit 
     corporations.''.

     SEC. 3061. BAYOU PLAQUEMINE, LOUISIANA.

       The project for the improvement of the quality of the 
     environment, Bayou Plaquemine, Louisiana, being carried out 
     under section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309(a)), is modified to direct the Secretary 
     to credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the 
     project the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal 
     interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the 
     project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral 
     to the project.

     SEC. 3062. ATCHAFALAYA BASIN FLOODWAY SYSTEM, LOUISIANA.

       The public access feature of the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway 
     System project, Louisiana, authorized by section 601(a) of 
     the Water Resources Development Act 1986 (100 Stat. 4142), is 
     modified to authorize the Secretary to acquire from willing 
     sellers the fee interest, exclusive of oil, gas, and 
     minerals, of an additional 20,000 acres of land within the 
     Lower Atchafalaya Basin Floodway for the public access 
     feature of the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway System, to enhance 
     fish and wildlife resources, at a total cost of $4,000,000.

     SEC. 3063. J. BENNETT JOHNSTON WATERWAY, MISSISSIPPI RIVER TO 
                   SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA.

       The project for mitigation of fish and wildlife losses, J. 
     Bennett Johnston Waterway, Mississippi River to Shreveport, 
     Louisiana, authorized by section 601(a) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4142) and 
     modified by section 4(h) of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4016), section 102(p) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4613), section 
     301(b)(7) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 
     Stat. 3710), and section 316 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2572), is further 
     modified--
       (1) to authorize the purchase and reforesting lands that 
     have been cleared or converted to agricultural uses; and
       (2) to incorporate current wildlife and forestry management 
     practices for the purpose of improving species diversity on 
     mitigation lands that meet Federal and State of Louisiana 
     habitat goals and objectives.

     SEC. 3064. MISSISSIPPI DELTA REGION, LOUISIANA.

       The Mississippi Delta Region project, Louisiana, authorized 
     as part of the project for hurricane-flood protection on Lake 
     Pontchartrain, Louisiana, by section 204 of the Flood Control 
     Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1077) and modified by section 365 of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3739), 
     is further modified to direct the Secretary to credit toward 
     the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the costs of 
     relocating oyster beds in the Davis Pond project area if the 
     Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 
     Mississippi Delta Region project.

     SEC. 3065. NEW ORLEANS TO VENICE, LOUISIANA.

       The New Orleans to Venice, Louisiana, project for hurricane 
     protection, authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control 
     Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1184), is modified to authorize the 
     Secretary to carry out the work on the St. Jude to City 
     Price, Upper Reach A back levee. The Federal share of the 
     cost of such work shall be 70 percent.

     SEC. 3066. WEST BANK OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER (EAST OF HARVEY 
                   CANAL), LOUISIANA.

       Section 328 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 
     (113 Stat. 304-305) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``operation and maintenance'' and inserting 
     ``operation, maintenance, rehabilitation, repair, and 
     replacement''; and
       (B) by striking ``Algiers Channel'' and inserting ``Algiers 
     Canal Levees''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Cost Sharing.--The non-Federal share of the cost of 
     the project shall be 35 percent.''.

     SEC. 3067. CAMP ELLIS, SACO, MAINE.

       The maximum amount of Federal funds that may be expended 
     for the project being carried out under section 111 of the 
     River and Harbor Act of 1968 (33 U.S.C. 426i) for the 
     mitigation of shore damages attributable to the project for 
     navigation, Camp Ellis, Saco, Maine, shall be $25,000,000.

     SEC. 3068. UNION RIVER, MAINE.

       The project for navigation, Union River, Maine, authorized 
     by the first section of the Act entitled ``An Act making 
     appropriations for the construction, repair, and preservation 
     of certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for other 
     purposes'', approved June 3, 1896 (29 Stat. 215), is modified 
     by redesignating as an anchorage area that portion of the 
     project consisting of a 6-foot turning basin and lying 
     northerly of a line commencing at a point N315,975.13, 
     E1,004,424.86, thence running north 61 degrees 27 minutes 
     20.71 seconds west about 132.34 feet to a point N316,038.37, 
     E1,004,308.61.

     SEC. 3069. GWYNNS FALLS WATERSHED, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall carry out the project 
     for ecosystem restoration, Gwynns Falls, Maryland, in 
     accordance with the Baltimore Metropolitan Water Resources 
     Gwynns Falls Watershed Study-Draft Feasibility Report and 
     Integrated Environmental Assessment prepared by the Corps of 
     Engineers and the city of Baltimore, Maryland, dated April 
     2004.
       (b) Special Rule for Gwynns Falls, Maryland.--The report on 
     the project for environmental restoration at Gwynns Falls, 
     Maryland, shall be treated as being consistent and in 
     compliance with the consent decree entered into between the 
     United States and the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 
     Maryland, filed with the United States District Court for the 
     District of Maryland on April 26, 2002.
       (c) Repeal.--Section 123 of Public Law 108-137 (117 Stat. 
     1837) is repealed.

     SEC. 3070. BOSTON HARBOR, MASSACHUSETTS.

       The project for navigation, Boston Harbor, Massachusetts, 
     authorized by section 101(a)(13) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4607), is modified to 
     provide that no funds may be expended for the dredging of 
     Chelsea Creek until the city of Boston and the United States 
     Coast Guard complete the replacement of the Chelsea Street 
     Bridge, as identified in the limited reevaluation report for 
     the project dated June 1996.

     SEC. 3071. DETROIT RIVER SHORELINE, DETROIT, MICHIGAN.

       (a) In General.--The project for emergency streambank and 
     shoreline protection, Detroit River Shoreline, Detroit, 
     Michigan, being carried out under section 14 of the Flood 
     Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r), is modified to include 
     measures to enhance public access.
       (b) Maximum Federal Expenditure.--The maximum amount of 
     Federal funds that may be expended for the project shall be 
     $3,000,000.

     SEC. 3072. ST. JOSEPH HARBOR, MICHIGAN.

       The Secretary shall expedite development of the dredged 
     material management plan for the project for navigation St. 
     Joseph Harbor, Michigan, authorized by section 101 of the 
     River and Harbor Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 299).

     SEC. 3073. SAULT SAINTE MARIE, MICHIGAN.

       (a) In General.--The text of section 1149 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4254) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``The Secretary shall construct at Federal expense a second 
     lock, of the same dimensions as the existing Poe Lock, 
     adjacent to the existing lock at Sault Sainte Marie, 
     Michigan, generally in accordance with the report of the 
     Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, dated May 19, 
     1986, and the limited reevaluation report dated February 2004 
     at a total cost of $341,714,000.''.
       (b) Conforming Repeals.--The following provisoins are 
     repealed:
       (1) Section 107(a)(8) of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4620).
       (2) Section 330 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1996 (110 Stat. 3717-3718).
       (3) Section 330 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1999 (113 Stat. 305).

     SEC. 3074. ADA, MINNESOTA.

       (a) In General.--The project for flood damage reduction, 
     Wild Rice River, Ada, Minnesota, being carried out under 
     section 205 of the Flood

[[Page H5841]]

     Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), is modified to 
     authorize the Secretary to consider national ecosystem 
     restoration benefits in determining the Federal interest in 
     the project.
       (b) Evaluation of Benefits and Costs.--In evaluating the 
     economic benefits and costs for the project, the Secretary 
     shall not consider the emergency levee adjacent to Judicial 
     Ditch No. 51 in the determination of conditions existing 
     prior to construction of the project.
       (c) Special Rule.--In evaluating and implementing the 
     project, the Secretary shall allow the non-Federal interest 
     to participate in the financing of the project in accordance 
     with section 903(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1986 (100 Stat. 4184) to the extent that the Secretary's 
     evaluation indicates that applying such section is necessary 
     to implement the project.

     SEC. 3075. DULUTH HARBOR, MCQUADE ROAD, MINNESOTA.

       (a) In General.--The project for navigation, Duluth Harbor, 
     McQuade Road, Minnesota, being carried out under section 107 
     of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577) and 
     modified by section 321 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2605), is further modified to 
     authorize the Secretary to provide public access and 
     recreational facilities as generally described in the 
     Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment, McQuade 
     Road Harbor of Refuge, Duluth, Minnesota, dated August 1999.
       (b) Credit.--The Secretary shall provide credit toward the 
     non-Federal share of the cost of the project for the costs of 
     design work carried out before the date of the partnership 
     agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that 
     the work is integral to the project.
       (c) Maximum Federal Expenditure.--The maximum amount of 
     Federal funds that may be expended for the project shall be 
     $5,000,000.

     SEC. 3076. GRAND PORTAGE HARBOR, MINNESOTA.

       The Secretary shall provide credit toward the non-Federal 
     share of the cost of the navigation project for Grand Portage 
     Harbor, Minnesota, carried out under section 107 of the River 
     and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577) and modified by 
     section 312 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 
     (114 Stat. 2605), for the costs of design work carried out 
     before the date of the partnership agreement for the project 
     if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 
     project.

     SEC. 3077. GRANITE FALLS, MINNESOTA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary is directed to implement 
     under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 
     701s) the locally preferred plan for flood damage reduction, 
     Granite Falls, Minnesota, substantially in accordance with 
     the detailed project report dated 2002, at a total cost of 
     $12,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $8,000,000 and 
     an estimated non-Federal cost of $4,000,000.
       (b) Project Financing.--In evaluating and implementing the 
     project under this section, the Secretary shall allow the 
     non-Federal interests to participate in the financing of the 
     project in accordance with section 903(c) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4184), to the 
     extent that the detailed project report evaluation indicates 
     that applying such section is necessary to implement the 
     project.
       (c) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the project the cost of design and 
     construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest 
     before date of execution of a partnership agreement for the 
     project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral 
     to the project.
       (d) Maximum Funding.--The maximum amount of Federal funds 
     that may be expended for the flood damage reduction shall be 
     $8,000,000.

     SEC. 3078. KNIFE RIVER HARBOR, MINNESOTA.

       The project for navigation, Harbor at Knife River, 
     Minnesota, authorized by section 2 of the Rivers and Harbors 
     Act of March 2, 1945 (59 Stat. 19), is modified to direct the 
     Secretary to develop a final design and prepare plans and 
     specifications to correct the harbor entrance and mooring 
     conditions at the project.

     SEC. 3079. RED LAKE RIVER, MINNESOTA.

       The project for flood control, Red Lake River, Crookston, 
     Minnesota, authorized by section 101(a)(23) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 278), is 
     modified to include flood protection for the adjacent and 
     interconnected areas generally known as the Sampson and 
     Chase/Loring neighborhoods, in accordance with the 
     Feasibility Report Supplement, Local Flood Protection, 
     Crookston, Minnesota, at a total cost of $17,000,000, with an 
     estimated Federal cost of $11,000,000 and an estimated non-
     Federal cost of $6,000,000.

     SEC. 3080. SILVER BAY, MINNESOTA.

       The project for navigation, Silver Bay, Minnesota, 
     authorized by section 2 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 
     March 2, 1945 (59 Stat. 19), is modified to include operation 
     and maintenance of the general navigation facilities as a 
     Federal responsibility.

     SEC. 3081. TACONITE HARBOR, MINNESOTA.

       The project for navigation, Taconite Harbor, Minnesota, 
     carried out under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 
     1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), is modified to include operation and 
     maintenance of the general navigation facilities as a Federal 
     responsibility.

     SEC. 3082. TWO HARBORS, MINNESOTA.

       (a) In General.--The project for navigation, Two Harbors, 
     Minnesota, being carried out under section 107 of the River 
     and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), is modified to 
     include construction of a dredged material disposal facility, 
     including actions required to clear the site.
       (b) Lands, Easements, and Rights-of-Way.--Non-Federal 
     interests shall be responsible for providing all lands, 
     easements, rights-of-way, and relocations necessary for the 
     construction of the dredged material disposal facility.
       (c) Maximum Federal Expenditure.--The maximum amount of 
     Federal funds that may be expended for the project shall be 
     $5,000,000.

     SEC. 3083. DEER ISLAND, HARRISON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI.

       The project for ecosystem restoration, Deer Island, 
     Harrison County, Mississippi, being carried out under section 
     204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 
     2326), is modified to authorize the non-Federal interest to 
     provide any portion of the non-Federal share of the cost of 
     the project in the form of in-kind services and materials.

     SEC. 3084. PEARL RIVER BASIN, MISSISSIPPI.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall complete a feasibility 
     study for the project for flood damage reduction, Pearl River 
     Watershed, Mississippi.
       (b) Comparison of Alternatives.--The feasibility study 
     shall identify both the plan that maximizes national economic 
     development benefits and the locally preferred plan and shall 
     compare the level of flood damage reduction provided by each 
     plan to that portion of Jackson, Mississippi, located below 
     the Ross Barnett Reservoir Dam.
       (c) Recommended Plan.--If the Secretary determines that the 
     locally preferred plan provides a level of flood damage 
     reduction that is equal to or greater than the level of flood 
     damage reduction provided by the national economic 
     development plan, and the locally preferred plan is 
     technically feasible and environmentally protective, the 
     Secretary shall recommend construction of the locally 
     preferred plan.
       (d) Evaluation of Project Cost.--For the purposes of 
     determining compliance with the first section of the Flood 
     Control Act of June 22, 1936 (33 U.S.C. 701a), the Secretary 
     shall consider only the costs of the national economic 
     development plan, and shall exclude incremental costs 
     associated with the locally preferred plan that are in excess 
     of such costs, if the non-Federal interest agrees to pay 100 
     percent of such incremental costs.
       (e) Non-Federal Cost Share.--If the locally preferred plan 
     is authorized for construction, the non-Federal share of the 
     cost of the project shall be the same percentage as the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the national economic 
     development plan plus all additional costs of construction 
     associated with the locally preferred plan.

     SEC. 3085. FESTUS AND CRYSTAL CITY, MISSOURI.

       Section 102(b)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1999 (113 Stat. 282) is amended by striking ``$10,000,000'' 
     and inserting ``$12,000,000''.

     SEC. 3086. MONARCH-CHESTERFIELD, MISSOURI.

       The project for flood damage reduction, Monarch-
     Chesterfield, Missouri, authorized by section 101(b)(18) of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2578), 
     is modified to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of the 
     planning, design, and construction work carried out by the 
     non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership 
     agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that 
     the work is integral to the project.

     SEC. 3087. RIVER DES PERES, MISSOURI.

       The projects for flood control, River Des Peres, Missouri, 
     authorized by section 101(a)(17) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4607) and section 102(13) 
     of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 
     3668), are each modified to direct the Secretary to credit 
     toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the 
     cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest before 
     the date of the partnership agreement for the project if the 
     Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 
     project.

     SEC. 3088. ANTELOPE CREEK, LINCOLN, NEBRASKA.

       The project for flood damage reduction, Antelope Creek, 
     Lincoln, Nebraska, authorized by section 101(b)(19) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2578), is 
     modified--
       (1) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of design, 
     and construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest 
     before the date of the partnership agreement for the project 
     if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 
     project; and
       (2) to allow the non-Federal sponsor for the project to 
     use, and to direct the Secretary to accept, funds provided 
     under any other Federal program, to satisfy, in whole or in 
     part, the non-Federal share of the project if such funds are 
     authorized to be used to carry out the project.

     SEC. 3089. SAND CREEK WATERSHED, WAHOO, NEBRASKA.

       The project for ecosystem restoration and flood damage 
     reduction, Sand Creek watershed, Wahoo, Nebraska, authorized 
     by section 101(b)(20) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 2000 (114 Stat. 2578), is modified--
       (1) to direct the Secretary to provide credit toward the 
     non-Federal share of the cost of the project or reimbursement 
     for the costs of any work that has been or will be performed 
     by the non-Federal interest before, on, or after the approval 
     of the project partnership agreement, including work 
     performed by the non-Federal interest in connection with the 
     design and construction of 7 upstream detention storage 
     structures, if the Secretary determines that the work is 
     integral to the project;
       (2) to require that in-kind work to be credited under 
     paragraph (1) be subject to audit; and
       (3) to direct the Secretary to accept advance funds from 
     the non-Federal interest as needed to maintain the project 
     schedule.

[[Page H5842]]

     SEC. 3090. LOWER CAPE MAY MEADOWS, CAPE MAY POINT, NEW 
                   JERSEY.

       The project for navigation mitigation, ecosystem 
     restoration, shore protection, and hurricane and storm damage 
     reduction, Lower Cape May Meadows, Cape May Point, New 
     Jersey, authorized by section 101(a)(25) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 278), is 
     modified to incorporate the project for shoreline erosion 
     control, Cape May Point, New Jersey, carried out under 
     section 5 of the Act entitled ``An Act authorizing Federal 
     participation in the cost of protecting the shores of 
     publicly owned property'', approved August 13, 1946 (33 
     U.S.C. 426h), if the Secretary determines that such 
     incorporation is feasible.

     SEC. 3091. PASSAIC RIVER BASIN FLOOD MANAGEMENT, NEW JERSEY.

       The project for flood control, Passaic River, New Jersey 
     and New York, authorized by section 101(a)(18) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4607) and 
     modified by section 327 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2607), is further modified to direct 
     the Secretary to include the benefits and costs of preserving 
     natural flood storage in any future economic analysis of the 
     project.

     SEC. 3092. BUFFALO HARBOR, NEW YORK.

       The project for navigation, Buffalo Harbor, New York, 
     authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1962 
     (76 Stat. 1176), is modified to include measures to enhance 
     public access, at Federal cost of $500,000.

     SEC. 3093. ORCHARD BEACH, BRONX, NEW YORK.

       The project for shoreline protection, Orchard Beach, Bronx, 
     New York, authorized by section 554 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3781), is modified to 
     authorize the Secretary to construct the project, at a total 
     cost of $20,000,000.

     SEC. 3094. PORT OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK AND NEW 
                   JERSEY.

       The navigation project, Port of New York and New Jersey, 
     New York and New Jersey, authorized by section 101(a)(2) of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2576), 
     is modified--
       (1) to authorize the Secretary to allow the non-Federal 
     interest to construct a temporary dredged material storage 
     facility to receive dredged material from the project if--
       (A) the non-Federal interest submits, in writing, a list of 
     potential sites for the temporary storage facility to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives, the Committee on Environment and Public 
     Works of the Senate, and the Secretary at least 180 days 
     before the selection of the final site; and
       (B) at least 70 percent of the dredged material generated 
     in connection with the project suitable for beneficial reuse 
     will be used at sites in the State of New Jersey to the 
     extent that there are sufficient sites available; and
       (2) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of 
     construction of the temporary storage facility if the 
     Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 
     project.

     SEC. 3095. NEW YORK STATE CANAL SYSTEM.

       Section 553(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1996 (110 Stat. 3781) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) New York State Canal System Defined.--In this 
     section, the term `New York State Canal System' means the 524 
     miles of navigable canal that comprise the New York State 
     Canal System, including the Erie, Cayuga-Seneca, Oswego, and 
     Champlain Canals and the historic alignments of these canals, 
     including the cities of Albany and Buffalo.''.

     SEC. 3096. LOWER GIRARD LAKE DAM, OHIO.

       Section 507(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1996 (110 Stat. 3758) is amended by striking ``$2,500,000'' 
     and inserting ``$6,000,000''.

     SEC. 3097. MAHONING RIVER, OHIO.

       In carrying out the project for environmental dredging, 
     authorized by section 312(f)(4) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 1272(f)(4)), the Secretary 
     is directed to credit toward the non-Federal share of the 
     cost of the project the cost of work carried out by the non-
     Federal interest before the date of the partnership agreement 
     for the project if the Secretary determines that the work is 
     integral to the project.

     SEC. 3098. ARCADIA LAKE, OKLAHOMA.

       Payments made by the city of Edmond, Oklahoma, to the 
     Secretary in October 1999 of costs associated with present 
     and future water storage at Arcadia Lake, Oklahoma, under 
     Arcadia Lake Water Storage Contract Number DACW56-79-C-0072 
     shall satisfy the obligations of the city under that contract 
     for such costs, including accrued interest.

     SEC. 3099. WAURIKA LAKE, OKLAHOMA.

       The remaining obligation of the Waurika Project Master 
     Conservancy District payable to the United States Government 
     in the amounts, rates of interest, and payment schedules is 
     set at the amounts, rates of interest, and payment schedules 
     that existed, and that both parties agreed to, on June 3, 
     1986, and may not be adjusted, altered, or changed without a 
     specific, separate, and written agreement between the 
     District and the United States Government.

     SEC. 3100. WILLAMETTE RIVER TEMPERATURE CONTROL, MCKENZIE 
                   SUBBASIN, OREGON.

       (a) In General.--The project for environmental restoration, 
     Willamette River temperature control, McKenzie Subbasin, 
     Oregon, authorized by section 101(a)(25) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3665) and 
     modified by section 344 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 308), is further modified to direct 
     the Secretary to pay, subject to the availability of 
     appropriations, compensation for losses to small business 
     attributable to the implementation of the drawdown conducted 
     as a part of project implementation in 2002.
       (b) Establishment of Program.--Not later than 120 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall 
     establish, and provide public notice of, a program--
       (1) to receive claims for compensation for losses to small 
     business attributable to the implementation of the drawdown 
     conducted as a part of project implementation in 2002;
       (2) to evaluate claims for such losses; and
       (3) to pay claims for such losses.
       (c) Implementation of Program.--In carrying out the program 
     established under subsection (b), the Secretary shall 
     provide--
       (1) public notice of the existence of the program 
     sufficient to reach those in the area that may have suffered 
     losses to small businesses;
       (2) a period for the submission of claims of not fewer than 
     45 days and not greater than 75 days from the date of the 
     first public notice of the existence of the program;
       (3) for the evaluation of each claim submitted to the 
     Secretary under the program and a determination of whether 
     the claim constitutes a loss to a small business on or before 
     the last day of the 30-day period beginning on the date of 
     submission of the claim; and
       (4) for the payment of each claim that the Secretary 
     determines constitutes a loss to a small business on or 
     before the last day of the 30-day period beginning on the 
     date of the Secretary's determination.
       (d) Loss to a Small Business Defined.--In this section, the 
     term ``loss to a small business'' means documented financial 
     losses associated with commercial activity of a small 
     business that can be attributed to the turbidity levels in 
     the McKenzie River being higher than those anticipated in the 
     original planning documents and public announcements existing 
     before the initiation of the drawdown in 2002. Commercial 
     losses include decline in sales, loss of revenue (including 
     loss of revenue from canceled or delayed reservations at 
     lodging establishments), and any other financial losses that 
     can be shown to be associated with the elevated turbidity 
     levels in the McKenzie River in 2002.
       (e) Payment of Claims.--The payment of claims for losses to 
     small businesses shall be a Federal responsibility.

     SEC. 3101. DELAWARE RIVER, PENNSYLVANIA, NEW JERSEY, AND 
                   DELAWARE.

       The Secretary may remove debris from the project for 
     navigation, Delaware River, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and 
     Delaware, Philadelphia to the Sea.

     SEC. 3102. RAYSTOWN LAKE, PENNSYLVANIA.

       The Secretary may take such action as may be necessary, 
     including construction of a breakwater, to prevent shoreline 
     erosion between .07 and 2.7 miles south of Pennsylvania State 
     route 994 on the east shore of Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania.

     SEC. 3103. SHERADEN PARK STREAM AND CHARTIERS CREEK, 
                   ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.

       The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Sheraden 
     Park Stream and Chartiers Creek, Allegheny County, 
     Pennsylvania, being carried out under section 206 of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330), is 
     modified to direct the Secretary to credit up to $400,000 
     toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project for 
     planning and design work carried out by the non-Federal 
     interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the 
     project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral 
     to the project.

     SEC. 3104. SOLOMON'S CREEK, WILKES-BARRE, PENNSYLVANIA.

       The project for flood control, Wyoming Valley, 
     Pennsylvania, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4124), is 
     modified to include as a project element the project for 
     flood control for Solomon's Creek, Wilkes-Barre, 
     Pennsylvania.

     SEC. 3105. SOUTH CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA.

       Section 313 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 
     (106 Stat. 4845; 109 Stat. 407; 110 Stat. 3723; 113 Stat. 
     310; 117 Stat. 142) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (g)(1) by striking ``$180,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$200,000,000''; and
       (2) in subsection (h)(2) by striking ``Allegheny, 
     Armstrong, Beford, Blair, Cambria, Clearfield, Fayette, 
     Franklin, Fulton, Greene, Huntingdon, Indiana, Juniata, 
     Mifflin, Somerset, Snyder, Washington, and Westmoreland 
     Counties'' and inserting ``Allegheny, Armstrong, Bedford, 
     Blair, Cambria, Fayette, Franklin, Fulton, Greene, 
     Huntingdon, Indiana, Juniata, Somerset, Washington, and 
     Westmoreland Counties''.

     SEC. 3106. WYOMING VALLEY, PENNSYLVANIA.

       In carrying out the project for flood control, Wyoming 
     Valley, Pennsylvania, authorized by section 401(a) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4124), the 
     Secretary shall coordinate with non-Federal interests to 
     review opportunities for increased public access.

     SEC. 3107. CEDAR BAYOU, TEXAS.

       (a) In General.--The project for navigation, Cedar Bayou, 
     Texas, reauthorized by section 349(a)(2) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2632), is 
     modified to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of planning 
     and design work carried out by the non-Federal interest for 
     the project if the Secretary determines that such work is 
     integral to the project.
       (b) Cost Sharing.--Cost sharing for construction and 
     operation and maintenance of the project shall be determined 
     in accordance with section 101 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211).

     SEC. 3108. FREEPORT HARBOR, TEXAS.

       The project for navigation, Freeport Harbor, Texas, 
     authorized by section 101 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 
     1970 (84 Stat. 1818), is modified.--

[[Page H5843]]

       (1) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of the 
     planning, design, and construction work carried out by the 
     non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership 
     agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that 
     the work is integral to the project; and
       (2) to direct the Secretary to remove the sunken vessel 
     ``COMSTOCK'' at Federal expense.

     SEC. 3109. JOHNSON CREEK, ARLINGTON, TEXAS.

       The project for flood damage reduction, environmental 
     restoration, and recreation, authorized by section 101(b)(14) 
     of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 
     280), is modified to authorize the Secretary to carry out the 
     project at a total cost of $29,717,000, with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $20,670,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
     $9,047,000.

     SEC. 3110. LAKE KEMP, TEXAS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may not take any legal or 
     administrative action seeking to remove a Lake Kemp 
     improvement before the earlier of January 1, 2020, or the 
     date of any transfer of ownership of the improvement 
     occurring after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Limitation on Liability.--The United States, or any of 
     its officers, agents, or assignees, shall not be liable for 
     any injury, loss, or damage accruing to the owners of a Lake 
     Kemp improvement, their lessees, or occupants as a result of 
     any flooding or inundation of such improvements by the waters 
     of the Lake Kemp reservoir, or for such injury, loss, or 
     damage as may occur through the operation and maintenance of 
     the Lake Kemp dam and reservoir in any manner.
       (c) Lake Kemp Improvement Defined.--In this section, the 
     term ``Lake Kemp improvement'' means an improvement 
     (including dwellings) located within the flowage easement of 
     Lake Kemp, Texas, below elevation 1159 feet mean sea level.

     SEC. 3111. LOWER RIO GRANDE BASIN, TEXAS.

       The project for flood control, Lower Rio Grande Basin, 
     Texas, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4125), is modified--
       (1) to include as part of the project flood protection 
     works to reroute drainage to Raymondville Drain constructed 
     by the non-Federal interests in Hidalgo County in the 
     vicinity of Edinburg, Texas, if the Secretary determines that 
     such work meets feasibility requirements;
       (2) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of 
     planning, design, and construction work carried out by the 
     non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership 
     agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that 
     the work is integral to the project; and
       (3) to direct the Secretary, in calculating the non-Federal 
     share of the cost of the project, to make a determination 
     within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act under 
     section 103(m) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
     (33 U.S.C. 2213(m)) on the non-Federal interest's ability to 
     pay.

     SEC. 3112. NORTH PADRE ISLAND, CORPUS CHRISTI BAY, TEXAS.

       The project for ecosystem restoration and storm damage 
     reduction, North Padre Island, Corpus Christi Bay, Texas, 
     authorized by section 556 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 353), is modified to include 
     recreation as a project purpose.

     SEC. 3113. PAT MAYSE LAKE, TEXAS.

       The Secretary is directed to accept from the city of Paris, 
     Texas, $3,461,432 as payment in full of monies owed to the 
     United States for water supply storage space in Pat Mayse 
     Lake, Texas, under contract number DA-34-066-CIVENG-65-1272, 
     including accrued interest.

     SEC. 3114. PROCTOR LAKE, TEXAS.

       The Secretary is authorized to purchase fee simple title to 
     all properties located within the boundaries, and necessary 
     for the operation, of the Proctor Lake project, Texas, 
     authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1954 
     (68 Stat. 1259).

     SEC. 3115. SAN ANTONIO CHANNEL, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS.

       The project for flood control, San Antonio Channel, Texas, 
     authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1954 
     (68 Stat. 1259) as part of the comprehensive plan for flood 
     protection on the Guadalupe and San Antonio Rivers in Texas 
     and modified by section 103 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2921) and section 335 of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2611), 
     is further modified to authorize the Secretary to credit 
     toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the 
     cost of design and construction work carried out by the non-
     Federal interest for the project if the Secretary determines 
     that the work is integral to the project.

     SEC. 3116. JAMES RIVER, VIRGINIA.

        The project for navigation, James River, Virginia, 
     authorized by the first section of the River and Harbor 
     Appropriations Act of July 5, 1884 (23 Stat. 138), is further 
     modified to authorize the Secretary to enlarge the turning 
     basin adjacent to the Richmond Deepwater Terminal at a total 
     cost of $1,511,000 if the Secretary determines that the such 
     enlargement is necessary for navigation safety.

     SEC. 3117. LEE, RUSSELL, SCOTT, SMYTH, TAZEWELL, AND WISE 
                   COUNTIES, VIRGINIA.

       The project for flood control, Levisa and Tug Forks of the 
     Big Sandy River and Upper Cumberland River, authorized by 
     section 202 of the Energy and Water Development Appropriation 
     Act, 1981 (94 Stat. 1339) and modified by section 352 of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3724-3725) 
     and section 336 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     2000 (114 Stat. 2611), is further modified to direct the 
     Secretary to determine the ability of Lee, Russell, Scott, 
     Smyth, Tazewell, and Wise Counties, Virginia, to pay the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project based solely on the 
     criterion specified in section 103(m)(3)(A)(i) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 
     2213(m)(3)(A)(i)).

     SEC. 3118. TANGIER ISLAND SEAWALL, VIRGINIA.

       Section 577(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1996 (110 Stat. 3789) is amended by striking ``at a total 
     cost of $1,200,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $900,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $300,000.'' and 
     inserting ``at a total cost of $3,000,000, with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $2,250,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
     of $750,000.''.

     SEC. 3119. DUWAMISH/GREEN, WASHINGTON.

        The project for ecosystem restoration, Duwamish/Green, 
     Washington, authorized by section 101(b)(26) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2579), is 
     modified--
       (1) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of work 
     carried out by the non-Federal interest before, on, or after 
     the date of the partnership agreement for the project if the 
     Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 
     project; and
       (2) to authorize the non-Federal interest to provide any 
     portion of the non-Federal share of the cost of the project 
     in the form of in-kind services and materials.

     SEC. 3120. YAKIMA RIVER, PORT OF SUNNYSIDE, WASHINGTON.

       The project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, Yakima 
     River, Port of Sunnyside, Washington, being carried out under 
     section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
     (33 U.S.C. 2330), is modified to direct the Secretary to 
     credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the 
     project the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal 
     interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the 
     project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral 
     to the project.

     SEC. 3121. GREENBRIER RIVER BASIN, WEST VIRGINIA.

       Section 579(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1996 (110 Stat. 3790; 113 Stat. 312) is amended by striking 
     ``$47,000,000'' and inserting ``$99,000,000''.

     SEC. 3122. LESAGE/GREENBOTTOM SWAMP, WEST VIRGINIA.

       Section 30(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1988 (102 Stat. 4030; 114 Stat. 2678) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(d) Historic Structure.--The Secretary shall ensure the 
     preservation and restoration of the structure known as the 
     `Jenkins House', and the reconstruction of associated 
     buildings and landscape features of such structure located 
     within the Lesage/Greenbottom Swamp in accordance with the 
     Secretary of the Interior's standards for the treatment of 
     historic properties. Amounts made available for expenditure 
     for the project authorized by section 301(a) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4110) shall be 
     available for the purposes of this subsection.''.

     SEC. 3123. NORTHERN WEST VIRGINIA.

       Section 557 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 
     (113 Stat. 353) is amended in the first sentence by striking 
     ``favorable''.

     SEC. 3124. MANITOWOC HARBOR, WISCONSIN.

       The project for navigation, Manitowoc Harbor, Wisconsin, 
     authorized by the River and Harbor Act of August 30, 1852, is 
     modified to direct the Secretary to deepen the upstream reach 
     of the navigation channel from 12 feet to 18 feet, at a total 
     cost of $300,000.

     SEC. 3125. MISSISSIPPI RIVER HEADWATERS RESERVOIRS.

       Section 21 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1988 
     (102 Stat. 4027) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``1276.42'' and inserting ``1278.42'';
       (B) by striking ``1218.31'' and inserting ``1221.31''; and
       (C) by striking ``1234.82'' and inserting ``1235.30''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
       ``(b) Exception.--The Secretary may operate the headwaters 
     reservoirs below the minimum or above the maximum water 
     levels established in subsection (a) in accordance with water 
     control regulation manuals (or revisions thereto) developed 
     by the Secretary, after consultation with the Governor of 
     Minnesota and affected tribal governments, landowners, and 
     commercial and recreational users. The water control 
     regulation manuals (and any revisions thereto) shall be 
     effective when the Secretary transmits them to Congress. The 
     Secretary shall report to Congress at least 14 days before 
     operating any such headwaters reservoir below the minimum or 
     above the maximum water level limits specified in subsection 
     (a); except that notification is not required for operations 
     necessary to prevent the loss of life or to ensure the safety 
     of the dam or where the drawdown of lake levels is in 
     anticipation of flood control operations.''.

     SEC. 3126. CONTINUATION OF PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 1001(b)(2) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 
     579a(b)(2)), the following projects shall remain authorized 
     to be carried out by the Secretary:
       (1) The project for flood control, Agana River, Guam, 
     authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4127).
       (2) The project for navigation, Fall River Harbor, 
     Massachusetts, authorized by section 101 of the River and 
     Harbor Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 731); except that the authorized 
     depth of that portion of the project extending riverward of 
     the Charles M. Braga, Jr. Memorial Bridge, Fall River and 
     Somerset, Massachusetts, shall not exceed 35 feet.

[[Page H5844]]

       (b) Limitation.--A project described in subsection (a) 
     shall not be authorized for construction after the last day 
     of the 5-year period beginning on the date of enactment of 
     this Act, unless, during such period, funds have been 
     obligated for the construction (including planning and 
     design) of the project.

     SEC. 3127. PROJECT REAUTHORIZATIONS.

       Each of the following projects may be carried out by the 
     Secretary and no construction on any such project may be 
     initiated until the Secretary determines that the project is 
     feasible:
       (1) Menominee harbor and river, michigan and wisconsin.--
     The project for navigation, Menominee Harbor and River, 
     Michigan and Wisconsin, authorized by section 101 of the 
     River and Harbor Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 482) and deauthorized 
     on April 15, 2002, in accordance with section 1001(b)(2) of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 
     579a(b)(2)).
       (2) Manitowoc harbor, wisconsin.--That portion of the 
     project for navigation, Manitowoc Harbor, Wisconsin, 
     consisting of the channel in the south part of the outer 
     harbor, deauthorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor 
     Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1176).

     SEC. 3128. PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONS.

       (a) In General.--The following projects are not authorized 
     after the date of enactment of this Act:
       (1) Bridgeport harbor, connecticut.--The portion of the 
     project for navigation, Bridgeport Harbor, Connecticut, 
     authorized by the first section of the River and Harbor Act 
     of July 3, 1930 (46 Stat. 919), consisting of an 18-foot 
     channel in Yellow Mill River and described as follows: 
     Beginning at a point along the eastern limit of the existing 
     project, N123,649.75, E481,920.54, thence running 
     northwesterly about 52.64 feet to a point N123,683.03, 
     E481,879.75, thence running northeasterly about 1,442.21 feet 
     to a point N125,030.08, E482,394.96, thence running 
     northeasterly about 139.52 feet to a point along the eastern 
     limit of the existing channel, N125,133.87, E482,488.19, 
     thence running southwesterly about 1,588.98 feet to the point 
     of origin.
       (2) Mystic river, connecticut.--The portion of the project 
     for navigation, Mystic River, Connecticut, authorized by the 
     first section of the River and Harbor Approriations Act of 
     September 19, 1890 (26 Stat. 436) consisting of a 12-foot-
     deep channel, approximately 7,554 square feet in area, 
     starting at a point N193,086.51, E815,092.78, thence running 
     north 59 degrees 21 minutes 46.63 seconds west about 138.05 
     feet to a point N193,156.86, E814,974.00, thence running 
     north 51 degrees 04 minutes 39.00 seconds west about 166.57 
     feet to a point N193,261.51, E814,844.41, thence running 
     north 43 degrees 01 minutes 34.90 seconds west about 86.23 
     feet to a point N193,324.55, E814,785.57, thence running 
     north 06 degrees 42 minutes 03.86 seconds west about 156.57 
     feet to a point N193,480.05, E814,767.30, thence running 
     south 21 degrees 21 minutes 17.94 seconds east about 231.42 
     feet to a point N193,264.52, E814,851.57, thence running 
     south 53 degrees 34 minutes 23.28 seconds east about 299.78 
     feet to the point of origin.
       (3) Falmouth harbor, massachusetts.--The portion of the 
     project for navigation, Falmouth Harbor, Massachusetts, 
     authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act of 1948 
     (62 Stat. 1172), beginning at a point along the eastern side 
     of the inner harbor N200,415.05, E845,307.98, thence running 
     north 25 degrees 48 minutes 54.3 seconds east 160.24 feet to 
     a point N200,559.20, E845,377.76, thence running north 22 
     degrees 7 minutes 52.4 seconds east 596.82 feet to a point 
     N201,112.15, E845,602.60, thence running north 60 degrees 1 
     minute 0.3 seconds east 83.18 feet to a point N201,153.72, 
     E845,674.65, thence running south 24 degrees 56 minutes 43.4 
     seconds west 665.01 feet to a point N200,550.75, E845,394.18, 
     thence running south 32 degrees 25 minutes 29.0 seconds west 
     160.76 feet to the point of origin.
       (4) Island end river, massachusetts.--The portion of the 
     project for navigation, Island End River, Massachusetts, 
     carried out under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 
     1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), described as follows: Beginning at a 
     point along the eastern limit of the existing project, 
     N507,348.98, E721,180.01, thence running northeast about 35 
     feet to a point N507,384.17, E721,183.36, thence running 
     northeast about 324 feet to a point N507,590.51, E721,433.17, 
     thence running northeast about 345 feet to a point along the 
     northern limit of the existing project, N507,927.29, 
     E721,510.29, thence running southeast about 25 feet to a 
     point N507,921.71, E721,534.66, thence running southwest 
     about 354 feet to a point N507,576.65, E721,455.64, thence 
     running southwest about 357 feet to the point of origin.
       (5) City waterway, tacoma, washington.--The portion of the 
     project for navigation, City Waterway, Tacoma, Washington, 
     authorized by the first section of the River and Harbor 
     Appropriations Act of June 13, 1902 (32 Stat. 347), 
     consisting of the last 1,000 linear feet of the inner portion 
     of the waterway beginning at station 70+00 and ending at 
     station 80+00.
       (b) Anchorage Area, New London Harbor, Connecticut.--The 
     portion of the project for navigation, New London Harbor, 
     Connecticut, authorized by the River and Harbor 
     Appropriations Act of June 13, 1902 (32 Stat. 333), that 
     consists of a 23-foot waterfront channel and that is further 
     described as beginning at a point along the western limit of 
     the existing project, N188, 802.75, E779, 462.81, thence 
     running northeasterly about 1,373.88 feet to a point N189, 
     554.87, E780, 612.53, thence running southeasterly about 
     439.54 feet to a point N189, 319.88, E780, 983.98, thence 
     running southwesterly about 831.58 feet to a point N188, 
     864.63, E780, 288.08, thence running southeasterly about 
     567.39 feet to a point N188, 301.88, E780, 360.49, thence 
     running northwesterly about 1,027.96 feet to the point of 
     origin, shall be redesignated as an anchorage area.
       (c) Southport Harbor, Fairfield, Connecticut.--The project 
     for navigation, Southport Harbor, Fairfield, Connecticut, 
     authorized by section 2 of the River and Harbor Act of March 
     2, 1829, and by the first section of the River and Harbor Act 
     of August 30, 1935 (49 Stat. 1029), and section 364 of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3733-
     3734), is further modified to redesignate a portion of the 9-
     foot-deep channel to an anchorage area, approximately 900 
     feet in length and 90,000 square feet in area, and lying 
     generally north of a line with points at coordinates 
     N108,043.45, E452,252.04 and N107938.74, E452265.74.
       (d) Mystic River, Massachusetts.--The portion of the 
     project for navigation, Mystic River, Massachusetts, 
     authorized by the first section of the River and Harbor 
     Appropriations Act of July 13, 1892 (27 Stat. 96), between a 
     line starting at a point N515,683.77, E707,035.45 and ending 
     at a point N515,721.28, E707,069.85 and a line starting at a 
     point N514,595.15, E707,746.15 and ending at a point 
     N514,732.94, E707,658.38 shall be relocated and reduced from 
     100 foot to a 50-foot wide channel after the date of 
     enactment of this Act described as follows: Beginning at a 
     point N515,721.28, E707,069.85, thence running southeasterly 
     about 840.50 feet to a point N515,070.16, E707,601.27, thence 
     running southeasterly about 177.54 feet to a point 
     N514,904.84, E707,665.98, thence running southeasterly about 
     319.90 feet to a point with coordinates N514,595.15, 
     E707,746.15, thence running northwesterly about 163.37 feet 
     to a point N514,732.94, E707,658.38, thence running 
     northwesterly about 161.58 feet to a point N514.889.47, 
     E707,618.30, thence running northwesterly about 166.61 feet 
     to a point N515.044.62, E707,557.58, thence running 
     northwesterly about 825.31 feet to a point N515,683.77, 
     E707,035.45, thence running northeasterly about 50.90 feet 
     returning to a point N515,721.28, E707,069.85.
       (e) Green Bay Harbor, Green Bay, Wisconsin.--The portion of 
     the inner harbor of the Federal navigation channel, Green Bay 
     Harbor, Green Bay, Wisconsin, authorized by the first section 
     of the River and Harbor Act of June 23, 1866, beginning at 
     station 190+00 to station 378+00 is authorized to a width of 
     75 feet and a depth of 6 feet.
       (f) Additional Deauthorizations.--The following projects 
     are not authorized after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     except with respect to any portion of such a project which 
     portion has been completed before such date or is under 
     construction on such date:
       (1) The project for flood control, Cache Creek Basin, Clear 
     Lake Outlet Channel, California, authorized by section 401(a) 
     of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 
     4112).
       (2) The project for flood protection on Atascadero Creek 
     and its tributaries of Goleta, California, authorized by 
     section 201 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1826).
       (3) The project for flood control, central and southern 
     Florida, Shingle Creek basin, Florida, authorized by section 
     203 of the Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1182).
       (4) The project for flood control, Middle Wabash, 
     Greenfield Bayou, Indiana, authorized by section 10 of the 
     Flood Control Act of July 24, 1946 (60 Stat. 649).
       (5) The project for flood damage reduction, Lake George, 
     Hobart, Indiana, authorized by section 602(a)(2) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4148).
       (6) The project for flood control, Green Bay Levee and 
     Drainage District No. 2, Iowa, authorized by section 401(a) 
     of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 
     4115), deauthorized in fiscal year 1991, and reauthorized by 
     section 115(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 
     (106 Stat. 4821).
       (7) The project for flood control, Hazard, Kentucky, 
     authorized by section 3(a)(7) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1988 (100 Stat. 4014) and section 108 of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4621).
       (8) The recreation portion of the project for flood 
     control, Taylorsville Lake, Kentucky, authorized by section 
     203 of the Flood Control Act of 1966 (80 Stat. 1421).
       (9) The project for flood control, western Kentucky 
     tributaries, Kentucky, authorized by section 204 of the Flood 
     Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1076) and modified by section 
     210 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1829).
       (10) The project for flood damage reduction, Tensas-
     Cocodrie area, Louisiana, authorized by section 3 of the 
     Flood Control Act of August 18, 1941 (55 Stat. 643).
       (11) The project for flood control, Eastern Rapides and 
     South-Central Avoyelles Parishes, Louisiana, authorized by 
     section 201 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1825).
       (12) The bulkhead and jetty features at Lake Borgne and 
     Chef Menteur, Louisiana, of the project for navigation, 
     Mississippi River, Baton Rouge to the Gulf of Mexico, barge 
     channel through Devils Swamp, Louisiana, authorized by the 
     first section of the River and Harbor Act of July 24, 1946 
     (60 Stat. 635).
       (13) The project for navigation Red River Waterway, 
     Shreveport, Louisiana to Daingerfield, Texas, authorized by 
     the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 731).
       (14) The project for flood damage reduction Brockton, 
     Massachusetts, authorized by section 401(c) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4129).
       (15) The project for navigation, Grand Haven Harbor, 
     Michigan, authorized by section 202 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4093).
       (16) The project for hydropower, Libby Dam, Montana, (Units 
     6-8), authorized by section 549 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3779).
       (17) The project for flood damage reduction, Platte River 
     Flood and Related Streambank Erosion Control, Nebraska, 
     authorized by section 603(f)(6) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4150).

[[Page H5845]]

       (18) The project for navigation, Outer Harbor, Buffalo, New 
     York, authorized by section 110 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4817).
       (19) The project for flood control, Sugar Creek Basin, 
     North Carolina and South Carolina, authorized by section 
     401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 
     Stat. 4121).
       (20) The project for flood control, Miami River, Fairfield, 
     Ohio, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4122).
       (21) The project for shoreline protection, Maumee Bay, Lake 
     Erie, Ohio, authorized by section 501(a) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4135).
       (22) The project for flood control and water supply, Parker 
     Lake, Muddy Boggy Creek, Oklahoma, authorized by section 601 
     of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 
     4144).
       (23) The project for the Columbia River, Seafarers 
     Memorial, Hammond, Oregon, authorized by title I of the 
     Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 1991 (104 
     Stat. 2078).
       (24) The project for bulkhead repairs, Quonset Point-
     Davisville, Rhode Island, authorized by section 571 of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3788).
       (25) The project for flood damage reduction, Harris Fork 
     Creek, Tennessee and Kentucky, authorized by section 102 of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2921).
       (26) The Arroyo Colorado, Texas, feature of the project for 
     flood control Lower Rio Grande, Texas, authorized by section 
     401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 
     Stat. 4125).
       (27) The structural portion of the project for flood 
     control, Cypress Creek, Texas, authorized by section 3(a)(13) 
     of the Water Resources Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 
     4014).
       (28) The project for flood protection, East Fork Channel 
     Improvement, Increment 2, East Fork of the Trinity River, 
     Texas, authorized by section 202 of the Flood Control Act of 
     1962 (76 Stat. 1185).
       (29) The project for flood control, Falfurrias, Texas, 
     authorized by section 3(a)(14) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4014).
       (30) The project for streambank erosion, Kanawha River, 
     Charleston, West Virginia, authorized by section 603(f)(13) 
     of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 
     4153).
       (g) Conditions.--The first sentence of section 1001(b)(2) 
     of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 
     579a(b)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``two years'' and inserting ``year''; and
       (2) by striking ``7'' and inserting ``5''.

     SEC. 3129. LAND CONVEYANCES.

       (a) St. Francis Basin, Arkansas and Missouri.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall convey to the State of 
     Arkansas, without monetary consideration and subject to 
     paragraph (2), all right, title, and interest to real 
     property within the State acquired by the Federal Government 
     as mitigation land for the project for flood control, St. 
     Francis Basin, Arkansas and Missouri Project, authorized by 
     the Flood Control Act of May 15, 1928 (33 U.S.C. 702a et 
     seq.)
       (2) Terms and conditions.--
       (A) In general.--The conveyance by the United States under 
     this subsection shall be subject to--
       (i) the condition that the State of Arkansas agree to 
     operate, maintain, and manage the real property for fish and 
     wildlife, recreation, and environmental purposes at no cost 
     or expense to the United States; and
       (ii) such other terms and conditions as the Secretary 
     determines to be in the interest of the United States.
       (B) Reversion.--If the Secretary determines that the real 
     property conveyed under paragraph (1) ceases to be held in 
     public ownership or the State ceases to operate, maintain, 
     and manage the real property in accordance with this 
     subsection, all right, title, and interest in and to the 
     property shall revert to the United States, at the option of 
     the Secretary.
       (3) Mitigation.--Nothing in this subsection extinguishes 
     the responsibility of the Federal Government or the non-
     Federal interest for the project referred to in paragraph (1) 
     from the obligation to implement mitigation for such project 
     that existed on the day prior to the transfer authorized by 
     this subsection.
       (b) Milford, Kansas.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall convey by quitclaim 
     deed without consideration to the Geary County Fire 
     Department, Milford, Kansas, all right, title, and interest 
     of the United States in and to real property consisting of 
     approximately 7.4 acres located in Geary County, Kansas, for 
     construction, operation, and maintenance of a fire station.
       (2) Reversion.--If the Secretary determines that the real 
     property conveyed under paragraph (1) ceases to be held in 
     public ownership or to be used for any purpose other than a 
     fire station, all right, title, and interest in and to the 
     property shall revert to the United States, at the option of 
     the United States.
       (c) Pike County, Missouri.--
       (1) In general.--At such time as S.S.S., Inc., conveys all 
     right, title and interest in and to the real property 
     described in paragraph (2)(A) to the United States, the 
     Secretary shall convey all right, title, and interest of the 
     United States in and to the real property described in 
     paragraph (2)(B) to S.S.S., Inc.
       (2) Land description.--The parcels of land referred to in 
     paragraph (1) are the following:
       (A) Non-federal land.--Approximately 42 acres, the exact 
     legal description to be determined by mutual agreement of 
     S.S.S., Inc., and the Secretary, subject to any existing 
     flowage easements situated in Pike County, Missouri, upstream 
     and northwest, about a 200-foot distance from Drake Island 
     (also known as Grimes Island).
       (B) Federal land.--Approximately 42 acres, the exact legal 
     description to be determined by mutual agreement of S.S.S. 
     Inc., and the Secretary, situated in Pike County, Missouri, 
     known as Government Tract Numbers MIs-7 and a portion of FM-
     46 (both tracts on Buffalo Island), administered by the Corps 
     of Engineers.
       (3) Conditions.--The exchange of real property under 
     paragraph (1) shall be subject to the following conditions:
       (A) Deeds.--
       (i) Non-federal land.--The conveyance of the real property 
     described in paragraph (2)(A) to the Secretary shall be by a 
     warranty deed acceptable to the Secretary.
       (ii) Federal land.--The instrument of conveyance used to 
     convey the real property described in paragraph (2)(B) to 
     S.S.S., Inc., shall be by quitclaim deed and contain such 
     reservations, terms, and conditions as the Secretary 
     considers necessary to allow the United States to operate and 
     maintain the Mississippi River 9-Foot Navigation Project.
       (B) Removal of improvements.--S.S.S., Inc., may remove, and 
     the Secretary may require S.S.S., Inc., to remove, any 
     improvements on the land described in paragraph (2)(A).
       (C) Time limit for exchange.--The land exchange under 
     paragraph (1) shall be completed not later than 2 years after 
     the date of enactment of this Act.
       (4) Value of properties.--If the appraised fair market 
     value, as determined by the Secretary, of the real property 
     conveyed to S.S.S., Inc., by the Secretary under paragraph 
     (1) exceeds the appraised fair market value, as determined by 
     the Secretary, of the real property conveyed to the United 
     States by S.S.S., Inc., under paragraph (1), S.S.S., Inc., 
     shall make a payment to the United States equal to the excess 
     in cash or a cash equivalent that is satisfactory to the 
     Secretary.
       (d) Boardman, Oregon.--Section 501(g)(1) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3751) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``city of Boardman,'' and inserting ``the 
     Boardman Park and Recreation District, Boardman,''; and
       (2) by striking ``such city'' and inserting ``the city of 
     Boardman''.
       (e) Tioga Township, Pennsylvania.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall convey by quitclaim 
     deed to the Tioga Township, Pennsylvania, without 
     consideration, all right, title, and interest of the United 
     States in and to the parcel of real property located on the 
     northeast end of Tract No. 226, a portion of the Tioga-
     Hammond Lakes flood control project, Tioga County, 
     Pennsylvania, consisting of approximately 8 acres, together 
     with any improvements on that property, for public ownership 
     and use as the site of the administrative offices and road 
     maintenance complex for the Township.
       (2) Reservation of interests.--The Secretary shall reserve 
     such rights and interests in and to the property to be 
     conveyed as the Secretary considers necessary to preserve the 
     operational integrity and security of the Tioga-Hammond Lakes 
     flood control project.
       (3) Reversion.--If the Secretary determines that the 
     property conveyed under paragraph (1) ceases to be held in 
     public ownership, or to be used as a site for the Tioga 
     Township administrative offices and road maintenance complex 
     or for related public purposes, all right, title, and 
     interest in and to the property shall revert to the United 
     States, at the option of the United States.
       (f) Richard B. Russell Lake, South Carolina.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall convey to the State of 
     South Carolina, by quitclaim deed, at fair market value, all 
     right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the 
     real property described in paragraph (2) that is managed, as 
     of the date of enactment of this Act, by the South Carolina 
     department of commerce for public recreation purposes for the 
     Richard B. Russell Dam and Lake, South Carolina, project 
     authorized by section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1966 
     (80 Stat. 1420).
       (2) Land description.--Subject to paragraph (3), the real 
     property referred to in paragraph (1) is the parcel contained 
     in the portion of real property described in Army Lease 
     Number DACW21-1-92-0500.
       (3) Reservation of interests.--The United States shall 
     reserve--
       (A) ownership of all real property included in the lease 
     referred to in paragraph (2) that would have been acquired 
     for operational purposes in accordance with the 1971 
     implementation of the 1962 Army/Interior Joint Acquisition 
     Policy; and
       (B) such other rights and interests in and to the real 
     property to be conveyed as the Secretary considers necessary 
     for authorized project purposes, including easement rights-
     of-way to remaining Federal land.
       (4) No effect on shore management policy.--The Shoreline 
     Management Policy (ER-1130-2-406) of the Corps of Engineer 
     shall not be changed or altered for any proposed development 
     of land conveyed under this subsection.
       (5) Cost sharing.--In carrying out the conveyance under 
     this subsection, the Secretary and the State shall comply 
     with all obligations of any cost-sharing agreement between 
     the Secretary and the State with respect to the real property 
     described in paragraph (2) in effect as of the date of the 
     conveyance.
       (6) Land not conveyed.--The State shall continue to manage 
     the real property described in paragraph (3) not conveyed 
     under this subsection in accordance with the terms and 
     conditions of Army Lease Number DACW21-1-92-0500.
       (g) Generally Applicable Provisions.--
       (1) Survey to obtain legal description.--The exact acreage 
     and the legal description of any real property to be conveyed 
     under this section shall be determined by a survey that is 
     satisfactory to the Secretary.

[[Page H5846]]

       (2) Applicability of property screening provisions.--
     Section 2696 of title 10, United States Code, shall not apply 
     to any conveyance under this section.
       (3) Additional terms and conditions.--The Secretary may 
     require that any conveyance under this section be subject to 
     such additional terms and conditions as the Secretary 
     considers appropriate and necessary to protect the interests 
     of the United States.
       (4) Costs of conveyance.--An entity to which a conveyance 
     is made under this section shall be responsible for all 
     reasonable and necessary costs, including real estate 
     transaction and environmental documentation costs, associated 
     with the conveyance.
       (5) Liability.--An entity to which a conveyance is made 
     under this section shall hold the United States harmless from 
     any liability with respect to activities carried out, on or 
     after the date of the conveyance, on the real property 
     conveyed. The United States shall remain responsible for any 
     liability with respect to activities carried out, before such 
     date, on the real property conveyed.

     SEC. 3130. EXTINGUISHMENT OF REVERSIONARY INTERESTS AND USE 
                   RESTRICTIONS.

       (a) Idaho.--
       (1) In general.--With respect to the property covered by 
     each deed in paragraph (2)--
       (A) the reversionary interests and use restrictions 
     relating to port and industrial use purposes are 
     extinguished;
       (B) the restriction that no activity shall be permitted 
     that will compete with services and facilities offered by 
     public marinas is extinguished;
       (C) the human habitation or other building structure use 
     restriction is extinguished if the elevation of the property 
     is above the standard project flood elevation; and
       (D) the use of fill material to raise areas of the property 
     above the standard project flood elevation is authorized, 
     except in any area for which a permit under section 404 of 
     the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) is 
     required.
       (2) Affected deeds.--The deeds with the following county 
     auditor's file numbers are referred to in paragraph (1):
       (A) Auditor's Instruments No. 399218 and No. 399341 of Nez 
     Perce County, Idaho--2.07 acres.
       (B) Auditor's Instruments No. 487437 and No. 339341 of Nez 
     Perce County, Idaho--7.32 acres.
       (b) Old Hickory Lock and Dam, Cumberland River, 
     Tennessee.--
       (1) Release of retained rights, interests, reservations.--
     With respect to land conveyed by the Secretary to the 
     Tennessee Society of Crippled Children and Adults, 
     Incorporated (now known as ``Easter Seals Tennessee''), at 
     Old Hickory Lock and Dam, Cumberland River, Tennessee, under 
     section 211 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1087), 
     the reversionary interests and the use restrictions relating 
     to recreation and camping purposes are extinguished.
       (2) Instrument of release.--As soon as possible after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall execute 
     and file in the appropriate office a deed of release, amended 
     deed, or other appropriate instrument effectuating the 
     release of interests required by paragraph (1).
       (c) Port of Pasco, Washington.--
       (1) Extinguishment of use restrictions and flowage 
     easement.--With respect to the property covered by the deed 
     in paragraph (3)(A)--
       (A) the flowage easement and human habitation or other 
     building structure use restriction is extinguished if the 
     elevation of the property is above the standard project flood 
     elevation; and
       (B) the use of fill material to raise areas of the property 
     above the standard project flood elevation is authorized, 
     except in any area for which a permit under section 404 of 
     the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) is 
     required.
       (2) Extinguishment of flowage easement.--With respect to 
     the property covered by each deed in paragraph (3)(B), the 
     flowage easement is extinguished if the elevation of the 
     property is above the standard project flood elevation.
       (3) Affected deeds.--The deeds referred to in paragraphs 
     (1) and (2) are as follows:
       (A) Auditor's File Number 262980 of Franklin County, 
     Washington.
       (B) Auditor's File Numbers 263334 and 404398 of Franklin 
     County, Washington.
       (d) No Effect on Other Rights.--Nothing in this section 
     affects the remaining rights and interests of the Corps of 
     Engineers for authorized project purposes.

                           TITLE IV--STUDIES

     SEC. 4001. JOHN GLENN GREAT LAKES BASIN PROGRAM.

       Section 455 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 
     (42 U.S.C. 1962d-21) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(g) In-Kind Contributions for Study.--The non-Federal 
     interest may provide up to 100 percent of the non-Federal 
     share required under subsection (f) in the form of in-kind 
     services and materials.''.

     SEC. 4002. LAKE ERIE DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITES.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the nature 
     and frequency of avian botulism problems in the vicinity of 
     Lake Erie associated with dredged material disposal sites and 
     shall make recommendations to eliminate the conditions that 
     result in such problems.

     SEC. 4003. SOUTHWESTERN UNITED STATES DROUGHT STUDY.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary, in coordination with the 
     Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agri- culture, 
     the Secretary of Commerce, and other appropriate agencies, 
     shall conduct, at Federal expense, a comprehensive study 
     of drought conditions in the southwestern United States, 
     with a particular emphasis on the Colorado River basin, 
     the Rio Grande River basin, and the Great Basin.
       (b) Inventory of Actions.--In conducting the study, the 
     Secretary shall assemble an inventory of actions taken or 
     planned to be taken to address drought-related situations in 
     the southwestern United States.
       (c) Purpose.--The purpose of the study shall be to develop 
     recommendations to more effectively address current and 
     future drought conditions in the southwestern United States.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section 
     $7,000,000. Such funds shall remain available until expended.

     SEC. 4004. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

       Section 459(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1999 (113 Stat. 333; 114 Stat. 2635) is amended by striking 
     ``3 years after the first date on which funds are 
     appropriated to carry out this section'' and inserting 
     ``December 30, 2006''.

     SEC. 4005. KNIK ARM, COOK INLET, ALASKA.

        The Secretary shall conduct, at Federal expense, a study 
     to determine the potential impacts on navigation of 
     construction of a bridge across Knik Arm, Cook Inlet, Alaska.

     SEC. 4006. KUSKOKWIM RIVER, ALASKA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for navigation, 
     Kuskokwim River, Alaska, in the vicinity of the village of 
     Crooked Creek.

     SEC. 4007. ST. GEORGE HARBOR, ALASKA.

       The Secretary shall conduct, at Federal expense, a study to 
     determine the feasibility of providing navigation 
     improvements at St. George Harbor, Alaska.

     SEC. 4008. SUSITNA RIVER, ALASKA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for hydropower, 
     recreation, and related purposes on the Susitna River, 
     Alaska.

     SEC. 4009. GILA BEND, MARICOPA, ARIZONA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage 
     reduction, Gila Bend, Maricopa, Arizona. In conducting the 
     study, the Secretary shall review plans and designs developed 
     by non-Federal interests and shall incorporate such plans and 
     designs into the Federal study if the Secretary determines 
     that such plans and designs are consistent with Federal 
     standards.

     SEC. 4010. SEARCY COUNTY, ARKANSAS.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of using Greers Ferry Lake as a water supply 
     source for Searcy County, Arkansas.

     SEC. 4011. DRY CREEK VALLEY, CALIFORNIA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project to provide recycled 
     water for agricultural water supply, Dry Creek Valley, 
     California, including a review of the feasibility of 
     expanding the Geysers recharge project north of Healdsburg, 
     California.

     SEC. 4012. ELKHORN SLOUGH ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study of the Elkhorn Slough 
     estuary, California, to determine the feasibility of 
     conserving, enhancing, and restoring estuarine habitats by 
     developing strategies to address hydrological management 
     issues.

     SEC. 4013. FRESNO, KINGS, AND KERN COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply for 
     Fresno, Kings, and Kern Counties, California.

     SEC. 4014. LOS ANGELES RIVER, CALIFORNIA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to 
     determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood 
     damage reduction and ecosystem restoration, Los Angeles 
     River, California.
       (b) Revitalization Plan.--In conducting the study, the 
     Secretary shall review the Los Angeles River revitalization 
     plan developed by non-Federal interests and shall incorporate 
     such plan into the Federal study if the Secretary determines 
     that such plan is consistent with Federal standards.

     SEC. 4015. LYTLE CREEK, RIALTO, CALIFORNIA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage 
     reduction and groundwater recharge, Lytle Creek, Rialto, 
     California.

     SEC. 4016. MOKELUMNE RIVER, SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to 
     determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for water 
     supply along the Mokelumne River, San Joaquin County, 
     California.
       (b) Limitation on Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this 
     section shall be construed to invalidate, preempt, or create 
     any exception to State water law, State water rights, or 
     Federal or State permitted activities or agreements.

     SEC. 4017. NAPA RIVER, ST. HELENA, CALIFORNIA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a 
     comprehensive study of the Napa River in the vicinity of St. 
     Helena, California, for the purposes of improving flood 
     management through reconnecting the river to its floodplain; 
     restoring habitat, including riparian and aquatic habitat; 
     improving fish passage and water quality; and restoring 
     native plant communities.
       (b) Plans and Designs.--In conducting the study, the 
     Secretary shall review plans and designs developed by non-
     Federal interests and shall incorporate such plans and 
     designs into the Federal study if the Secretary determines 
     that such plans and designs are consistent with Federal 
     standards.

     SEC. 4018. ORICK, CALIFORNIA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage 
     reduction and ecosystem restoration, Orick, California. In 
     conducting the study,

[[Page H5847]]

     the Secretary shall determine the feasibility of restoring or 
     rehabilitating the Redwood Creek Levees, Humboldt County, 
     California.

     SEC. 4019. RIALTO, FONTANA, AND COLTON, CALIFORNIA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply for 
     Rialto, Fontana, and Colton, California.

     SEC. 4020. SACRAMENTO RIVER, CALIFORNIA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a comprehensive study to 
     determine the feasibility of, and alternatives for, measures 
     to protect water diversion facilities and fish protective 
     screen facilities in the vicinity of river mile 178 on the 
     Sacramento River, California.

     SEC. 4021. SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply, San 
     Diego County, California, including a review of the 
     feasibility of connecting 4 existing reservoirs to increase 
     usable storage capacity.

     SEC. 4022. SAN FRANCISCO BAY, SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA, 
                   CALIFORNIA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to 
     determine the feasibility of the beneficial use of dredged 
     material from the San Francisco Bay in the Sacramento-San 
     Joaquin Delta, California, including the benefits and impacts 
     of salinity in the Delta and the benefits to navigation, 
     flood damage reduction, ecosystem restoration, water quality, 
     salinity control, water supply reliability, and recreation.
       (b) Cooperation.--In conducting the study, the Secretary 
     shall cooperate with the California Department of Water 
     Resources and appropriate Federal and State entities in 
     developing options for the beneficial use of dredged material 
     from San Francisco Bay for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta 
     area.
       (c) Review.--The study shall include a review of the 
     feasibility of using Sherman Island as a rehandling site for 
     levee maintenance material, as well as for ecosystem 
     restoration. The review may include monitoring a pilot 
     project using up to 150,000 cubic yards of dredged material 
     and being carried out at the Sherman Island site, examining 
     larger scale use of dredged materials from the San Francisco 
     Bay and Suisun Bay Channel, and analyzing the feasibility of 
     the potential use of saline materials from the San Francisco 
     Bay for both rehandling and ecosystem restoration purposes.

     SEC. 4023. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BAY SHORELINE STUDY, 
                   CALIFORNIA.

       (a) In General.--In conducting the South San Francisco Bay 
     shoreline study, the Secretary shall--
       (1) review the planning, design, and land acquisition 
     documents prepared by the California State Coastal 
     Conservancy, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, and other 
     local interests in developing recommendations for measures to 
     provide flood protection of the South San Francisco Bay 
     shoreline, restoration of the South San Francisco Bay salt 
     ponds (including lands owned by the Department of the 
     Interior), and other related purposes; and
       (2) incorporate such planning, design, and land acquisition 
     documents into the Federal study if the Secretary determines 
     that such documents are consistent with Federal standards.
       (b) Report.--Not later than December 31, 2008, the 
     Secretary shall transmit a feasibility report for the South 
     San Francisco Bay shoreline study to the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public 
     Works of the Senate.
       (c) Credit.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of any project authorized by law as 
     a result of the South San Francisco Bay shoreline study the 
     cost of work carried out by the non-Federal interest before 
     the date of the partnership agreement for the project if the 
     Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 
     project.
       (2) Limitation.--In no case may work that was carried out 
     more than 5 years before the date of enactment of this Act be 
     eligible for credit under this subsection.

     SEC. 4024. TWENTYNINE PALMS, CALIFORNIA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage 
     reduction, Pinto Cove Wash, in the vicinity of Twentynine 
     Palms, California.

     SEC. 4025. YUCCA VALLEY, CALIFORNIA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage 
     reduction, West Burnt Mountain basin, in the vicinity of 
     Yucca Valley, California.

     SEC. 4026. BOULDER CREEK, BOULDER, COLORADO.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage 
     reduction in the Boulder Creek floodplain, Colorado.

     SEC. 4027. ROARING FORK RIVER, BASALT, COLORADO.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage 
     reduction and other purposes for the Roaring Fork River, 
     Basalt, Colorado.

     SEC. 4028. DELAWARE AND CHRISTINA RIVERS AND SHELLPOT CREEK, 
                   WILMINGTON, DELAWARE.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage 
     reduction and related purposes along the Delaware and 
     Christina Rivers and Shellpot Creek, Wilmington, Delaware.

     SEC. 4029. COLLIER COUNTY BEACHES, FLORIDA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for hurricane and storm 
     damage reduction and flood damage reduction in the vicinity 
     of Vanderbilt, Park Shore, and Naples beaches, Collier 
     County, Florida.

     SEC. 4030. VANDERBILT BEACH LAGOON, FLORIDA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for environmental 
     restoration, water supply, and improvement of water quality 
     at Vanderbilt Beach Lagoon, Florida.

     SEC. 4031. MERIWETHER COUNTY, GEORGIA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply, 
     Meriwether County, Georgia.

     SEC. 4032. TYBEE ISLAND, GEORGIA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of including the northern end of Tybee Island 
     extending from the north terminal groin to the mouth of 
     Lazaretto Creek as a part of the project for beach erosion 
     control, Tybee Island, Georgia, carried out under section 201 
     of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5).

     SEC. 4033. KAUKONAHUA-HELEMANO WATERSHED, OAHU, HAWAII.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage 
     reduction, Kaukonahua-Helemano watershed, Oahu, Hawaii.

     SEC. 4034. WEST MAUI, MAUI, HAWAII.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out projects for water resources 
     development, environmental restoration, and natural resources 
     protection, West Maui, Maui, Hawaii.

     SEC. 4035. BOISE RIVER, IDAHO.

       The study for flood control, Boise River, Idaho, authorized 
     by section 414 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 
     (113 Stat. 324), is modified--
       (1) to add ecosystem restoration and water supply as 
     project purposes to be studied; and
       (2) to require the Secretary to credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the study the cost, not to 
     exceed $500,000, of work carried out by the non-Federal 
     interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the 
     project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral 
     to the project.

     SEC. 4036. BALLARD'S ISLAND SIDE CHANNEL, ILLINOIS.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for ecosystem 
     restoration, Ballard's Island, Illinois.

     SEC. 4037. CHICAGO, ILLINOIS.

       Section 425(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     2000 (114 Stat. 2638) is amended by inserting ``Lake Michigan 
     and'' before ``the Chicago River''.

     SEC. 4038. SOUTH BRANCH, CHICAGO RIVER, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for ecosystem 
     restoration at the South Fork of the South Branch of the 
     Chicago River, Chicago, Illinois.

     SEC. 4039. UTICA, ILLINOIS.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage 
     reduction in the vicinity of Utica, Illinois.

     SEC. 4040. LAKE AND PORTER COUNTIES, INDIANA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for riverfront 
     development, including enhanced public access, recreation, 
     and environmental restoration along Lake Michigan, Hammond, 
     Whiting, East Chicago, Gary, and Portage, Indiana.

     SEC. 4041. SALEM, INDIANA.

       The Secreatry shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project to provide an 
     additional water supply source for Salem, Indiana.

     SEC. 4042. BUCKHORN LAKE, KENTUCKY.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to 
     determine the feasibility of modifying the project for flood 
     damage reduction, Buckhorn Lake, Kentucky, authorized by 
     section 2 of the Flood Control Act of June 28, 1938 (52 Stat. 
     1217), to add ecosystem restoration, recreation, and improved 
     access as project purposes, including permanently raising the 
     winter pool elevation of the project.
       (b) In-Kind Contributions.--The non-Federal interest may 
     provide the non-Federal share of the cost of the study in the 
     form of services, materials, supplies, or other in-kind 
     contributions.

     SEC. 4043. DEWEY LAKE, KENTUCKY.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of modifying the project for Dewey Lake, 
     Kentucky, to add water supply as a project purpose.

     SEC. 4044. LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study of the project for 
     flood control, Louisville, Kentucky, authorized by section 4 
     of the Flood Control Act of June 28, 1938 (52 Stat. 1217), to 
     investigate measures to address the rehabilitation of the 
     project.

     SEC. 4045. BASTROP-MOREHOUSE PARISH, LOUISIANA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply, 
     Bastrop-Morehouse Parish, Louisiana.

     SEC. 4046. OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS FABRICATION PORTS, LOUISIANA.

       (a) Benefits.--In conducting a feasibility study for each 
     of the following projects for navigation, the Secretary shall 
     include in the calculation of national economic development 
     benefits all economic benefits associated with contracts for 
     new energy exploration and contracts for the fabrication of 
     energy infrastructure that would result from carrying out the 
     project:
       (1) Atchafalaya River, Bayous Chene, Boeuf, and Black, 
     Louisiana, being conducted under

[[Page H5848]]

     section 430 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 
     (114 Stat. 2639).
       (2) Iberia Port, Louisiana, being conducted under section 
     431 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 
     2639).
       (b) Repeal.--Section 6009 of the Emergency Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and 
     Tsunami Relief, 2005 (Public Law 109-13; 119 Stat. 282) is 
     repealed.

     SEC. 4047. VERMILION RIVER, LOUISIANA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for navigation on the 
     Vermilion River, Louisiana, from the intersection of the 
     Vermilion River and the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway to the 
     industrial area north of the Vermilion River.

     SEC. 4048. WEST FELICIANA PARISH, LOUISIANA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for riverfront 
     development, including enhanced public access, recreation, 
     and environmental restoration, on the Mississippi River in 
     West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana.

     SEC. 4049. PATAPSCO RIVER, MARYLAND.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine and assess 
     the impact of debris in the Patapsco River basin, Maryland, 
     on wetlands, water quality, and public health and to identify 
     management measures to reduce the inflow of debris into the 
     Patapsco River.

     SEC. 4050. FALL RIVER HARBOR, MASSACHUSETTS AND RHODE ISLAND.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of deepening that portion of the navigation 
     channel of the navigation project for Fall River Harbor, 
     Massachusetts and Rhode Island, authorized by section 101 of 
     the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 731), seaward of 
     the Charles M. Braga, Jr. Memorial Bridge, Fall River and 
     Somerset, Massachusetts.

     SEC. 4051. HAMBURG AND GREEN OAK TOWNSHIPS, MICHIGAN.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage 
     reduction on Ore Lake and the Huron River for Hamburg and 
     Green Oak Townships, Michigan.

     SEC. 4052. ST. CLAIR RIVER, MICHIGAN.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall carry out a study of 
     the relationships among dredging of the St. Clair River for 
     navigation, erosion in the river, and declining water levels 
     in the river and in Lake Michigan and Lake Huron.
       (b) Recommendations.--The report on the results of the 
     study may include recommendations to address water level 
     declines in Lake Michigan and Lake Huron.

     SEC. 4053. DULUTH-SUPERIOR HARBOR, MINNESOTA AND WISCONSIN.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study and 
     prepare a report to evaluate the integrity of the bulkhead 
     system located on and in the vicinity of Duluth-Superior 
     Harbor, Duluth, Minnesota, and Superior, Wisconsin.
       (b) Contents.--The report shall include--
       (1) a determination of causes of corrosion of the bulkhead 
     system;
       (2) recommendations to reduce corrosion of the bulkhead 
     system;
       (3) a description of the necessary repairs to the bulkhead 
     system; and
       (4) an estimate of the cost of addressing the causes of the 
     corrosion and carrying out necessary repairs.

     SEC. 4054. WILD RICE RIVER, MINNESOTA.

       The Secretary shall review the project for flood protection 
     and other purposes on Wild Rice River, Minnesota, authorized 
     by section 201 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 
     1825), to develop alternatives to the Twin Valley Lake 
     feature.

     SEC. 4055. MISSISSIPPI COASTAL AREA, MISSISSIPPI.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of making improvements or modifications to 
     existing improvements in the coastal area of Mississippi in 
     the interest of hurricane and storm damage reduction, 
     prevention of saltwater intrusion, preservation of fish and 
     wildlife, prevention of erosion, and other related water 
     resource purposes.

     SEC. 4056. NORTHEAST MISSISSIPPI.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of modifying the project for navigation, 
     Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, Alabama and Mississippi, to 
     provide water supply for northeast Mississippi.

     SEC. 4057. ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage 
     reduction, St. Louis, Missouri, to restore or rehabilitate 
     the levee system feature of the project for flood protection, 
     St. Louis, Missouri, authorized by the first section of the 
     Act entitled ``An Act authorizing construction of certain 
     public works on the Mississippi River for the protection of 
     Saint Louis, Missouri'', approved August 9, 1955 (69 Stat. 
     540).

     SEC. 4058. DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL, NEW JERSEY.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project in the vicinity of the 
     Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, New Jersey, for the 
     construction of a dredged material disposal transfer facility 
     to make dredged material available for beneficial reuse.

     SEC. 4059. BAYONNE, NEW JERSEY.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for environmental 
     restoration, including improved water quality, enhanced 
     public access, and recreation, on the Kill Van Kull, Bayonne, 
     New Jersey.

     SEC. 4060. CARTERET, NEW JERSEY.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for environmental 
     restoration, including improved water quality, enhanced 
     public access, and recreation, on the Raritan River, 
     Carteret, New Jersey.

     SEC. 4061. ELIZABETH RIVER, ELIZABETH, NEW JERSEY.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out ecosystem restoration 
     improvements in the Elizabeth River watershed, Elizabeth, New 
     Jersey.

     SEC. 4062. GLOUCESTER COUNTY, NEW JERSEY.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage 
     reduction, Gloucester, New Jersey, including the feasibility 
     of restoring the flood protection dikes in Gibbstown, New 
     Jersey, and the associated tidegates in Gloucester, New 
     Jersey.

     SEC. 4063. PERTH AMBOY, NEW JERSEY.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for riverfront 
     development, including enhanced public access, recreation, 
     and environmental restoration, on the Arthur Kill, Perth 
     Amboy, New Jersey.

     SEC. 4064. WRECK POND, MONMOUTH COUNTY, NEW JERSEY.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for environmental 
     restoration at Wreck Pond, New Jersey, including Black Creek 
     and associated waters.

     SEC. 4065. BATAVIA, NEW YORK.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for hydropower and 
     related purposes in the vicinity of Batavia, New York.

     SEC. 4066. BIG SISTER CREEK, EVANS, NEW YORK.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to 
     determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood 
     damage reduction, Big Sister Creek, Evans, New York.
       (b) Evaluation of Potential Solutions.--In conducting the 
     study, the Secretary shall evaluate potential solutions to 
     flooding from all sources, including flooding that results 
     from ice jams.

     SEC. 4067. EAST CHESTER BAY, TURTLE COVE, NEW YORK.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for navigation, East 
     Chester Creek, Chester Bay, Turtle Cove, New York.

     SEC. 4068. FINGER LAKES, NEW YORK.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for aquatic ecosystem 
     restoration and protection, Finger Lakes, New York, to 
     address water quality and invasive species.

     SEC. 4069. HUDSON-RARITAN ESTUARY, NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY.

       In conducting the study for environmental restoration, 
     Hudson-Raritan Estuary, New York and New Jersey, the 
     Secretary shall establish and utilize watershed restoration 
     teams composed of estuary restoration experts from the Corps 
     of Engineers, the New Jersey Department of Environmental 
     Protection, and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey 
     and other experts designated by the Secretary for the purpose 
     of developing habitat restoration and water quality 
     enhancement.

     SEC. 4070. LAKE ERIE SHORELINE, BUFFALO, NEW YORK.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for storm damage 
     reduction and shoreline protection in the vicinity of 
     Gallagher Beach, Lake Erie Shoreline, Buffalo, New York.

     SEC. 4071. NEWTOWN CREEK, NEW YORK.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out ecosystem restoration 
     improvements on Newtown Creek, Brooklyn and Queens, New York.

     SEC. 4072. NIAGARA RIVER, NEW YORK.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for a low-head 
     hydroelectric generating facility in the Niagara River, New 
     York.

     SEC. 4073. UPPER DELAWARE RIVER WATERSHED, NEW YORK.

       Notwithstanding section 221(b) of the Flood Control Act of 
     1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)) and with the consent of the 
     affected local government, a nonprofit organization may serve 
     as the non-Federal interest for a study for the Upper 
     Delaware River watershed, New York, being carried out under 
     Committee Resolution 2495 of the Committee on Transportation 
     and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, adopted 
     May 9, 1996.

     SEC. 4074. LINCOLN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study of existing water and 
     water quality-related infrastructure in Lincoln County, North 
     Carolina, to assist local interests in determining the most 
     efficient and effective way to connect county infrastructure.

     SEC. 4075. WILKES COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply, 
     Wilkes County, North Carolina.

     SEC. 4076. YADKINVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply, 
     Yadkinville, North Carolina.

     SEC. 4077. CINCINNATI, OHIO.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to 
     determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for 
     ecosystem restoration and recreation on the Ohio River, 
     Cincinnati, Ohio.
       (b) Design.--While conducting the study, the Secretary may 
     continue to carry out design work for the project as 
     authorized by section 118 of division H of the Consolidated 
     Appropriations Act, 2004 (118 Stat. 439).
       (c) Existing Plans.--In conducting the study, the Secretary 
     shall review the Central Riverfront Park Master Plan, dated 
     December 1999,

[[Page H5849]]

     and incorporate any components of the plan that the Secretary 
     determines are consistent with Federal standards.
       (d) Credit.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of any project authorized by law as 
     a result of the study the cost of work carried out by the 
     non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership 
     agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that 
     the work is integral to the project.
       (2) Limitation.--In no case may work that was carried out 
     more than 5 years before the date of enactment of this Act be 
     eligible for credit under this subsection.

     SEC. 4078. EUCLID, OHIO.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for navigation, 
     ecosystem restoration, and recreation on Lake Erie, in the 
     vicinity of the Euclid Lakefront, Euclid, Ohio.

     SEC. 4079. LAKE ERIE, OHIO.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out projects for power generation at 
     confined disposal facilities along Lake Erie, Ohio.

     SEC. 4080. OHIO RIVER, OHIO.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out projects for flood damage 
     reduction on the Ohio River in Mahoning, Columbiana, 
     Jefferson, Belmont, Noble, Monroe, Washington, Athens, Meigs, 
     Gallia, Lawrence, and Scioto Counties, Ohio.

     SEC. 4081. SUTHERLIN, OREGON.

       (a) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study of water 
     resources along Sutherlin Creek in the vicinity of Sutherlin, 
     Oregon, to determine the feasibility of carrying out a 
     project to restore and enhance aquatic resources using a 
     combination of structural and bioengineering techniques and, 
     if the Secretary determines that the project is feasible, the 
     Secretary may carry out the project.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $2,500,000.

     SEC. 4082. TILLAMOOK BAY AND BAR, OREGON.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study of the project for 
     navigation, Tillamook Bay and Bar, Oregon, authorized by the 
     first section of the River and Harbor Appropriations Act of 
     July 25, 1912 (37 Stat. 220), to investigate measures to 
     address dangerous and hazardous wave and ocean conditions.

     SEC. 4083. ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION AND FISH PASSAGE 
                   IMPROVEMENTS, OREGON.

       (a) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to 
     determine the feasibility of undertaking ecosystem 
     restoration and fish passage improvements on rivers 
     throughout the State of Oregon.
       (b) Requirements.--In carrying out the study, the Secretary 
     shall--
       (1) work in coordination with the State of Oregon, local 
     governments, and other Federal agencies; and
       (2) place emphasis on--
       (A) fish passage and conservation and restoration 
     strategies to benefit species that are listed or proposed for 
     listing as threatened or endangered species under the 
     Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); and
       (B) other watershed restoration objectives.
       (c) Pilot Program.--
       (1) In general.--In conjunction with conducting the study 
     under subsection (a), the Secretary may carry out pilot 
     projects to demonstrate the effectiveness of ecosystem 
     restoration and fish passages.
       (2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated $5,000,000 to carry out this subsection.

     SEC. 4084. WALLA WALLA RIVER BASIN, OREGON.

       In conducting the study of determine the feasibility of 
     carrying out a project for ecosystem restoration, Walla Walla 
     River Basin, Oregon, the Secretary shall--
       (1) credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the 
     study the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal 
     interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the 
     project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral 
     to the project; and
       (2) allow the non-Federal interest to provide the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the study in the form of in-kind 
     services and materials.

     SEC. 4085. CHARTIERS CREEK WATERSHED, PENNSYLVANIA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage 
     reduction, Chartiers Creek watershed, Pennsylvania.

     SEC. 4086. KINZUA DAM AND ALLEGHENY RESERVOIR, PENNSYLVANIA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study of the project for 
     flood control, Kinzua Dam and Allegheny Reservoir, Warren, 
     Pennsylvania, authorized by section 5 of the Flood Control 
     Act of June 22, 1936 (49 Stat. 1570), and modified by section 
     2 of the Flood Control Act of June 28, 1938 (52 Stat. 1215), 
     section 2 of the Flood Control Act of August 18, 1941 (55 
     Stat. 646), and section 4 of the Flood Control Act of 
     December 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 887), to review operations of and 
     identify modifications to the project to expand recreational 
     opportunities.

     SEC. 4087. NORTH CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out project for aquatic ecosystem 
     restoration and protection in Warren, McKean, Potter, Tioga, 
     Lycoming, Centre, Cameron, Elk, Clearfield, Jefferson, 
     Clarion, Venango, Forest, Clinton, Crawford, and Mifflin 
     Counties, Pennsylvania, particularly as related to abandoned 
     mine drainage abatement and reestablishment of stream and 
     river channels.

     SEC. 4088. NORTHAMPTON AND LEHIGH COUNTIES STREAMS, 
                   PENNSYLVANIA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for ecosystem 
     restoration, floodplain management, flood damage reduction, 
     water quality control, and watershed management, for the 
     streams of Northampton and Lehigh Counties, Pennsylvania.

     SEC. 4089. WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study of 
     structural and nonstructural flood damage reduction, stream 
     bank protection, storm water management, channel clearing and 
     modification, and watershed coordination measures in the 
     Mahoning River basin, Pennsylvania, the Allegheny River 
     basin, Pennsylvania, and the Upper Ohio River basin, 
     Pennsylvania, to provide a level of flood protection 
     sufficient to prevent future losses to communities located in 
     such basins from flooding such as occurred in September 2004, 
     but not less than a 100-year level of flood protection.
       (b) Priority Communities.--In carrying out this section, 
     the Secretary shall give priority to the following 
     Pennsylvania communities: Marshall Township, Ross Township, 
     Shaler Township, Jackson Township, Harmony, Zelienople, 
     Darlington Township, Houston Borough, Chartiers Township, 
     Washington, Canton Township, Tarentum Borough, and East Deer 
     Township.

     SEC. 4090. WILLIAMSPORT, PENNSYLVANIA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study of the project for 
     flood control, Williamsport, Pennsylvania, authorized by 
     section 5 of the Flood Control Act of June 22, 1936 (49 Stat. 
     1570), to investigate measures to rehabilitate the project.

     SEC. 4091. YARDLEY BOROUGH, PENNSYLVANIA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage 
     reduction, at Yardley Borough, Pennsylvania, including the 
     alternative of raising River Road.

     SEC. 4092. RIO VALENCIANO, JUNCOS, PUERTO RICO.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to 
     reevaluate the project for flood damage reduction and water 
     supply, Rio Valenciano, Juncos, Puerto Rico, authorized by 
     section 209 of the Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1197) 
     and section 204 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 
     1828), to determine the feasibility of carrying out the 
     project.
       (b) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the study the cost of work 
     carried out by the non-Federal interest before the date of 
     the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary 
     determines that the work is integral to the project.

     SEC. 4093. CROOKED CREEK, BENNETTSVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply, 
     Crooked Creek, Bennettsville, South Carolina.

     SEC. 4094. BROAD RIVER, YORK COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply, Broad 
     River, York County, South Carolina.

     SEC. 4095. GEORGETOWN AND WILLIAMSBURG COUNTIES, SOUTH 
                   CAROLINA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply for 
     Georgetown and Williamsburg Counties, South Carolina, 
     including the viability and practicality of constructing a 
     desalinization water treatment facility to meet such water 
     supply needs.

     SEC. 4096. CHATTANOOGA, TENNESSEE.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage 
     reduction, Chattanooga Creek, Dobbs Branch, Chattanooga, 
     Tennessee.

     SEC. 4097. CLEVELAND, TENNESSEE.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage 
     reduction, Cleveland, Tennessee.

     SEC. 4098. CUMBERLAND RIVER, NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for recreation on, 
     riverbank protection for, and environmental protection of, 
     the Cumberland River and riparian habitats in the city of 
     Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee.

     SEC. 4099. LEWIS, LAWRENCE, AND WAYNE COUNTIES, TENNESSEE.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply for 
     Lewis, Lawrence, and Wayne Counties, Tennessee.

     SEC. 4100. WOLF RIVER AND NONCONNAH CREEK, MEMPHIS TENNESSEE.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage 
     reduction along Wolf River and Nonconnah Creek, in the 
     vicinity of Memphis, Tennessee, to include the repair, 
     replacement, rehabilitation, and restoration of the following 
     pumping stations: Cypress Creek, Nonconnah Creek, Ensley, 
     Marble Bayou, and Bayou Gayoso.

     SEC. 4101. ABILENE, TEXAS.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply, 
     Abilene, Texas.

     SEC. 4102. COASTAL TEXAS ECOSYSTEM PROTECTION AND 
                   RESTORATION, TEXAS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall develop a 
     comprehensive plan to determine the feasibility of carrying 
     out projects for flood damage reduction, hurricane and storm 
     damage reduction, and ecosystem restoration in the coastal 
     areas of the State of Texas.
       (b) Scope.--The comprehensive plan shall provide for the 
     protection, conservation, and

[[Page H5850]]

     restoration of wetlands, barrier islands, shorelines, and 
     related lands and features that protect critical resources, 
     habitat, and infrastructure from the impacts of coastal 
     storms, hurricanes, erosion, and subsidence.
       (c) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``coastal areas in the State of Texas'' means the coastal 
     areas of the State of Texas from the Sabine River on the east 
     to the Rio Grande River on the west and includes tidal 
     waters, barrier islands, marches, coastal wetlands, rivers 
     and streams, and adjacent areas.

     SEC. 4103. FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage 
     reduction, Fort Bend County, Texas.

     SEC. 4104. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage 
     reduction, Harris County, Texas.

     SEC. 4105. PORT OF GALVESTON, TEXAS.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study of the feasibility of 
     carrying out a project for dredged material disposal in the 
     vicinity of the project for navigation and environmental 
     restoration, Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels, Texas, 
     authorized by section 101(a)(30) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3666).

     SEC. 4106. ROMA CREEK, TEXAS.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage 
     reduction, Roma Creek, Texas.

     SEC. 4107. WALNUT CREEK, TEXAS.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage 
     reduction, environmental restoration, and erosion control, 
     Walnut Creek, Texas.

     SEC. 4108. GRAND COUNTY AND MOAB, UTAH.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for water supply for 
     Grand County and the city of Moab, Utah, including a review 
     of the impact of current and future demands on the Spanish 
     Valley Aquifer.

     SEC. 4109. SOUTHWESTERN UTAH.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage 
     reduction, Santa Clara River, Washington, Iron, and Kane 
     Counties, Utah.

     SEC. 4110. CHOWAN RIVER BASIN, VIRGINIA AND NORTH CAROLINA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage 
     reduction, environmental restoration, navigation, and erosion 
     control, Chowan River basin, Virginia and North Carolina.

     SEC. 4111. JAMES RIVER, RICHMOND, VIRGINIA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage 
     reduction for the James River in the vicinity of Richmond, 
     Virginia, including the Shockoe Bottom area.

     SEC. 4112. ELLIOTT BAY SEAWALL, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON.

       (a) In General.--The study for rehabilitation of the 
     Elliott Bay Seawall, Seattle, Washington, being carried out 
     under Committee Resolution 2704 of the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives adopted September 25, 2002, is modified to 
     include a determination of the feasibility of reducing future 
     damage to the seawall from seismic activity.
       (b) Acceptance of Contributions.--In carrying out the 
     study, the Secretary may accept contributions in excess of 
     the non-Federal share of the cost of the study from the non-
     Federal interest to the extent that the Secretary determines 
     that the contributions will facilitate completion of the 
     study.
       (c) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of any project authorized by law as 
     a result of the study the value of contributions accepted by 
     the Secretary under subsection (b).

     SEC. 4113. MONONGAHELA RIVER BASIN, NORTHERN WEST VIRGINIA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out aquatic ecosystem restoration and 
     protection projects in the watersheds of the Monongahela 
     River Basin lying within the counties of Hancock, Ohio, 
     Marshall, Wetzel, Tyler, Pleasants, Wood, Doddridge, 
     Monongalia, Marion, Harrison, Taylor, Barbour, Preston, 
     Tucker, Mineral, Grant, Gilmer, Brooke, and Rithchie, West 
     Virginia, particularly as related to abandoned mine drainage 
     abatement.

     SEC. 4114. KENOSHA HARBOR, WISCONSIN.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for navigation, Kenosha 
     Harbor, Wisconsin, including the extension of existing piers.

     SEC. 4115. WAUWATOSA, WISCONSIN.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage 
     reduction and environmental restoration, Menomonee River and 
     Underwood Creek, Wauwatosa, Wisconsin, and greater Milwaukee 
     watersheds, Wisconsin.

                   TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 5001. MAINTENANCE OF NAVIGATION CHANNELS.

       (a) In General.--Upon request of a non-Federal interest, 
     the Secretary shall be responsible for maintenance of the 
     following navigation channels and breakwaters constructed or 
     improved by the non-Federal interest if the Secretary 
     determines that such maintenance is economically justified 
     and environmentally acceptable and that the channel or 
     breakwater was constructed in accordance with applicable 
     permits and appropriate engineering and design standards:
       (1) Manatee Harbor basin, Florida.
       (2) Bayou LaFourche Channel, Port Fourchon, Louisiana.
       (3) Calcasieu River at Devil's Elbow, Louisiana.
       (4) Pidgeon Industrial Harbor, Pidgeon Industrial Park, 
     Memphis Harbor, Tennessee.
       (5) Pix Bayou Navigation Channel, Chambers County, Texas.
       (6) Racine Harbor, Wisconsin.
       (b) Completion of Assessment.--Not later than 6 months 
     after the date of receipt of a request from a non-Federal 
     interest for Federal assumption of maintenance of a channel 
     listed in subsection (a), the Secretary shall make a 
     determination as provided in subsection (a) and advise the 
     non-Federal interest of the Secretary's determination.

     SEC. 5002. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may provide technical, 
     planning, and design assistance to non-Federal interests for 
     carrying out watershed management, restoration, and 
     development projects at the locations described in subsection 
     (d).
       (b) Specific Measures.--Assistance provided under 
     subsection (a) may be in support of non-Federal projects for 
     the following purposes:
       (1) Management and restoration of water quality.
       (2) Control and remediation of toxic sediments.
       (3) Restoration of degraded streams, rivers, wetlands, and 
     other waterbodies to their natural condition as a means to 
     control flooding, excessive erosion, and sedimentation.
       (4) Protection and restoration of watersheds, including 
     urban watersheds.
       (5) Demonstration of technologies for nonstructural 
     measures to reduce destructive impacts of flooding.
       (c) Non-Federal Share.--The non-Federal share of the cost 
     of assistance provided under subsection (a) shall be 50 
     percent.
       (d) Project Locations.--The locations referred to in 
     subsection (a) are the following:
       (1) Cucamonga basin, Upland, California.
       (2) Charlotte Harbor watershed, Florida.
       (3) Big Creek watershed, Roswell, Georgia.
       (4) Those portions of the watersheds of the Chattahoochee, 
     Etowah, Flint, Ocmulgee, and Oconee Rivers lying within the 
     counties of Bartow, Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, 
     Douglas, Fayette, Fulton, Forsyth, Gwinnett, Hall, Henry, 
     Paulding, Rockdale, and Walton, Georgia.
       (5) Kinkaid Lake, Jackson County, Illinois.
       (6) Amite River basin, Louisiana.
       (7) East Atchafalaya River basin, Iberville Parish and 
     Pointe Coupee Parish, Louisiana.
       (8) Red River watershed, Louisiana.
       (9) Taunton River basin, Massachusetts.
       (10) Lower Platte River watershed, Nebraska.
       (11) Rio Grande watershed, New Mexico.
       (12) Marlboro Township, New Jersey.
       (13) Buffalo River watershed, New York.
       (14) Cattaragus Creek watershed, New York.
       (15) Eighteenmile Creek watershed, Niagara County, New 
     York.
       (16) Esopus, Plattekill, and Rondout Creeks, Greene, 
     Sullivan, and Ulster Counties, New York.
       (17) Genesee River watershed, New York.
       (18) Greenwood Lake watershed, New York and New Jersey.
       (19) Long Island Sound watershed, New York.
       (20) Oswego River basin, New York.
       (21) Ramapo River watershed, New York.
       (22) Tonawanda Creek watershed, New York.
       (23) Tuscarawas River basin, Ohio.
       (24) Western Lake Erie basin, Ohio.
       (25) Those portions of the watersheds of the Beaver, Upper 
     Ohio, Connoquenessing, Lower Allegheny, Kiskiminetas, Lower 
     Monongahela, Youghiogheny, Shenango, and Mahoning Rivers 
     lying within the counties of Beaver, Butler, Lawrence, and 
     Mercer, Pennsylvania.
       (26) Otter Creek watershed, Pennsylvania.
       (27) Unami Creek watershed, Milford Township, Pennsylvania.
       (28) Sauk River basin, Washington.
       (29) Greater Milwaukee watersheds, Wisconsin.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $15,000,000.

     SEC. 5003. DAM SAFETY.

       (a) Assistance.--The Secretary may provide assistance to 
     enhance dam safety at the following locations:
       (1) Fish Creek Dam, Blaine County, Idaho.
       (A) Hamilton Dam, Saginaw River, Flint, Michigan.
       (B) Candor Dam, Candor, New York.
       (C) State Dam, Auburn, New York.
       (D) Whaley Lake Dam, Pawling, New York.
       (E) Ingham Spring Dam, Solebury Township, Pennsylvania.
       (F) Leaser Lake Dam, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania.
       (G) Stillwater Dam, Monroe County, Pennsylvania.
       (H) Wissahickon Creek Dam, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.
       (b) Special Rule.--The assistance provided under subsection 
     (a) for State Dam, Auburn, New York, shall be for a project 
     for rehabilitation in accordance with the report on State Dam 
     Rehabilitation, Owasco Lake Outlet, New York, dated March 
     1999, if the Secretary determines that the project is 
     feasible.
       (c) Fern Ridge Dam, Oregon.--It is the sense of Congress 
     that the Secretary should immediately carry out a project to 
     remedy the situation at Fern Ridge Dam, Oregon, due to the 
     rapid deterioration of the dam. Cost sharing for the project 
     shall be as provided by section 1203 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 467n).
       (d) Kehly Run Dams, Pennsylvania.--Section 504(a)(2) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 338; 117 
     Stat. 1842) is amended by striking ``Dams'' and inserting 
     ``Dams No. 1-5''.

[[Page H5851]]

       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out subsection (a) $6,000,000.

     SEC. 5004. STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY EVALUATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Upon request of a non-Federal interest, 
     the Secretary shall evaluate the structural integrity and 
     effectiveness of a project for flood damage reduction and, if 
     the Secretary determines that the project does not meet such 
     minimum standards as the Secretary may establish and, absent 
     action by the Secretary, the project will fail, the Secretary 
     may take such action as may be necessary to restore the 
     integrity and effectiveness of the project.
       (b) Priority.--The Secretary shall evaluate under 
     subsection (a) the following projects:
       (1) Project for flood damage reduction, Arkansas River 
     Levees, river mile 205 to river mile 308.4, Arkansas.
       (2) Project for flood damage reduction, Nonconnah Creek, 
     Tennessee.

     SEC. 5005. FLOOD MITIGATION PRIORITY AREAS.

       (a) In General.--Section 212(e) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1999 (33 U.S.C. 2332(e); 114 Stat. 2599) 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraphs (23) and 
     (27);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (28) and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(29) Ascension Parish, Louisiana;
       ``(30) East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana;
       ``(31) Iberville Parish, Louisiana;
       ``(32) Livingston Parish, Louisiana; and
       ``(33) Pointe Coupee Parish, Louisiana.''.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 212(i)(1) of 
     such Act (33 U.S.C. 2332(i)(1)) is amended by striking 
     ``section--'' and all that follows before the period at the 
     end and inserting ``section $20,000,000''.

     SEC. 5006. ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR AUTHORIZED PROJECTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 219(e) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 110 Stat. 3757; 113 
     Stat. 334) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (7);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (8) and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(9) $35,000,000 for the project described in subsection 
     (c)(18);
       ``(10) $20,000,000 for the project described in subsection 
     (c)(20);
       ``(11) $35,000,000 for the project described in subsection 
     (c)(23);
       ``(12) $20,000,000 for the project described in subsection 
     (c)(25);
       ``(13) $20,000,000 for the project described in subsection 
     (c)(26);
       ``(14) $35,000,000 for the project described in subsection 
     (c)(27);
       ``(15) $20,000,000 for the project described in subsection 
     (c)(28); and
       ``(16) $30,000,000 for the project described in subsection 
     (c)(40).''.
       (b) East Arkansas Enterprise Community, Arkansas.--Federal 
     assistance made available under the rural enterprise zone 
     program of the Department of Agriculture may be used toward 
     payment of the non-Federal share of the costs of the project 
     described in section 219(c)(20) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1992 (114 Stat. 2763A-219) if such 
     assistance is authorized to be used for such purposes.

     SEC. 5007. EXPEDITED COMPLETION OF REPORTS AND CONSTRUCTION 
                   FOR CERTAIN PROJECTS.

       The Secretary shall expedite completion of the reports and, 
     if the Secretary determines the project is feasible, shall 
     expedite completion of construction for the following 
     projects:
       (1) Fulmer Creek, Village of Mohawk, New York, being 
     carried out under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 
     1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s).
       (2) Moyer Creek, Village of Frankfort, New York, being 
     carried out under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 
     1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s).
       (3) Steele Creek, Village of Ilion, New York, being carried 
     out under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 
     U.S.C. 701s).
       (4) Oriskany Wildlife Management Area, Rome, New York, 
     being carried out under section 206 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330).
       (5) Whitney Point Lake, Otselic River, Whitney Point, New 
     York, being carried out under section 1135 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a).
       (6) Newton Creek, Bainbridge, New York, being carried out 
     under section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 
     701r).
       (7) Chenango Lake, Chenango County, New York, being carried 
     out under section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1996 (33 U.S.C. 2330).

     SEC. 5008. EXPEDITED COMPLETION OF REPORTS FOR CERTAIN 
                   PROJECTS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall expedite completion of 
     the reports for the following projects and, if the Secretary 
     determines that a project is justified in the completed 
     report, proceed directly to project preconstruction, 
     engineering, and design:
       (1) Project for water supply, Little Red River, Arkansas.
       (2) Project for shoreline stabilization at Egmont Key, 
     Florida.
       (3) Project for ecosystem restoration, University Lake, 
     Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
       (4) Project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, 
     Montauk Point, New York.
       (b) Special Rule for Egmont Key, Florida.--In carrying out 
     the project for shoreline stabilization at Egmont Key, 
     Florida, referred to in subsection (a)(2), the Secretary 
     shall waive any cost share to be provided by non-Federal 
     interests for any portion of the project that benefits 
     federally owned property.
       (c)  Special Rule for Montauk Point, New York.--The 
     Secretary shall complete the report for the project referred 
     to in subsection (a)(4) not later than September 30, 2005, 
     notwithstanding the ownership of the property to be 
     protected.

     SEC. 5009. SOUTHEASTERN WATER RESOURCES ASSESSMENT.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct, at Federal 
     expense, an assessment of the water resources needs of the 
     river basins and watersheds of the southeastern United 
     States.
       (b) Cooperative Agreements.--In carrying out the 
     assessment, the Secretary may enter into cooperative 
     agreements with State and local agencies, non-Federal and 
     nonprofit entities, and regional researchers.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated $7,000,000 to carry out this section.

     SEC. 5010. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 
                   PROGRAM.

       Section 1103(e)(7) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 652(e)(7)) is amended--
       (1) by adding at the end of subparagraph (A) the following: 
     ``The non-Federal interest may provide the non-Federal share 
     of the cost of the project in the form of in-kind services 
     and materials.''; and
       (2) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:
       ``(C) Notwithstanding section 221(b) of the Flood Control 
     Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5(b)), for any project 
     undertaken under this section, a non-Federal interest may 
     include a nonprofit entity, with the consent of the affected 
     local government.''.

     SEC. 5011. MISSOURI AND MIDDLE MISSISSIPPI RIVERS ENHANCEMENT 
                   PROJECT.

       Section 514(g) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1999 (113 Stat. 343; 117 Stat. 142) is amended by striking 
     ``and 2004'' and inserting ``through 2015''.

     SEC. 5012. GREAT LAKES FISHERY AND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.

       Section 506(f)(3)(B) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-22; 114 Stat. 2646) is amended by 
     striking ``50 percent'' and inserting ``100 percent''.

     SEC. 5013. GREAT LAKES REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS AND SEDIMENT 
                   REMEDIATION.

       Section 401(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1990 (33 U.S.C. 1268 note; 114 Stat. 2613) is amended by 
     striking ``2006'' and inserting ``2011''.

     SEC. 5014. GREAT LAKES TRIBUTARY MODEL.

       Section 516(g)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1996 (33 U.S.C. 2326b(g)(2)) is amended by striking ``2006'' 
     and inserting ``2011''.

     SEC. 5015. SUSQUEHANNA, DELAWARE, AND POTOMAC RIVER BASINS.

       (a) Ex Officio Member.--Notwithstanding section 3001(a) of 
     the 1997 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for 
     Recovery From Natural Disasters, and for Overseas 
     Peacekeeping Efforts, Including Those in Bosnia (111 Stat. 
     176) and section 2.2 of both the Susquehanna River Basin 
     Compact (Public Law 91-575) and the Delaware River Basin 
     Compact (Public Law 87-328), beginning in fiscal year 2005 
     and thereafter, the Division Engineer, North Atlantic 
     Division, Corps of Engineers, shall be the ex officio United 
     States member under the Susquehanna River Basin Compact and 
     the Delaware River Basin Compact, who shall serve without 
     additional compensation and who may designate an alternate 
     member or members in accordance with the terms of those 
     respective compacts.
       (b) Authorization to Allocate.--The Secretary may allocate 
     funds to the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, Delaware 
     River Basin Commission, and the Interstate Commission on the 
     Potomac River Basin (Potomac River Basin Compact (Public Law 
     91-407)) to fulfill the equitable funding requirements of 
     their respective interstate compacts.
       (c) Water Supply and Conservation Storage.--The Secretary 
     shall enter into an agreement with the Delaware River Basin 
     Commission to provide temporary water supply and conservation 
     storage at the Francis E. Walter Dam, Pennsylvania, during 
     any period in which the Commission has determined that a 
     drought warning or drought emergency exists. The agreement 
     shall provide that the cost for any such water supply and 
     conservation storage shall not exceed the incremental 
     operating costs associated with providing the storage.

     SEC. 5016. CHESAPEAKE BAY ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND 
                   PROTECTION PROGRAM.

       (a) Form of Assistance.--Section 510(a)(2) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3759) is amended 
     by striking ``, and beneficial uses of dredged material'' and 
     inserting ``, beneficial uses of dredged material, and 
     restoration of submerged aquatic vegetation''.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 510(i) of 
     such Act (110 Stat. 3761) is amended by striking 
     ``$10,000,000'' and inserting ``$50,000,000''.

     SEC. 5017. CHESAPEAKE BAY OYSTER RESTORATION.

       The second sentence of section 704(b) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2263(b)) is 
     amended by striking ``$20,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$30,000,000''.

     SEC. 5018. HYPOXIA ASSESSMENT.

       The Secretary may participate with Federal, State, and 
     local agencies, non-Federal and nonprofit entities, regional 
     researchers, and other interested parties to assess hypoxia 
     in the Gulf of Mexico.

     SEC. 5019. POTOMAC RIVER WATERSHED ASSESSMENT AND TRIBUTARY 
                   STRATEGY EVALUATION AND MONITORING PROGRAM.

       The Secretary may participate in the Potomac River 
     Watershed Assessment and Tributary Strategy Evaluation and 
     Monitoring Program to identify a series of resource 
     management indicators to accurately monitor the effectiveness 
     of

[[Page H5852]]

     the implementation of the agreed upon tributary strategies 
     and other public policies that pertain to natural resource 
     protection of the Potomac River watershed.

     SEC. 5020. LOCK AND DAM SECURITY.

       (a) Standards.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Tennessee Valley 
     Authority, and the Coast Guard, shall develop standards for 
     the security of locks and dams, including the testing and 
     certification of vessel exclusion barriers.
       (b) Site Surveys.--At the request of a lock or dam owner, 
     the Secretary shall provide technical assistance, on a 
     reimbursible basis, to improve lock or dam security.
       (c) Cooperative Agreement.--The Secretary may enter into a 
     cooperative agreement with a nonprofit alliance of public and 
     private organizations that has the mission of promoting safe 
     waterways and seaports to carry out testing and certification 
     activities, and to perform site surveys, under this section.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated $3,000,000 to carry out this section.

     SEC. 5021. PINHOOK CREEK, HUNTSVILLE, ALABAMA.

       The Secretary shall design and construct the locally 
     preferred plan for flood protection at Pinhook Creek, 
     Huntsville, Alabama, under the authority of section 205 of 
     the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s). The Secretary 
     shall allow the non-Federal interest to participate in the 
     financing of the project in accordance with section 903(c) of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4184) 
     to the extent that the Secretary's evaluation indicates that 
     applying such section is necessary to implement the project.

     SEC. 5022. TALLAPOOSA, ALABAMA.

       The Secretary may provide technical assistance relating to 
     water supply to the Middle Tallapoosa Water Supply District, 
     Alabama. There is authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 to 
     carry out this section.

     SEC. 5023. ALASKA.

       Section 570 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 
     (113 Stat. 369) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c) by inserting ``environmental 
     restoration,'' after ``water supply and related 
     facilities,'';
       (2) in subsection (e)(3)(B) by striking the last sentence;
       (3) in subsection (h) by striking ``$25,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$45,000,000''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) 
     of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), for 
     any project undertaken under this section, a non-Federal 
     interest may include a nonprofit entity, with the consent of 
     the affected local government.
       ``(j) Corps of Engineers Expenses.--Ten percent of the 
     amounts appropriated to carry out this section may be used by 
     the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer 
     projects under this section at 100 percent Federal 
     expense.''.

     SEC. 5024. BARROW, ALASKA.

       The Secretary shall carry out, under section 117 of the 
     Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2005 (118 
     Stat. 2944), a nonstructural project for coastal erosion and 
     storm damage prevention and reduction at Barrow, Alaska, 
     including relocation of infrastructure.

     SEC. 5025. COFFMAN COVE, ALASKA.

       The Secretary is authorized to carry out a project for 
     navigation, Coffman Cove, Alaska, at a total cost of 
     $3,000,000.

     SEC. 5026. FORT YUKON, ALASKA.

       The Secretary shall make repairs to the dike at Fort Yukon, 
     Alaska, so that the dike meets Corps of Engineers standards.

     SEC. 5027. KOTZEBUE HARBOR, ALASKA.

       The Secretary is authorized to carry out a project for 
     navigation, Kotzebue Harbor, Kotzebue, Alaska, at at total 
     cost of $2,200,000.

     SEC. 5028. LOWELL CREEK TUNNEL, SEWARD, ALASKA.

       (a) Long-Term Maintenance and Repair.--The Secretary shall 
     assume responsibility for the long-term maintenance and 
     repair of the Lowell Creek Tunnel.
       (b) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to 
     determine whether alternative methods of flood diversion in 
     Lowell Canyon are feasible.

     SEC. 5029. ST. HERMAN AND ST. PAUL HARBORS, KODIAK, ALASKA.

       The Secretary shall carry out, on an emergency basis, 
     necessary removal of rubble, sediment, and rock impeding the 
     entrance to the St. Herman and St. Paul Harbors, Kodiak, 
     Alaska, at a Federal cost of $2,000,000.

     SEC. 5030. TANANA RIVER, ALASKA.

       The Secretary shall carry out, on an emergency basis, the 
     removal of the hazard to navigation on the Tanana River, 
     Alaska, near the mouth of the Chena River, as described in 
     the January 3, 2005, memorandum from the Commander, 
     Seventeenth Coast Guard District, to the Corps of Engineers, 
     Alaska District, Anchorage, Alaska.

     SEC. 5031. VALDEZ, ALASKA.

        The Secretary is authorized to construct a small boat 
     harbor in Valdez, Alaska, at a total cost of $20,000,000, 
     with an estimated Federal cost of $10,500,000 and an 
     estimated non-Federal cost of $9,500,000.

     SEC. 5032. WHITTIER, ALASKA.

       (a) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct, at Federal 
     expense, a study to determine the feasibility of carrying out 
     projects for navigation at Whittier, Alaska, to construct a 
     new boat harbor at the head of Whittier Bay and to expand the 
     existing harbor and, if the Secretary determines that a 
     project is feasible, the Secretary may carry out the project.
       (b) Non-Federal Cost Share.--The non-Federal interest may 
     use, and the Secretary shall accept, funds provided under any 
     other Federal program to satisfy, in whole or in part, the 
     non-Federal share of the construction of any project carried 
     out under this section if such funds are authorized to be 
     used to carry out such project.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $35,200,000.

     SEC. 5033. WRANGELL HARBOR, ALASKA.

       (a) General Navigation Features.--In carrying out the 
     project for navigation, Wrangell Harbor, Alaska, authorized 
     by section 101(b)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1999 (113 Stat. 279), the Secretary shall consider the 
     dredging of the mooring basin and construction of the inner 
     harbor facilities to be general navigation features for 
     purposes of estimating the non-Federal share of project 
     costs.
       (b) Revision of Partnership Agreement.--The Secretary shall 
     revise the partnership agreement for the project to reflect 
     the change required by subsection (a).

     SEC. 5034. AUGUSTA AND CLARENDON, ARKANSAS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to perform 
     operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation of authorized and 
     completed levees on the White River between Augusta and 
     Clarendon, Arkansas.
       (b) Reimbursement.--After performing the operation, 
     maintenance, and rehabilitation under subsection (a), the 
     Secretary shall seek reimbursement from the Secretary of the 
     Interior of an amount equal to the costs allocated to 
     benefits to a Federal wildlife refuge of such operation, 
     maintenance, and rehabilitation.

     SEC. 5035. DES ARC LEVEE PROTECTION, ARKANSAS.

       The Secretary shall review the project for flood control, 
     Des Arc, Arkansas, to determine whether bank and channel 
     scour along the White River threaten the existing project and 
     whether the scour is as a result of a design deficiency. If 
     the Secretary determines that such conditions exist as a 
     result of a deficiency, the Secretary shall carry out 
     measures to eliminate the deficiency.

     SEC. 5036. HELENA AND VICINITY, ARKANSAS.

       The Secretary shall accept as fulfilling the non-Federal 
     cost-sharing responsibilities for the project for flood 
     control, Helena and Vicinity, Arkansas, authorized by section 
     401 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 
     4112), the non-Federal cash contribution of $568,000 and the 
     lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and dredged 
     material disposal areas provided by the non-Federal sponsor 
     as of September 1, 2003, and the Secretary shall not seek to 
     recover any reimbursement from the non-Federal sponsor 
     related to advanced payments to, or work performed for, the 
     non-Federal sponsor under the authority of sections 103 and 
     104 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 
     2213, 2214).

     SEC. 5037. LOOMIS LANDING, ARKANSAS.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study of shore damage in the 
     vicinity of Loomis Landing, Arkansas, to determine if the 
     damage is the result of a Federal navigation project, and, if 
     the Secretary determines that the damage is the result of a 
     Federal navigation project, the Secretary shall carry out a 
     project to mitigate the damage under section 111 of the River 
     and Harbor Act of 1968 (33 U.S.C. 426i).

     SEC. 5038. ST. FRANCIS RIVER BASIN, ARKANSAS AND MISSOURI.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study of increased siltation 
     and streambank erosion in the St. Francis River Basin, 
     Arkansas and Missouri, to determine if the siltation or 
     erosion, or both, are the result of a Federal flood control 
     project and, if the Secretary determines that the siltation 
     or erosion, or both, are the result of a Federal flood 
     control project, the Secretary shall carry out a project to 
     mitigate the siltation or erosion, or both.

     SEC. 5039. WHITE RIVER BASIN, ARKANSAS.

       (a) Minimum Flows.--
       (1) In general.--In carrying out section 304 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2601), the 
     Secretary shall implement alternatives BS-3 and NF-7, as 
     described in the White River Minimum Flows Reallocation Study 
     Report, Arkansas and Missouri, dated July 2004.
       (2) Cost sharing.--Reallocation of storage and installation 
     of facilities under this subsection shall be considered fish 
     and wildlife enhancement that provides national benefits and 
     shall be a Federal expense in accordance with section 
     906(e)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 
     U.S.C. 2283(e)(1)).
       (3) Offset.--In carrying out this subsection, losses to 
     hydropower shall be offset by a reduction, not to exceed 
     $17,000,000, in the costs allocated to hydropower, as 
     determined by the present value of the estimated replacement 
     cost of the electrical energy and capacity at the time of the 
     implementation.
       (b) Fish Hatchery.--In operating the fish hatchery at 
     Beaver Lake, Arkansas, authorized by section 105 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2921), losses to 
     hydropower shall be offset by a reduction, not to exceed 
     $2,200,000, in the costs allocated to hydropower, as 
     determined by the present value of the estimated replacement 
     cost of the electrical energy and capacity at the time of the 
     implementation.
       (c) Repeal.--Section 374 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 321) is repealed.

     SEC. 5040. CAMBRIA, CALIFORNIA.

       Section 219(f)(48) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1992 (114 Stat. 2763A-220) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``$10,300,000'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(A) In general.--$10,300,000'';
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the

[[Page H5853]]

     project not to exceed $3,000,000 for the cost of planning and 
     design work carried out by the non-Federal interest before 
     the date of the partnership agreement for the project if the 
     Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 
     project.''; and
       (3) by aligning the remainder of the text of subparagraph 
     (A) (as designated by paragraph (1) of this section) with 
     subparagraph (B) (as added by paragraph (2) of this section).

     SEC. 5041. CONTRA COSTA CANAL, OAKLEY AND KNIGHTSEN, 
                   CALIFORNIA; MALLARD SLOUGH, PITTSBURG, 
                   CALIFORNIA.

       Sections 512 and 514 of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 2000 (114 Stat. 2650) are each amended by adding at the 
     end the following: ``All planning, study, design, and 
     construction on the project shall be carried out by the 
     office of the district engineer, San Francisco, 
     California.''.

     SEC. 5042. DANA POINT HARBOR, CALIFORNIA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study of the causes of water 
     quality degradation within Dana Point Harbor, California, to 
     determine if the degradation is the result of a Federal 
     navigation project, and, if the Secretary determines that the 
     degradation is the result of a Federal navigation project, 
     the Secretary shall carry out a project to mitigate the 
     degradation at Federal expense.

     SEC. 5043. EAST SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.

       Section 219(f)(22) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1992 (113 Stat. 336) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``$25,000,000'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(A) In general.--$25,000,000'';
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project (i) the cost of 
     design and construction work carried out by the non-Federal 
     interest before, on, or after the date of the partnership 
     agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that 
     the work is integral to the project; and (ii) the cost of 
     provided for the project by the non-Federal interest.
       ``(C) In-kind contributions.--The non-Federal interest may 
     provide any portion of the non-Federal share of the cost of 
     the project in the form of in-kind services and materials.''; 
     and
       (3) by aligning the remainder of the text of subparagraph 
     (A) (as designated by paragraph (1) of this section) with 
     subparagraph (B) (as added by paragraph (2) of this section).

     SEC. 5044. EASTERN SANTA CLARA BASIN, CALIFORNIA.

       Section 111(c) of the Miscellaneous Appropriations Act, 
     2001 (as enacted into law by Public Law 106-554; 114 Stat. 
     2763A-224) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``$25,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$28,000,000''; and
       (2) by striking ``$7,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$10,000,000''.

     SEC. 5045. PINE FLAT DAM AND RESERVOIR, CALIFORNIA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall review the Kings River 
     Fisheries Management Program Framework Agreement, dated May 
     29, 1999, among the California Department of Fish and Game, 
     the Kings River Water Association, and the Kings River 
     Conservation District and, if the Secretary determines that 
     the management program is feasible, the Secretary may 
     participate in the management program.
       (b) Prohibition.--Nothing in this section authorizes any 
     project for the raising of, or the construction of, a 
     multilevel intake structure at Pine Flat Dam, California.
       (c) Use of Existing Studies.--In carrying out this section, 
     the Secretary shall use, to the maximum extent practicable, 
     studies in existence on the date of enactment of this Act, 
     including data and environmental documentation in the Report 
     of the Chief of Engineers, Pine Flat Dam and Reservoir, 
     Fresno County, California, dated July 19, 2002.
       (d) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of 
     planning, design, and construction work carried out by the 
     non-Federal interest before the date of the partnership 
     agreement for the project if the Secretary determines that 
     the work is integral to the project.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to $20,000,000 to carry out this section.

     SEC. 5046. SACRAMENTO DEEP WATER SHIP CHANNEL, CALIFORNIA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to transfer 
     title to the Bascule Bridge, deauthorized by section 
     347(a)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 
     (114. Stat. 2618), to the city of West Sacramento, 
     California, subject to the execution of an agreement by the 
     Secretary and the city which specifies the terms and 
     conditions for such transfer. The terms and conditions of the 
     transfer shall include a provision authorizing the Secretary 
     to participate in the construction of a replacement bridge 
     following the removal of the Bascule Bridge.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriation.--There is authorized to 
     be appropriated $5,000,000 for the Secretary to participate 
     in the construction of a replacement bridge under this 
     section.

     SEC. 5047. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the 
     Port of San Francisco, California, may carry out the project 
     for repair and removal, as appropriate, of Piers 35, 36, and 
     80 in San Francisco, California, substantially in accordance 
     with the Port's redevelopment plan.
       (1) Authorization of Appropriation.--There is authorized to 
     be appropriated $20,000,000 to carry out this subsection.

     SEC. 5048. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, WATERFRONT AREA.

       (a) Area to Be Declared Nonnavigable; Public Interest.--
     Unless the Secretary finds, after consultation with local and 
     regional public officials (including local and regional 
     public planning organizations), that the proposed projects to 
     be undertaken within the boundaries of the portion of the San 
     Francisco, California, waterfront area described in 
     subsection (b) are not in the public interest, such portion 
     is declared to be nonnavigable waters of the United States.
       (b) Northern Embarcadero South of Bryant Street.--The 
     portion of the San Francisco, California, waterfront area 
     referred to in subsection (a) is as follows: Beginning at the 
     intersection of the northeasterly prolongation of that 
     portion of the northwesterly line of Bryant Street lying 
     between Beale Street and Main Street with the southwesterly 
     line of Spear Street, which intersection lies on the line of 
     jurisdiction of the San Francisco Port Commission; following 
     thence southerly along said line of jurisdiction as described 
     in the State of California Harbor and Navigation Code Section 
     1770, as amended in 1961, to its intersection with the 
     easterly line of Townsend Street along a line that is 
     parallel and distant 10 feet distant from the existing 
     southern boundary of Pier 40 produced to its point of 
     intersection with the United States Government pier-head 
     line; thence northerly along said pier-head line to its 
     intersection with a line parallel with, and distant 10 feet 
     easterly from, the existing easterly boundary line of Pier 
     30-32; thence northerly along said parallel line and its 
     northerly prolongation, to a point of intersection with a 
     line parallel with, and distant 10 feet northerly from, the 
     existing northerly boundary of Pier 30-32, thence westerly 
     along last said parallel line to its intersection with the 
     United States Government pier-head line; to the northwesterly 
     line of Bryant Street produced northwesterly; thence 
     southwesterly along said northwesterly line of Bryant Street 
     produced to the point of beginning.
       (c) Requirement That Area Be Improved.--The declaration of 
     nonnavigability under subsection (a) applies only to those 
     parts of the area described in subsection (b) that are or 
     will be bulkheaded, filled, or otherwise occupied by 
     permanent structures and does not affect the applicability of 
     any Federal statute or regulation applicable to such parts 
     the day before the date of enactment of this Act, including 
     sections 9 and 10 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 
     and 403; 30 Stat. 1151), commonly known as the Rivers and 
     Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899, section 404 of the Federal 
     Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), and the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
     seq.).
       (d) Expiration Date.--If, 20 years from the date of 
     enactment of this Act, any area or part thereof described in 
     subsection (b) is not bulkheaded or filled or occupied by 
     permanent structures, including marina facilities, in 
     accordance with the requirements set out in subsection (c), 
     or if work in connection with any activity permitted in 
     subsection (c) is not commenced within 5 years after issuance 
     of such permits, then the declaration of nonnavigability for 
     such area or part thereof shall expire.

     SEC. 5049. SANTA VENETIA, CALIFORNIA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall carry out a project 
     for flood damage reduction under section 205 of the Flood 
     Control Act of 1958 (33 U.S.C. 701s), Santa Venetia, 
     California, if the Secretary determines that the project is 
     feasible.
       (b) Project Financing.--In carrying out the project under 
     this section, the Secretary shall allow the non-Federal 
     interests to participate in the financing of the project in 
     accordance with section 903(c) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4184), to the extent that 
     the Secretary's evaluation indicates that applying such 
     section is necessary to implement the project.

     SEC. 5050. STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA.

       (a) Reevaluation.--The Secretary shall reevaluate the 
     feasibility of the Lower Mosher Slough element and the levee 
     extensions on the Upper Calaveras River element of the 
     project for flood control, Stockton Metropolitan Area, 
     California, carried out under section 211(f)(3) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3683), to 
     determine the eligibility of such elements for reimbursement 
     under section 211 of such Act (33 U.S.C. 701b-13).
       (b) Special Rules for Reevaluation.--In conducting the 
     reevaluation under subsection (a), the Secretary shall not 
     reject a feasibility determination based on one or more of 
     the policies of the Corps of Engineers concerning the 
     frequency of flooding, the drainage area, and the amount of 
     runoff.
       (c) Reimbursement.--If the Secretary determines that the 
     elements referred to subsection (a) are feasible, the 
     Secretary shall reimburse, subject to appropriations, the 
     non-Federal interest under section 211 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1996 for the Federal share of the cost of 
     such elements.

     SEC. 5051. VICTOR V. VEYSEY DAM, CALIFORNIA.

       (a) Designation.--The Prado Dam, authorized by the Flood 
     Control Act of 1936 (49 Stat. 1570), shall be known and 
     designated as the ``Victor V. Veysey Dam''.
       (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 
     document, paper, or other record of the United States to the 
     dam referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a 
     reference to the ``Victor V. Veysey Dam''.

     SEC. 5052. WHITTIER, CALIFORNIA.

       The Secretary shall carry out a project for flood damage 
     reduction under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 
     (33 U.S.C. 701s) in the vicinity of Whittier, California, if 
     the Secretary determines that the project is feasible.

     SEC. 5053. CHARLES HERVEY TOWNSHEND BREAKWATER, NEW HAVEN 
                   HARBOR, CONNECTICUT.

       (a) Designation.--The western breakwater for the project 
     for navigation, New Haven Harbor, Connecticut, authorized by 
     the first section

[[Page H5854]]

     of the Act of September 19, 1890 (26 Stat. 426), shall be 
     known and designated as the ``Charles Hervey Townshend 
     Breakwater''.
       (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 
     document, paper, or other record of the United States to the 
     breakwater referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to 
     be a reference to the ``Charles Hervey Townshend 
     Breakwater''.

     SEC. 5054. CHRISTINA RIVER SHIPWRECK, DELAWARE.

       The Secretary may carry out the removal of the debris 
     associated with the steamship ``STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA'' and 
     other derelict vessels from the Christina River, Delaware, 
     under section 202 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1976 (90 Stat. 2945).

     SEC. 5055. ANACOSTIA RIVER, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, MARYLAND, 
                   AND VIRGINIA.

       (a) Comprehensive Action Plan.--Not later than 1 year after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in 
     coordination with the Mayor of the District of Columbia, the 
     Governor of Maryland, the Governor of Virginia, the County 
     Executives of Montgomery County and Prince George's County, 
     Maryland, and other interested persons, shall develop a 10-
     year comprehensive action plan for the restoration and 
     protection of the ecological integrity of the Anacostia River 
     and its tributaries.
       (b) Public Availability.--Upon completion of the plan, the 
     Secretary shall make the plan available to the public.

     SEC. 5056. FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS.

       Section 109(e)(2) of the Miscellaneous Appropriations Act, 
     2001 (enacted into law by Public Law 106-554) (114 Stat. 
     2763A-222) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) Credit for work prior to execution of the partnership 
     agreement.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal 
     share of the cost of the project (i) the cost of construction 
     work carried out by the non-Federal interest before the date 
     of the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary 
     determines that the work is integral to the project; and (ii) 
     the cost of land acquisition carried out by the non-Federal 
     interest for projects to be carried out under this 
     section.''.

     SEC. 5057. LAKE WORTH, FLORIDA.

       The Secretary may carry out necessary repairs for the Lake 
     Worth bulkhead replacement project, West Palm Beach, Florida, 
     at an estimated total cost of $9,000,000.

     SEC. 5058. LAKE LANIER, GEORGIA.

       The Secretary may assist local interests with planning, 
     design, and construction of facilities at the Lake Lanier 
     Olympic Center, Georgia, at a total cost of $5,300,000.

     SEC. 5059. RILEY CREEK RECREATION AREA, IDAHO.

       The Secretary is authorized to carry out the Riley Creek 
     Recreation Area Operation Plan of the Albeni Falls Management 
     Plan, dated October 2001, for the Riley Creek Recreation 
     Area, Albeni Falls Dam, Bonner County, Idaho.

     SEC. 5060. RECONSTRUCTION OF ILLINOIS FLOOD PROTECTION 
                   PROJECTS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may participate in the 
     reconstruction of an eligible flood control project if the 
     Secretary determines that such reconstruction is not required 
     as a result of improper operation and maintenance of the 
     project by the non-Federal interest.
       (b) Cost Sharing.--The non-Federal share of the costs for 
     the reconstruction of a flood control project authorized by 
     this section shall be the same non-Federal share that was 
     applicable to construction of the project. The non-Federal 
     interest shall be responsible for operation and maintenance 
     and repair of a project for which reconstruction is 
     undertaken under this section.
       (c) Reconstruction Defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``reconstruction'', as used with respect to a project, means 
     addressing major project deficiencies caused by long-term 
     degradation of the foundation, construction materials, or 
     engineering systems or components of the project, the results 
     of which render the project at risk of not performing in 
     compliance with its authorized project purposes. In 
     addressing such deficiencies, the Secretary may incorporate 
     current design standards and efficiency improvements, 
     including the replacement of obsolete mechanical and 
     electrical components at pumping stations, if such 
     incorporation does not significantly change the scope, 
     function, and purpose of the project as authorized.
       (d) Eligible Projects.--The following flood control 
     projects are eligible for reconstruction under this section:
       (1) Clear Creek Drainage and Levee District, Illinois.
       (2) Fort Chartres and Ivy Landing Drainage District, 
     Illinois.
       (3) Wood River Drainage and Levee District, Illinois.
       (4) Cairo, Illinois Mainline Levee, Cairo, Illinois.
       (5) Goose Pond Pump Station, Cairo, Illinois.
       (6) Cottonwood Slough Pump Station, Alexander County, 
     Illinois.
       (7) 10th and 28th Street Pump Stations, Cairo, Illinois.
       (8) Flood control levee projects in Brookport, Shawneetown, 
     Old Shawneetown, Golconda, Rosiclare, Harrisburg, and 
     Reevesville, Illinois.
       (e) Justification.--The reconstruction of a project 
     authorized by this section shall not be considered a 
     separable element of the project.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated--
       (1) $15,000,000 to carry out the projects described in 
     paragraphs (1) through (7) of subsection (d); and
       (2) $15,000,000 to carry out the projects described in 
     subsection (d)(8).
     Such sums shall remain available until expended.

     SEC. 5061. KASKASKIA RIVER BASIN, ILLINOIS, RESTORATION.

       (a) Kaskaskia River Basin Defined.--In this section, the 
     term ``Kaskaskia River Basin'' means the Kaskaskia River, 
     Illinois, its backwaters, its side channels, and all 
     tributaries, including their watersheds, draining into the 
     Kaskaskia River.
       (b) Comprehensive Plan.--
       (1) Development.--The Secretary shall develop, as 
     expeditiously as practicable, a comprehensive plan for the 
     purpose of restoring, preserving, and protecting the 
     Kaskaskia River Basin.
       (2) Technologies and innovative approaches.--The 
     comprehensive plan shall provide for the development of new 
     technologies and innovative approaches--
       (A) to enhance the Kaskaskia River as a transportation 
     corridor;
       (B) to improve water quality within the entire Kaskaskia 
     River Basin;
       (C) to restore, enhance, and preserve habitat for plants 
     and wildlife;
       (D) to increase economic opportunity for agriculture and 
     business communities; and
       (E) to reduce the impacts of flooding to communities and 
     landowners.
       (3) Specific components.--The comprehensive plan shall 
     include such features as are necessary to provide for--
       (A) the development and implementation of a program for 
     sediment removal technology, sediment characterization, 
     sediment transport, and beneficial uses of sediment;
       (B) the development and implementation of a program for the 
     planning, conservation, evaluation, and construction of 
     measures for fish and wildlife habitat conservation and 
     rehabilitation, and stabilization and enhancement of land and 
     water resources in the basin;
       (C) the development and implementation of a long-term 
     resource monitoring program;
       (D) the development and implementation of a computerized 
     inventory and analysis system; and
       (E) the development and implementation of a systemic plan 
     to reduce flood impacts by means of ecosystem restoration 
     projects.
       (4) Consultation.--The comprehensive plan shall be 
     developed by the Secretary in consultation with appropriate 
     Federal agencies, the State of Illinois, and the Kaskaskia 
     River Coordinating Council.
       (5) Report to congress.--Not later than 2 years after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit 
     to Congress a report containing the comprehensive plan.
       (6) Additional studies and analyses.--After transmission of 
     a report under paragraph (5), the Secretary shall conduct 
     studies and analyses of projects related to the comprehensive 
     plan that are appropriate and consistent with this 
     subsection.
       (c) General Provisions.--
       (1) Water quality.--In carrying out activities under this 
     section, the Secretary's recommendations shall be consistent 
     with applicable State water quality standards.
       (2) Public participation.--In developing the comprehensive 
     plan under subsection (b), the Secretary shall implement 
     procedures to facilitate public participation, including 
     providing advance notice of meetings, providing adequate 
     opportunity for public input and comment, maintaining 
     appropriate records, and making a record of the proceedings 
     of meetings available for public inspection.
       (d) Coordination.--The Secretary shall integrate activities 
     carried out under this section with ongoing Federal and State 
     programs, projects, and activities, including the following:
       (1) Farm programs of the Department of Agriculture.
       (2) Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (State of 
     Illinois) and Conservation 2000 Ecosystem Program of the 
     Illinois Department of Natural Resources.
       (3) Conservation 2000 Conservation Practices Program and 
     the Livestock Management Facilities Act administered by the 
     Illinois Department of Agriculture.
       (4) National Buffer Initiative of the Natural Resources 
     Conservation Service.
       (5) Nonpoint source grant program administered by the 
     Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.
       (e) Cost Sharing.--
       (1) In general.--The non-Federal share of the cost of 
     activities carried out under this section shall be 35 
     percent.
       (2) In-kind services.--The Secretary may credit the cost of 
     in-kind services provided by the non-Federal interest for an 
     activity carried out under this section toward not more than 
     80 percent of the non-Federal share of the cost of the 
     activity. In-kind services shall include all State funds 
     expended on programs that accomplish the goals of this 
     section, as determined by the Secretary. The programs may 
     include the Kaskaskia River Conservation Reserve Program, the 
     Illinois Conservation 2000 Program, the Open Lands Trust 
     Fund, and other appropriate programs carried out in the 
     Kaskaskia River Basin.

     SEC. 5062. FLOODPLAIN MAPPING, LITTLE CALUMET RIVER, CHICAGO, 
                   ILLINOIS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall provide assistance for 
     a project to develop maps identifying 100- and 500-year flood 
     inundation areas along the Little Calumet River, Chicago, 
     Illinois.
       (b) Requirements.--Maps developed under the project shall 
     include hydrologic and hydraulic information and shall 
     accurately show the flood inundation of each property by 
     flood risk in the floodplain. The maps shall be produced in a 
     high resolution format and shall be made available to all 
     flood prone areas along the Little Calumet River, Chicago, 
     Illinois, in an electronic format.
       (c) Participation of FEMA.--The Secretary and the non-
     Federal interests for the project shall work with the 
     Director of the Federal

[[Page H5855]]

     Emergency Management Agency to ensure the validity of the 
     maps developed under the project for flood insurance 
     purposes.
       (d) Forms of Assistance.--In carrying out the project, the 
     Secretary may enter into contracts or cooperative agreements 
     with the non-Federal interests or provide reimbursements of 
     project costs.
       (e) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost of the 
     project shall be 50 percent.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $2,000,000.

     SEC. 5063. NATALIE CREEK, MIDLOTHIAN AND OAK FOREST, 
                   ILLINOIS.

       The Secretary shall carry out a project for flood damage 
     reduction under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 
     (33 U.S.C. 701s), Natalie Creek, Midlothian and Oak Forest, 
     Illinois, if the Secretary determines that the project is 
     feasible.

     SEC. 5064. ILLINOIS RIVER BASIN RESTORATION.

       (a) Extension of Authorization.--Section 519(c)(2) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2654) is 
     amended by striking ``2004'' and inserting ``2010''.
       (b) In-Kind Services.--Section 519(g)(3) of such Act (114 
     Stat. 2655) is amended by inserting before the period at the 
     end of the first sentence ``if such services are provided not 
     more than 5 years before the date of initiation of the 
     project or activity''.
       (c) Nonprofit Entities and Monitoring.--Section 519 of such 
     Act (114 Stat. 2654) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(h) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) 
     of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), a 
     non-Federal interest may include a nonprofit entity with the 
     consent of the affected local government.
       ``(i) Monitoring.--The Secretary shall develop an Illinois 
     river basin monitoring program to support the plan referred 
     to in subsection (b). Data collected under the monitoring 
     program shall incorporate data provided by the State of 
     Illinois and shall be publicly accessible through electronic 
     means.''.

     SEC. 5065. PROMONTORY POINT, LAKE MICHIGAN, ILLINOIS.

       In carrying out the project for storm damage reduction and 
     shoreline erosion protection, Lake Michigan, authorized by 
     section 101(a)(12) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1996 (110 Stat. 3664), the Secretary shall reevaluate the 
     feasibility of reconstructing the Promontory Point section 
     consistent with the original limestone step design.

     SEC. 5066. BURNS WATERWAY HARBOR, INDIANA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study of shoaling in the 
     vicinity of Burns Waterway Harbor, Indiana, to determine if 
     the shoaling is the result of a Federal navigation project, 
     and, if the Secretary determines that the shoaling is the 
     result of a Federal navigation project, the Secretary shall 
     carry out a project to mitigate the shoaling under section 
     111 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968 (33 U.S.C. 426).

     SEC. 5067. CALUMET REGION, INDIANA.

       Section 219(f)(12) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1992 (113 Stat. 335; 117 Stat. 1843) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``$30,000,000'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(A) In general.--$30,000,000'';
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of planning 
     and design work carried out by the non-Federal interest 
     before, on, or after the date of the partnership agreement 
     for the project if the Secretary determines that the work is 
     integral to the project.''; and
       (3) by aligning the remainder of the text of subparagraph 
     (A) (as designated by paragraph (1) of this section) with 
     subparagraph (B) (as added by paragraph (2) of this section).

     SEC. 5068. FLOODPLAIN MAPPING, MISSOURI RIVER, IOWA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall provide assistance for 
     a project to develop maps identifying 100- and 500-year flood 
     inundation areas in the State of Iowa, along the Missouri 
     River.
       (b) Requirements.--Maps developed under the project shall 
     include hydrologic and hydraulic information and shall 
     accurately portray the flood hazard areas in the floodplain. 
     The maps shall be produced in a high resolution format and 
     shall be made available to the State of Iowa in an electronic 
     format.
       (c) Participation of FEMA.--The Secretary and the non-
     Federal interests for the project shall work with the 
     Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to ensure 
     the validity of the maps developed under the project for 
     flood insurance purposes.
       (d) Forms of Assistance.--In carrying out the project, the 
     Secretary may enter into contracts or cooperative agreements 
     with the non-Federal interests or provide reimbursements of 
     project costs.
       (e) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost of the 
     project shall be 50 percent.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $3,000,000.

     SEC. 5069. RATHBUN LAKE, IOWA.

       (a) Conveyance.--The Secretary shall convey the remaining 
     water supply storage allocation in Rathbun Lake, Iowa, to the 
     Rathbun Regional Water Association (in this section referred 
     to as the ``Water Association'').
       (b) Cost Sharing.--Notwithstanding the Water Supply Act of 
     1958 (43 U.S.C. 390b), the Water Association shall pay 100 
     percent of the cost of the water supply storage allocation to 
     be conveyed under subsection (a). The Secretary shall credit 
     toward such non-Federal share the cost of any structures and 
     facilities constructed by the Water Association at the 
     project.
       (c) Terms and Conditions.--Before conveying the water 
     supply storage allocation under subsection (a), the Secretary 
     shall enter into an agreement with the Water Association, 
     under which the Water Association shall agree to--
       (1) in accordance with designs approved by the Chief of 
     Engineers, construct structures and facilities referred to in 
     subsection (b) that have a value equal to or greater than the 
     amount that otherwise would be paid to the Federal Government 
     for the costs of the water supply storage under the Water 
     Supply Act of 1958 (43 U.S.C. 390b);
       (2) be responsible for operating and maintaining the 
     structures and facilities;
       (3) pay all operation and maintenance costs allocated to 
     the water supply storage space;
       (4) use any revenues generated at the structures and 
     facilities that are above those required to operate and 
     maintain or improve the complex to undertake, subject to the 
     approval of the Chief of Engineers, activities that will 
     improve the quality of the environment in the Rathbun Lake 
     watershed area; and
       (5) such other terms and conditions as the Secretary 
     considers necessary to protect the interests of the United 
     States.

     SEC. 5070. CUMBERLAND RIVER BASIN, KENTUCKY.

       At reservoirs managed by the Secretary above Cumberland 
     River mile 385.5 within the Cumberland River basin, Kentucky, 
     the Secretary shall charge fees associated with storage and 
     maintenance of water supply that do not exceed the fees in 
     effect on October 1, 2002.

     SEC. 5071. LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY.

       (a) In General.--Section 557 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 353) is amended--
       (1) in the section heading by inserting ``kentucky 
     and'' before ``northern west 
     virginia''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Louisville, kentucky.--Report of the Corps of 
     Engineers entitled `Louisville Waterfront Park, Phase II, 
     Kentucky, Master Plan', dated July 22, 2002, at a total cost 
     of $32,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $16,000,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $16,000,000.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--In the table of contents 
     contained in section 1(b) of such Act strike the item 
     relating to section 557 and insert the following:

``Sec. 557. Kentucky and Northern West Virginia.''.

     SEC. 5072. MAYFIELD CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, KENTUCKY.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study of flood damage along 
     Mayfield Creek and tributaries between Wickliffe and 
     Mayfield, Kentucky, to determine if the damage is the result 
     of a Federal flood damage reduction project, and, if the 
     Secretary determines that the damage is the result of a 
     Federal flood damage reduction project, the Secretary shall 
     carry out a project to mitigate the damage at Federal 
     expense.

     SEC. 5073. NORTH FORK, KENTUCKY RIVER, BREATHITT COUNTY, 
                   KENTUCKY.

       The Secretary shall rebuild the structure that is impeding 
     high water flows on the North Fork of the Kentucky River in 
     Breathitt County, Kentucky, in a manner that will reduce 
     flood damages at an estimated total cost of $1,800,000. The 
     non-Federal interest shall provide lands, easements, rights-
     of-way, relocations, and disposal areas required for the 
     project. Operation and maintenance of the rebuilt structure 
     shall be a non-Federal expense.

     SEC. 5074. PADUCAH, KENTUCKY.

       The Secretary shall complete a feasibility report for 
     rehabilitation of the project for flood damage reduction, 
     Paducah, Kentucky, and, if the Secretary determines that the 
     project is feasible, the Secretary shall carry out the 
     project at a total cost of $3,000,000.

     SEC. 5075. SOUTHERN AND EASTERN KENTUCKY.

       Section 531 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
     (110 Stat. 3773; 113 Stat. 348; 117 Stat. 142) is amended by 
     adding the following:
       ``(i) Corps of Engineers Expenses.--Ten percent of the 
     amounts appropriated to carry out this section may be used by 
     the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer 
     projects under this section at 100 percent Federal 
     expense.''.

     SEC. 5076. WINCHESTER, KENTUCKY.

       Section 219(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 114 Stat. 2763A-219) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(41) Winchester, kentucky.--Wastewater infrastructure, 
     Winchester, Kentucky.''.

     SEC. 5077. BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA.

       Section 219(f)(21) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1992 (113 Stat. 336; 114 Stat. 2763A-220) is amended by 
     striking ``$20,000,000'' and inserting ``$35,000,000''.

     SEC. 5078. CALCASIEU SHIP CHANNEL, LOUISIANA.

       The Secretary shall expedite completion of a dredged 
     material management plan for the Calcasieu Ship Channel, 
     Louisiana, and may take interim measures to increase the 
     capacity of existing disposal areas, or to construct new 
     confined or beneficial use disposal areas, for the channel.

     SEC. 5079. CROSS LAKE, SHREVEPORT, LOUISIANA.

       The Secretary may accept from the Department of the Air 
     Force, and may use, not to exceed $4,500,000 to assist the 
     city of Shreveport, Louisiana, with its plan to construct a 
     water intake facility.

     SEC. 5080. WEST BATON ROUGE PARISH, LOUISIANA.

       Section 517(5) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1999 (113 Stat. 345) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(5) Mississippi River, West Baton Rouge Parish, 
     Louisiana, project for waterfront and

[[Page H5856]]

     riverine preservation, restoration, enhancement 
     modifications, and interpretive center development.''.

     SEC. 5081. CHARLESTOWN, MARYLAND.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may carry out a project for 
     nonstructural flood damage reduction and ecosystem 
     restoration at Charlestown, Maryland.
       (b) Land Acquisition.--The flood damage reduction component 
     of the project may include the acquisition of private 
     property from willing sellers.
       (c) Justification.--Any nonstructural flood damage 
     reduction project to be carried out under this section that 
     will result in the conversion of property to use for 
     ecosystem restoration and wildlife habitat shall be justified 
     based on national ecosystem restoration benefits.
       (d) Use of Acquired Property.--Property acquired under this 
     section shall be maintained in public ownership for ecosystem 
     restoration and wildlife habitat.
       (e) Ability to Pay.--In determining the appropriate non-
     Federal cost share for the project, the Secretary shall 
     determine the ability of Cecil County, Maryland, to 
     participate as a cost-sharing non-Federal interest in 
     accordance with section 103(m) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(m)).
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated $2,000,000 to carry out this section.

     SEC. 5082. DELMARVA CONSERVATION CORRIDOR, MARYLAND AND 
                   DELAWARE.

       (a) Assistance.--The Secretary may provide technical 
     assistance to the Secretary of Agriculture for use in 
     carrying out the Conservation Corridor Demonstration Program 
     established under subtitle G of title II of the Farm Security 
     and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (16 U.S.C. 3801 note; 116 
     Stat. 275).
       (b) Coordination and Integration.--In carrying out water 
     resources projects in Maryland and Delaware on the Delmarva 
     Peninsula, the Secretary shall coordinate and integrate those 
     projects, to the maximum extent practicable, with any 
     activities carried out to implement a conservation corridor 
     plan approved by the Secretary of Agriculture under section 
     2602 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 
     (16 U.S.C. 3801 note; 116 Stat. 275).

     SEC. 5083. MASSACHUSETTS DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITES.

       The Secretary may cooperate with Massachusetts in the 
     management and long-term monitoring of aquatic dredged 
     material disposal sites within the State, and is authorized 
     to accept funds from the State to carry out such activities.

     SEC. 5084. ONTONAGON HARBOR, MICHIGAN.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study of shore damage in the 
     vicinity of the project for navigation, Ontonagon Harbor, 
     Ontonagon County, Michigan, authorized by section 101 of the 
     Rivers and Harbors Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1176, 100 Stat. 
     4213, 110 Stat. 3730), to determine if the damage is the 
     result of a Federal navigation project, and, if the Secretary 
     determines that the damage is the result of a Federal 
     navigation project, the Secretary shall carry out a project 
     to mitigate the damage under section 111 of the River and 
     Harbor Act of 1968 (33 U.S.C. 426i).

     SEC. 5085. ST. CLAIR RIVER AND LAKE ST. CLAIR, MICHIGAN.

       (a) Ecosystem Restoration.--The Secretary shall carry out 
     feasible aquatic ecosystem restoration projects identified in 
     the comprehensive management plan for St. Clair River and 
     Lake St. Clair, Michigan, developed under section 426 of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 326), at a 
     total Federal cost of not to exceed $5,000,000.
       (b) Plan.--Section 426(d) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 326) is amended by 
     striking ``$400,000'' and inserting ``$475,000''.

     SEC. 5086. CROOKSTON, MINNESOTA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study for a project for 
     emergency streambank protection along the Red Lake River in 
     Crookston, Minnesota, and, if the Secretary determines that 
     the project is feasible, the Secretary may carry out the 
     project under section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 
     U.S.C. 701r); except that the maximum amount of Federal funds 
     that may be expended for the project shall be $6,500,000.

     SEC. 5087. GARRISON AND KATHIO TOWNSHIP, MINNESOTA.

       (a) Project Description.--Section 219(f)(61) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1992 (114 Stat. 2763A-221) is 
     amended--
       (1) in the paragraph heading by striking ``township'' and 
     inserting ``township and crow wing and mille lacs counties'';
       (2) by striking ``$11,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$17,000,000'';
       (3) by inserting ``, Crow Wing County, Mille Lacs County,'' 
     after ``Garrison''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following: ``Such assistance 
     shall be provided directly to the Garrison-Kathio-West Mille 
     Lacs Lake Sanitary District, Minnesota.''.
       (b) Procedures.--In carrying out the project authorized by 
     such section 219(f)(61), the Secretary may use the cost 
     sharing and contracting procedures available to the Secretary 
     under section 569 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1999 (113 Stat. 368).

     SEC. 5088. MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA.

       (a) Conveyance.--The Secretary shall convey to the city of 
     Minneapolis by quitclaim deed and without consideration all 
     right, title, and interest of the United States to the 
     property known as the War Department (Fort Snelling 
     Interceptor) Tunnel in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
       (b) Applicability of Property Screening Provisions.--
     Section 2696 of title 10, United States Code, shall not apply 
     to the conveyance under this section.

     SEC. 5089. NORTHEASTERN MINNESOTA.

       (a) In General.--Section 569 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 368) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a) by striking ``Benton, Sherburne,'' 
     and inserting ``Beltrami, Hubbard, Wadena,'';
       (2) by striking the last sentence of subsection (e)(3)(B);
       (3) by striking subsection (g) and inserting the following:
       ``(g) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) 
     of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), for 
     any project undertaken under this section, a non-Federal 
     interest may include a nonprofit entity.''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) Corps of Engineers Expenses.--Ten percent of the 
     amounts appropriated to carry out this section may be used by 
     the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer 
     projects under this section at 100 percent Federal 
     expense.''.
       (b) Biwabik, Minnesota.--The Secretary shall reimburse the 
     non-Federal interest for the project for environmental 
     infrastructure, Biwabik, Minnesota, carried out under section 
     569 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 
     368), for planning, design, and construction costs that were 
     incurred by the non-Federal interest with respect to the 
     project before the date of the partnership agreement for the 
     project and that were in excess of the non-Federal share of 
     the cost of the project if the Secretary determines that the 
     costs are appropriate.

     SEC. 5090. HARRISON, HANCOCK, AND JACKSON COUNTIES, 
                   MISSISSIPPI.

       In carrying out projects for the protection, restoration, 
     and creation of aquatic and ecologically related habitats 
     located in Harrison, Hancock, and Jackson Counties, 
     Mississippi, under section 204 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 2326), the Secretary shall 
     accept any portion of the non-Federal share of the cost of 
     the project in the form of in-kind services and materials.

     SEC. 5091. MISSISSIPPI RIVER, MISSOURI, AND ILLINOIS.

       As a part of the operation and maintenance of the project 
     for the Mississippi River (Regulating Works), between the 
     Ohio and Missouri Rivers, Missouri and Illinois, authorized 
     by the first section of an Act entitled ``Making 
     appropriations for the construction, repair, and preservation 
     of certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for other 
     purposes'', approved June 25, 1910, the Secretary may carry 
     out activities necessary to restore and protect fish and 
     wildlife habitat in the middle Mississippi River system. Such 
     activities may include modification of navigation training 
     structures, modification and creation of side channels, 
     modification and creation of islands, and studies and 
     analysis necessary to apply adaptive management principles in 
     design of future work.

     SEC. 5092. ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI.

       Section 219(f)(32) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1992 (113 Stat. 337) is amended by striking 
     ``$15,000,000'' and inserting ``$35,000,000''.

     SEC. 5093. ACID BROOK, POMPTON LAKES, NEW JERSEY.

       The Secretary shall carry out a project for flood damage 
     reduction under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 
     (33 U.S.C. 701s), Acid Brook, Pompton Lakes, New Jersey, if 
     the Secretary determines that the project is feasible.

     SEC. 5094. HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS AREA, NEW JERSEY.

       Section 324 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 
     (106 Stat. 4849; 110 Stat. 3779) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``design'' and inserting ``planning, 
     design,''; and
       (B) by striking ``Hackensack Meadowlands Development'' and 
     all that follows through ``Plan for'' and inserting ``New 
     Jersey Meadowlands Commission for the development of an 
     environmental improvement program for'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in the subsection heading by striking ``Required'';
       (B) by striking ``shall'' and inserting ``may'';
       (C) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
       ``(1) Restoration and acquisitions of significant wetlands 
     and aquatic habitat that contribute to the Meadowlands 
     ecosystem.'';
       (D) in paragraph (2) by inserting ``and aquatic habitat'' 
     before the period at the end; and
       (E) by striking paragraph (7) and inserting the following:
       ``(7) Research, development, and implementation for a water 
     quality improvement program, including restoration of 
     hydrology and tidal flows and remediation of hot spots and 
     other sources of contaminants that degrade existing or 
     planned sites.'';
       (3) in subsection (c) by inserting before the last sentence 
     the following: ``The non-Federal sponsor may also provide in-
     kind services, not to exceed the non-Federal share of the 
     total project cost, and may also receive credit for 
     reasonable cost of design work completed prior to entering 
     into the partnership agreement with the Secretary for a 
     project to be carried out under the program developed under 
     subsection (a).''; and
       (4) in subsection (d) by striking ``$5,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$35,000,000''.

     SEC. 5095. CENTRAL NEW MEXICO, NEW MEXICO.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 593(h) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 381) is 
     amended by striking ``$25,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$40,000,000''.
       (b) Corps of Engineers Expenses.--Section 593 of such Act 
     (113 Stat. 381) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(i) Corps of Engineers Expenses.--Ten percent of the 
     amounts appropriated to carry out this section may be used by 
     the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer 
     projects under this section at 100 percent Federal 
     expense.''.

[[Page H5857]]

     SEC. 5096. ATLANTIC COAST OF NEW YORK.

       (a) Development of Program.--Section 404(a) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4863) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``processes'' and inserting ``and related 
     environmental processes'';
       (2) by inserting after ``Atlantic Coast'' the following: 
     ``(and associated back bays)'';
       (3) by inserting after ``actions'' the following: ``, 
     environmental restoration or conservation measures for 
     coastal and back bays,''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following: ``The plan for 
     collecting data and monitoring information included in such 
     annual report shall be fully coordinated with and agreed to 
     by appropriate agencies of the State of New York.''.
       (b) Annual Reports.--Section 404(b) of such Act is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``Initial Plan.--Not later than 12 months 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, the'' and 
     inserting ``Annual Reports.--The'';
       (2) by striking ``initial plan for data collection and 
     monitoring'' and inserting ``annual report of data collection 
     and monitoring activities''; and
       (3) by striking the last sentence.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 404(c) of 
     such Act (113 Stat. 341) is amended by striking ``and an 
     additional total of $2,500,000 for fiscal years thereafter'' 
     and inserting ``$2,500,000 for fiscal years 2000 through 
     2004, and $7,500,000 for fiscal years beginning after 
     September 30, 2004,''.
       (d) Tsunami Warning System.--Section 404 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4863) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Tsunami Warning System.--There is authorized to be 
     appropriated $800,000 for the Secretary to carry out a 
     project for a tsunami warning system, Atlantic Coast of New 
     York.''.

     SEC. 5097. COLLEGE POINT, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK.

       In carrying out section 312 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4639), the Secretary shall 
     give priority to work in College Point, New York City, New 
     York.

     SEC. 5098. FLUSHING BAY AND CREEK, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK.

       The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of 
     the cost of the project for ecosystem restoration, Flushing 
     Bay and Creek, New York City, New York, the cost of design 
     and construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest 
     before the date of the partnership agreement for the project 
     if the Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 
     project.

     SEC. 5099. HUDSON RIVER, NEW YORK.

       The Secretary may participate with the State of New York, 
     New York City, and the Hudson River Park Trust in carrying 
     out activities to restore critical marine habitat, improve 
     safety, and protect and rehabilitate critical infrastructure. 
     There is authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 to carry 
     out this section.

     SEC. 5100. MOUNT MORRIS DAM, NEW YORK.

       As part of the operation and maintenance of the Mount 
     Morris Dam, New York, the Secretary may make improvements to 
     the access road for the dam to provide safe access to a 
     Federal visitor's center.

     SEC. 5101. ONONDAGA LAKE, NEW YORK.

       Section 573 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 
     (113 Stat. 372) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (f) by striking ``$10,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$30,000,000'';
       (2) by redesignating subsections (f) and (g) as subsections 
     (g) and (h), respectively; and
       (3) by inserting after subsection (e) the following:
       ``(f) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) 
     of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), for 
     any project carried out under this section, a non-Federal 
     interest may include a nonprofit entity, with the consent of 
     the affected local government.''.

     SEC. 5102. JOHN H. KERR DAM AND RESERVOIR, NORTH CAROLINA.

       The Secretary shall expedite the completion of the 
     calculations necessary to negotiate and execute a revised, 
     permanent contract for water supply storage at John H. Kerr 
     Dam and Reservoir, North Carolina, among the Secretary and 
     the Kerr Lake Regional Water System and the city of 
     Henderson, North Carolina.

     SEC. 5103. STANLY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.

       Section 219(f)(64) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1992 (114 Stat. 2763A-221) is amended by inserting ``water 
     and'' before ``wastewater''.

     SEC. 5104. W. KERR SCOTT DAM AND RESERVOIR, NORTH CAROLINA.

       The Secretary shall remove debris from the joint intake at 
     the W. Kerr Scott Dam and Reservoir, North Carolina.

     SEC. 5105. OHIO.

       Section 594 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 
     (113 Stat. 381) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b) by striking ``design and 
     construction'' and inserting ``planning, design, and 
     construction'';
       (2) in subsection (g) by striking ``$60,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$100,000,000''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) 
     of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5(b)), for 
     any project undertaken under this section, a non-Federal 
     interest may include a nonprofit entity, with the consent of 
     the affected local government.''.

     SEC. 5106. TOUSSAINT RIVER, OHIO.

       (a) In General.--The project for navigation, Toussaint 
     River, Carroll Township, Ohio, authorized by section 107 of 
     the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), is modified 
     to authorize the Secretary to enter into an agreement with 
     the non-Federal interest under which the Secretary may--
       (1) acquire, and transfer to the non-Federal interest, a 
     dredge and associated equipment with the capacity to perform 
     operation and maintenance of the project; and
       (2) provide the non-Federal interest with a lump-sum 
     payment to cover all future costs of operation and 
     maintenance of the project.
       (b) Agreement.--The Secretary may carry out subsection 
     (a)(1) by entering into an agreement with the non-Federal 
     interest under which the non-Federal interest may acquire the 
     dredge and associated equipment directly and be reimbursed by 
     the Secretary.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated $1,800,000 to carry out this section. Of 
     such funds, $500,000 may be used to carry out 
     subsection (a)(1).
       (d) Release.--Upon the acquisition and transfer of a dredge 
     and associated equipment under subsection (a)(1), and the 
     payment of funds under subsection (a)(2), all future Federal 
     responsibility for operation and maintenance of the project 
     is extinguished.

     SEC. 5107. EUGENE, OREGON.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to 
     determine the feasibility of restoring the millrace in 
     Eugene, Oregon, and, if the Secretary determines that the 
     restoration is feasible, the Secretary shall carry out the 
     restoration.
       (b) Consideration of Noneconomic Benefits.--In determining 
     the feasibility of restoring the millrace, the Secretary 
     shall include noneconomic benefits associated with the 
     historical significance of the millrace and associated with 
     preservation and enhancement of resources.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000.

     SEC. 5108. JOHN DAY LOCK AND DAM, LAKE UMATILLA, OREGON AND 
                   WASHINGTON.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall pay not more than 
     $2,500,000 to the provider of research and curation support 
     previously provided to the Federal Government as a result 
     of--
       (1) the multipurpose project at John Day Lock and Dam, Lake 
     Umatilla, Oregon and Washington, authorized by section 101 of 
     the River and Harbor Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 167); and
       (2) the several navigation and flood damage reduction 
     projects constructed on the Columbia River and Lower 
     Willamette River, Oregon and Washington.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $2,500,000.

     SEC. 5109. LOWELL, OREGON.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may convey without 
     consideration to Lowell School District, by quitclaim deed, 
     all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to 
     land and buildings thereon, known as Tract A-82, located in 
     Lowell, Oregon, and described in subsection (b).
       (b) Description of Property.--The parcel of land authorized 
     to be conveyed under subsection (a) is as follows: Commencing 
     at the point of intersection of the west line of Pioneer 
     Street with the westerly extension of the north line of 
     Summit Street, in Meadows Addition to Lowell, as platted and 
     recorded at page 56 of Volume 4, Lane County Oregon Plat 
     Records; thence north on the west line of Pioneer Street a 
     distance of 176.0 feet to the true point of beginning of this 
     description; thence north on the west line of Pioneer Street 
     a distance of 170.0 feet; thence west at right angles to the 
     west line of Pioneer Street a distance of 250.0 feet; thence 
     south and parallel to the west line of Pioneer Street a 
     distance of 170.0 feet; thence east 250.0 feet to the true 
     point of beginning of this description in Section 14, 
     Township 19 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, 
     Lane County, Oregon.
       (c) Terms and Conditions.--Before conveying the parcel to 
     the school district, the Secretary shall ensure that the 
     conditions of buildings and facilities meet the requirements 
     of applicable Federal law.
       (d) Reversion.--If the Secretary determines that the 
     property conveyed under subsection (a) ceases to be held in 
     public ownership, all right, title, and interest in and to 
     the property shall revert to the United States, at the option 
     of the United States.
       (e) Generally Applicable Provisions.--
       (1) Applicability of property screening provisions.--
     Section 2696 of title 10, United States Code, shall not apply 
     to any conveyance under this section.
       (2) Liability.--An entity to which a conveyance is made 
     under this section shall hold the United States harmless from 
     any liability with respect to activities carried out, on or 
     after the date of the conveyance, on the real property 
     conveyed. The United States shall remain responsible for any 
     liability with respect to activities carried out, before such 
     date, on the real property conveyed.

     SEC. 5110. ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.

        Section 219(f)(66) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1992 (114 Stat. 2763A-221) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``$20,000,000'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(A) In general.--$20,000,000'';
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of work 
     carried out by the non-Federal interest before the date of 
     the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary 
     determines that the work is integral to the project.''; and
       (3) by aligning the remainder of the text of subparagraph 
     (A) (as designated by paragraph (1) of this section) with 
     subparagraph (B) (as added by paragraph (2) of this section).

     SEC. 5111. LEHIGH RIVER, LEHIGH COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.

       The Secretary shall use existing water quality data to 
     model the effects of the Francis E. Walter Dam, at different 
     water levels, to determine

[[Page H5858]]

     its impact on water and related resources in and along the 
     Lehigh River in Lehigh County, Pennsylvania. There is 
     authorized to be appropriated $500,000 to carry out this 
     section.

     SEC. 5112. NORTHEAST PENNSYLVANIA.

       Section 219(f)(11) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1992 (113 Stat. 335) is amended by striking ``and Monroe'' 
     and inserting ``Northumberland, Union, Snyder, and Montour''.

     SEC. 5113. UPPER SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN, PENNSYLVANIA AND 
                   NEW YORK.

       (a) Study and Strategy Development.--Section 567(a) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3787; 114 
     Stat. 2662) is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by inserting 
     ``and carry out'' after ``develop''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2) by striking ``$10,000,000.'' and 
     inserting ``$20,000,000, of which the Secretary may utilize 
     not more than $5,000,000 to design and construct feasible 
     pilot projects during the development of the strategy to 
     demonstrate alternative approaches for the strategy. The 
     total cost for any single pilot project may not exceed 
     $500,000. The Secretary shall evaluate the results of the 
     pilot projects and consider the results in the development of 
     the strategy.''.
       (b) Cooperative Agreements.--Section 567(c) of such Act 
     (114 Stat. 2662) is amended--
       (1) in the subsection heading by striking ``Cooperation'' 
     and inserting ``Cooperative''; and
       (2) in the first sentence--
       (A) by inserting ``and carrying out'' after ``developing''; 
     and
       (B) by striking ``cooperation'' and inserting ``cost-
     sharing and cooperative''.
       (c) Implementation of Strategy.--Section 567(d) of such Act 
     (114 Stat. 2663) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary'';
       (2) in the second sentence of paragraph (1) (as so 
     designated)--
       (A) by striking ``implement'' and inserting ``carry out''; 
     and
       (B) by striking ``implementing'' and inserting ``carrying 
     out'';
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Priority project.--In carrying out projects to 
     implement the strategy, the Secretary shall give priority to 
     the project for ecosystem restoration, Cooperstown, New York, 
     described in the Upper Susquehanna River Basin--Cooperstown 
     Area Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility Study, dated December 
     2004, prepared by the Corps of Engineers and the New York 
     State Department of Environmental Conservation.''; and
       (4) by aligning the remainder of the text of paragraph (1) 
     (as designated by paragraph (1) of this subsection) with 
     paragraph (2) (as added by paragraph (3) of this subsection).
       (d) Credit.--Section 567 of such Act (110 Stat. 3787; 114 
     Stat. 2662) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of a project under this section--
       ``(1) the cost of design and construction work carried out 
     by the non-Federal interest before the date of the 
     partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary 
     determines that the work is integral to the project; and
       ``(2) the cost of in-kind services and materials provided 
     for the project by the non-Federal interest.''.

     SEC. 5114. CANO MARTIN PENA, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO.

       The Secretary shall review a report prepared by the non-
     Federal interest concerning flood protection and 
     environmental restoration for Cano Martin Pena, San Juan, 
     Puerto Rico, and, if the Secretary determines that the report 
     meets the evaluation and design standards of the Corps of 
     Engineers and that the project is feasible, the Secretary may 
     carry out the project at a total cost of $130,000,000, with 
     an estimated Federal cost of $85,000,000 and an estimated 
     non-Federal cost of $45,000,000.

     SEC. 5115. BEAUFORT AND JASPER COUNTIES, SOUTH CAROLINA.

       The Secretary may accept from the Department of the Navy, 
     and may use, not to exceed $23,000,000 to assist the Beaufort 
     Jasper Water and Sewage Authority, South Carolina, with its 
     plan to consolidate civilian and military wastewater 
     treatment facilities.

     SEC. 5116. FRITZ LANDING, TENNESSEE.

       The Secretary shall--
       (1) conduct a study of the Fritz Landing Agricultural Spur 
     Levee, Tennessee, to determine the extent of levee 
     modifications that would be required to make the levee and 
     associated drainage structures consistent with Federal 
     standards;
       (2) design and construct such modifications; and
       (3) after completion of such modifications, incorporate the 
     levee into the project for flood control, Mississippi River 
     and Tributaries, authorized by the Act entitled ``An Act for 
     the control of floods on the Mississippi River and its 
     tributaries, and for other purposes'', approved May 15, 1928 
     (45 Stat. 534-539), commonly known as the ``Flood Control Act 
     of 1928''.

     SEC. 5117. J. PERCY PRIEST DAM AND RESERVOIR, TENNESSEE.

       The Secretary shall plan, design, and construct a trail 
     system at the J. Percy Priest Dam and Reservoir, Tennessee, 
     authorized by section 4 of the Act entitled ``An Act 
     authorizing the construction of certain public works on 
     rivers and harbors for flood control, and for other 
     purposes'', approved June 28, 1938 (52 Stat. 1217), including 
     design and construction of support facilities for public 
     health and safety associated with trail development. In 
     carrying out such improvements, the Secretary is authorized 
     to use funds made available by the State of Tennessee from 
     any Federal or State source, or both.

     SEC. 5118. TOWN CREEK, LENOIR CITY, TENNESSEE.

       The Secretary shall design and construct the project for 
     flood damage reduction designated as Alternative 4 in the 
     Town Creek, Lenoir City, Loudon County, Tennessee, 
     feasibility report of the Nashville district engineer, dated 
     November 2000, under the authority of section 205 of the 
     Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s), notwithstanding 
     section 1 of the Flood Control Act of June 22, 1936 (33 
     U.S.C. 701a; 49 Stat. 1570). The non-Federal share of the 
     cost of the project shall be subject to section 103(a) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(a)).

     SEC. 5119. TENNESSEE RIVER PARTNERSHIP.

       (a) In General.--As part of the operation and maintenance 
     of the project for navigation, Tennessee River, Tennessee, 
     Alabama, Mississippi, and Kentucky, authorized by the first 
     section of the River and Harbor Act of July 3, 1930 (46 Stat. 
     927), the Secretary may enter into a partnership with a 
     nonprofit entity to remove debris from the Tennessee River in 
     the vicinity of Knoxville, Tennessee, by providing a vessel 
     to such entity, at Federal expense, for such debris removal 
     purposes.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $500,000.

     SEC. 5120. UPPER MISSISSIPPI EMBAYMENT, TENNESSEE, ARKANSAS, 
                   AND MISSISSIPPI.

       The Secretary may participate with non-Federal and 
     nonprofit entities to address issues concerning managing 
     groundwater as a sustainable resource through the Upper 
     Mississippi Embayment, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Mississippi, 
     and coordinating the protection of groundwater supply and 
     groundwater quality with local surface water protection 
     programs. There is authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 
     to carry out this section.

     SEC. 5121. BOSQUE RIVER WATERSHED, TEXAS.

       (a) Comprehensive Plan.--The Secretary, in consultation 
     with appropriate Federal, State, and local entities, shall 
     develop, as expeditiously as practicable, a comprehensive 
     plan for development of new technologies and innovative 
     approaches for restoring, preserving, and protecting the 
     Bosque River watershed within Bosque, Hamilton, McLennan, and 
     Erath Counties, Texas. The Secretary, in cooperation with the 
     Secretary of Agriculture, may carry out activities identified 
     in the comprehensive plan to demonstrate practicable 
     alternatives for stabilization and enhancement of land and 
     water resources in the basin.
       (b) Services of Public Non-Profit Institutions and Other 
     Entities.--In carrying out subsection (a), the Secretary may 
     utilize, through contracts or other means, the services of 
     public non-profit institutions and such other entities as the 
     Secretary considers appropriate.
       (c) Non-Federal Share.--
       (1) In general.--The non-Federal share of the cost of 
     activities carried out under this section shall be 35 
     percent.
       (2) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of activities carried out under 
     this section the cost of planning, design, and construction 
     work completed by or on behalf of the non-Federal interests 
     for implementation of measures constructed with assistance 
     provided under this section. The amount of such credit shall 
     not exceed the non-Federal share of the cost of such 
     activities.
       (3) Operation and maintenance.--The non-Federal share of 
     the cost of operation and maintenance for measures 
     constructed with assistance provided under this section shall 
     be 100 percent.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000.

     SEC. 5122. DALLAS FLOODWAY, DALLAS, TEXAS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall review the Balanced 
     Vision Plan for the Trinity River Corridor, Dallas, Texas, 
     dated December 2003 and amended in March 2004, prepared by 
     the non-Federal interest for the project for flood damage 
     reduction and other purposes, Dallas Floodway, Dallas, Texas, 
     and, if the Secretary determines that the project is 
     technically sound and environmentally acceptable, shall carry 
     out the project at a total cost of $194,000,000, with an 
     estimated Federal cost of $126,100,000 and an estimated non-
     Federal cost of $67,900,000.
       (b) Credit.--
       (1) In-kind contributions.--The Secretary shall credit 
     toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the project the 
     cost of planning, design, and construction work carried out 
     by the non-Federal interest before the date of the 
     partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary 
     determines that the work is integral to the project.
       (2) Cash contributions.--The Secretary shall accept funds 
     provided by the non-Federal interests for use in carrying out 
     planning, engineering, and design for the project. The 
     Federal share of such planning, engineering, and design 
     carried out with non-Federal contributions shall be credited 
     against the non-Federal share of project costs.

     SEC. 5123. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS.

       (a) In General.--Section 575(a) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3789; 113 Stat. 311) is 
     amended by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``, whether or not such works or actions are 
     partially funded under the hazard mitigation grant program of 
     the Federal Emergency Management Agency''.
       (b) Specific Projects.--Section 575(b) of such Act (110 
     Stat. 3789; 113 Stat. 311) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3) by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (4) by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and

[[Page H5859]]

       (3) by adding the following:
       ``(5) the project for flood control, Upper White Oak Bayou, 
     Texas, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4125).''.

     SEC. 5124. ONION CREEK, TEXAS.

       In carrying out the study for the project for flood damage 
     reduction, recreation, and ecosystem restoration, Onion 
     Creek, Texas, the Secretary shall include the costs and 
     benefits associated with the relocation of flood-prone 
     residences in the study area for the project in the period 
     beginning 2 years before the date of initiation of the study 
     and ending on the date of execution of the partnership 
     agreement for construction of the project to the extent the 
     Secretary determines such relocations are compatible with the 
     project. The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal 
     share of the cost of the project the cost of relocation of 
     such flood-prone residences incurred by the non-Federal 
     interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the 
     project if the Secretary determines that the relocation of 
     such residences is integral to the project.

     SEC. 5125. DYKE MARSH, FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA.

       The Secretary shall accept funds from the National Park 
     Service to restore Dyke Marsh, Fairfax County, Virginia.

     SEC. 5126. EASTERN SHORE AND SOUTHWEST VIRGINIA.

       Section 219(f)(10) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``$20,000,000 for water supply and 
     wastewater infrastructure'' and inserting the following:
       ``(A) In general.--$20,000,000 for water supply, wastewater 
     infrastructure, and environmental restoration'';
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of the project the cost of work 
     carried out by the non-Federal interest before the date of 
     the partnership agreement for the project if the Secretary 
     determines that the work is integral to the project.''; and
       (3) by aligning the remainder of the text of subparagraph 
     (A) (as designated by paragraph (1) of this section) with 
     subparagraph (B) (as added by paragraph (2) of this section).

     SEC. 5127. JAMES RIVER, VIRGINIA.

       The Secretary shall accept funds from the National Park 
     Service to provide technical and project management 
     assistance for the James River, Virginia, with a particular 
     emphasis on locations along the shoreline adversely impacted 
     by Hurricane Isabel.

     SEC. 5128. BAKER BAY AND ILWACO HARBOR, WASHINGTON.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study of increased siltation 
     in Baker Bay and Ilwaco Harbor, Washington, to determine if 
     the siltation is the result of a Federal navigation project 
     (including diverted flows from the Columbia River) and, if 
     the Secretary determines that the siltation is the result of 
     a Federal navigation project, the Secretary shall carry out a 
     project to mitigate the siltation as part of maintenance of 
     the Federal navigation project.

     SEC. 5129. HAMILTON ISLAND CAMPGROUND, WASHINGTON.

       The Secretary is authorized to plan, design, and construct 
     a campground for Bonneville Lock and Dam at Hamilton Island 
     (also know as ``Strawberry Island'') in Skamania County, 
     Washington.

     SEC. 5130. PUGET ISLAND, WASHINGTON.

       The Secretary is directed to place dredged and other 
     suitable material along portions of the Columbia River 
     shoreline of Puget Island, Washington, between river miles 38 
     to 47 in order to protect economic and environmental 
     resources in the area from further erosion, at a Federal cost 
     of $1,000,000. This action shall be coordinated with 
     appropriate resource agencies and comply with applicable 
     Federal laws.

     SEC. 5131. WILLAPA BAY, WASHINGTON.

       Section 545 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 
     (114 Stat. 2675) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(1) by striking ``may construct'' and 
     inserting ``shall construct''; and
       (2) by inserting ``and ecosystem restoration'' after 
     ``erosion protection'' each place it appears.

     SEC. 5132. BLUESTONE, WEST VIRGINIA.

       Section 547 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 
     (114 Stat. 2676-2678) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(1)(A) by striking ``4 years'' and 
     inserting ``5 years'';
       (2) in subsection (b)(1)(B)(iii) by striking ``if all'' and 
     all that follows through ``facility'' and inserting 
     ``assurance project'';
       (3) in subsection (b)(1)(C) by striking ``and 
     construction'' and inserting ``, construction, and operation 
     and maintenance'';
       (4) by adding at the end of subsection (b) the following:
       ``(3) Operation and ownership.--The Tri-Cities Power 
     Authority shall be the owner and operator of the hydropower 
     facilities referred to in subsection (a).'';
       (5) in subsection (c)(1)--
       (A) by striking ``No'' and inserting ``Unless otherwise 
     provided, no'';
       (B) by inserting ``planning,'' before ``design''; and
       (C) by striking ``prior to'' and all that follows through 
     ``subsection (d)'';
       (6) in subsection (c)(2) by striking ``design'' and 
     inserting ``planning, design,'';
       (7) in subsection (d)--
       (A) by striking paragraphs (1) and (2) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) Approval.--The Secretary shall review the design and 
     construction activities for all features of the hydroelectric 
     project that pertain to and affect stability of the dam and 
     control the release of water from Bluestone Dam to ensure 
     that the quality of construction of those features meets all 
     standards established for similar facilities constructed by 
     the Secretary.'';
       (B) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2);
       (C) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (2) (as 
     so redesignated) and inserting ``, except that hydroelectric 
     power is no longer a project purpose of the facility. Water 
     flow releases from the hydropower facilities shall be 
     determined and directed by the Corps of Engineers.''; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Coordination.--Construction of the hydroelectric 
     generating facilities shall be coordinated with the dam 
     safety assurance project currently in the design and 
     construction phases.'';
       (8) in subsection (e) by striking ``in accordance'' and all 
     that follows through ``58 Stat. 890)'';
       (9) in subsection (f)--
       (A) by striking ``facility of the interconnected systems of 
     reservoirs operated by the Secretary'' each place it appears 
     and inserting ``facilities under construction under such 
     agreements''; and
       (B) by striking ``design'' and inserting ``planning, 
     design'';
       (10) in subsection (f)(2)--
       (A) by ``Secretary'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``Tri-Cities Power Authority''; and
       (B) by striking ``facilities referred to in subsection 
     (a)'' and inserting ``such facilities'';
       (11) by striking paragraph (1) of subsection (g) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(1) to arrange for the transmission of power to the 
     market or to construct such transmission facilities as 
     necessary to market the power produced at the facilities 
     referred to in subsection (a) with funds contributed by the 
     Tri-Cities Power Authority; and'';
       (12) in subsection (g)(2) by striking ``such facilities'' 
     and all that follows through ``the Secretary'' and inserting 
     ``the generating facility''; and
       (13) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) Tri-Cities Power Authority Defined.--In this section, 
     the `Tri-Cities Power Authority' refers to the entity 
     established by the City of Hinton, West Virginia, the City of 
     White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia, and the City of 
     Philippi, West Virginia, pursuant to a document entitled 
     `Second Amended and Restated Intergovernmental Agreement' 
     approved by the Attorney General of West Virginia on February 
     14, 2002.''.

     SEC. 5133. WEST VIRGINIA AND PENNSYLVANIA FLOOD CONTROL.

       (a) Cheat and Tygart River Basins, West Virginia.--Section 
     581(a)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 
     Stat. 3790; 113 Stat. 313) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``flood control measures'' and inserting 
     ``structural and nonstructural flood control, streambank 
     protection, stormwater management, and channel clearing and 
     modification measures''; and
       (2) by inserting ``with respect to measures that 
     incorporate levees or floodwalls'' before the semicolon.
       (b) Priority Communities.--Section 581(b) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3791) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (5);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (6) and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) Etna, Pennsylvania, in the Pine Creek watershed; and
       ``(8) Millvale, Pennsylvania, in the Girty's Run River 
     basin.''.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 581(c) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3791) is 
     amended by striking ``$12,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$90,000,000''.

     SEC. 5134. LOWER KANAWHA RIVER BASIN, WEST VIRGINIA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a watershed and river basin 
     assessment under section 729 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2267a) for the Lower 
     Kanawha River Basin, in the counties of Mason, Putnam, 
     Kanawha, Jackson, and Roane, West Virginia.

     SEC. 5135. CENTRAL WEST VIRGINIA.

       Section 571 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 
     (113 Stat. 371) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``Nicholas,''; and
       (B) by striking ``Gilmer,''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) 
     of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), for 
     any project undertaken under this section, a non-Federal 
     interest may include a nonprofit entity with the consent of 
     the affected local government.
       ``(j) Corps of Engineers Expenses.--Ten percent of the 
     amounts appropriated to carry out this section may be used by 
     the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer 
     projects under this section at 100 percent Federal 
     expense.''.

     SEC. 5136. SOUTHERN WEST VIRGINIA.

       (a) Corps of Engineers.--Section 340 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4856; 113 Stat. 320) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) Corps of Engineers.--Ten percent of the amounts 
     appropriated to carry out this section may be used by the 
     Corps of Engineers district offices to administer projects 
     under this section at 100 percent Federal expense.''.
       (b) Southern West Virginia Defined.--Section 340(f) of such 
     Act is amended by inserting ``Nicholas,'' after 
     ``Greenbrier,''.
       (c) Nonprofit Entities.--Section 340 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4856) is further amended 
     by adding at the end the following:

[[Page H5860]]

       ``(i) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) 
     of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), for 
     any project undertaken under this section, a non-Federal 
     interest may include a nonprofit entity with the consent of 
     the affected local government.''.

     SEC. 5137. JOHNSONVILLE DAM, JOHNSONVILLE, WISCONSIN.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study of the Johnsonville 
     Dam, Johnsonville, Wisconsin, to determine if the structure 
     prevents ice jams on the Sheboygan River.

     SEC. 5138. CONSTRUCTION OF FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS BY NON-
                   FEDERAL INTERESTS.

       Section 211(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1996 (33 U.S.C. 701b-13) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(9) Buffalo bayou, texas.--The project for flood control, 
     Buffalo Bayou, Texas.
       ``(10) Halls bayou, texas.--The project for flood control, 
     Halls Bayou, Texas.
       ``(11) St. paul downtown airport (holman field), st. paul, 
     minnesota.--The project for flood damage reduction, St. Paul 
     Downtown Airport (Holman Field), St. Paul, Minnesota.
       ``(12) Thornton reservoir, cook county, illinois.--The 
     project for flood control, Chicago Underflow Plan, Thornton 
     Reservoir, Cook County, Illinois.
       ``(13) Larose to golden meadow, louisiana.--The project for 
     flood control, Larose to Golden Meadow, Louisiana.
       ``(14) Perris, california.--The project for flood control, 
     Perris, California.''.

     SEC. 5139. USE OF FEDERAL HOPPER DREDGE FLEET.

       (a) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study on the 
     appropriate use of the Federal hopper dredge fleet.
       (b) Contents.--In conducting the study, the Secretary 
     shall--
       (1) obtain and analyze baseline data to determine the 
     appropriate use of the Federal hopper dredge fleet;
       (2) prepare a comprehensive analysis of the costs and 
     benefits of existing and proposed restrictions on the use of 
     the Federal hopper dredge fleet; and
       (3) assess the data and procedure used by the Secretary to 
     prepare the Government cost estimate for worked performed by 
     the Federal hopper dredge fleet.
       (c) Consultation.--The Secretary shall conduct the study in 
     consultation with ports, pilots, and representatives of the 
     private dredge industry.
       (d) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to 
     Congress a report on the results of the study.

                      TITLE VI--FLORIDA EVERGLADES

     SEC. 6001. HILLSBORO AND OKEECHOBEE AQUIFER, FLORIDA.

       (a) Modification.--The project for Hillsboro and Okeechobee 
     Aquifer, Florida, authorized by section 101(a)(16) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 276), is 
     modified to authorize the Secretary to carry out the project 
     at a total cost of $39,200,000.
       (b) Treatment.--Section 601(b)(2)(A) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2681) is amended--
       (1) in clause (i) by adding at the end the following: ``The 
     project for aquifer storage and recovery, Hillsboro and 
     Okeechobee Aquifer, Florida, authorized by section 101(a)(16) 
     of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 
     276), shall be treated for purposes of this section as being 
     in the Plan, except that operation and maintenance costs of 
     the project shall remain a non-Federal responsibility.''; and
       (2) in clause (iii) by inserting after ``subparagraph (B)'' 
     the following: ``and the project for aquifer storage and 
     recovery, Hillsboro and Okeechobee Aquifer''.

     SEC. 6002. PILOT PROJECTS.

       Section 601(b)(2)(B) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 2000 (114 Stat. 2681) is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding clause (i)--
       (A) by striking ``$69,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$71,200,000''; and
       (B) by striking ``$34,500,000'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``$35,600,000''; and
       (2) in clause (i)--
       (A) by striking ``$6,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$8,200,000''; and
       (B) by striking ``$3,000,000'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``$4,100,000''.

     SEC. 6003. MAXIMUM COST OF PROJECTS.

       Section 601(b)(2)(E) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 2000 (114 Stat. 2683) is amended by inserting ``and 
     section (d)'' before the period at the end.

     SEC. 6004. PROJECT AUTHORIZATION.

       Section 601(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     2000 (114 Stat. 2684) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(3) Project authorization.--The following project for 
     water resources development and conservation and other 
     purposes is authorized to be carried out by the Secretary 
     substantially in accordance with the plans, and subject to 
     the conditions, described in the report designated in this 
     paragraph:
       ``(A) Indian river lagoon south, florida.--The project for 
     ecosystem restoration, water supply, flood damage reduction, 
     and protection of water quality, Indian River Lagoon South, 
     Florida: Report of the Chief of Engineers dated August 6, 
     2004, at a total cost of $1,210,608,000, with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $605,304,000 and an estimated non-Federal 
     cost of $605,304,000.''.

     SEC. 6005. CREDIT.

       Section 601(e)(5)(B) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 2000 (114 Stat. 2685) is amended--
       (1) in clause (i)--
       (A) by striking ``or'' at the end of subclause (I);
       (B) by adding ``or'' at the end of subclause (II); and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(III) the credit is provided for work carried out before 
     the date of the partnership agreement between the Secretary 
     and the non-Federal sponsor, as defined in an agreement 
     between the Secretary and the non-Federal sponsor providing 
     for such credit;''; and
       (2) in clause (ii)--
       (A) by striking ``design agreement or the project 
     cooperation''; and
       (B) by inserting before the semicolon the following: ``, 
     including in the case of credit provided under clause 
     (i)(III) conditions relating to design and construction''.

     SEC. 6006. OUTREACH AND ASSISTANCE.

       Section 601(k) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     2000 (114 Stat. 2691) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(3) Maximum expenditures.--The Secretary may expend up to 
     $3,000,000 per fiscal year for fiscal years beginning after 
     September 30, 2004, to carry out this subsection.''.

     SEC. 6007. CRITICAL RESTORATION PROJECTS.

       Section 528(b)(3)(C) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1996 (110 Stat. 3769; 113 Stat. 286) is amended--
       (1) in clause (i) by striking ``$75,000,000'' and all that 
     follows through ``2003'' and inserting ``$95,000,000''; and
       (2) in clause (ii) by striking ``$25,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$30,000,000''.

     SEC. 6008. DEAUTHORIZATIONS.

       As of the date of enactment of this Act, the following 
     projects are not authorized:
       (1) The uncompleted portions of the project authorized by 
     section 601(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2682), C-44 Basin Storage Reservoir of 
     the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan.
       (2) The uncompleted portions of the project authorized by 
     section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 740), 
     Martin County, Florida modifications to the Central and South 
     Florida Project, as contained in Senate Document 101, 90th 
     Congress, 2d Session.
       (3) The uncompleted portions of the project authorized by 
     section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 740), 
     East Coast Backpumping, St. Lucie--Martin County, Spillway 
     Structure S-311 of the Central and South Florida Project, as 
     contained in House Document 369, 90th Congress, 2d Session.

     SEC. 6009. MODIFIED WATER DELIVERY.

       (a) Tamiami Trail.--The Secretary shall not carry out a 
     project for raising Tamiami Trail, Florida, until such date 
     as the project is specifically authorized by law.
       (b) Reports.--The Secretary shall submit to Congress 
     reports recommending specific authorizations in law for--
       (1) changes to the project to improve water deliveries to 
     Everglades National Park, authorized by section 104 of the 
     Everglades National Park Protection and Expansion Act of 1989 
     (16 U.S.C. 410r-8), if necessary;
       (2) a project to raise Tamiami Trail, Florida, if 
     necessary; and
       (3) a combined structural and operational plan for the C-
     111 Canal Project, authorized by section 203 of the Flood 
     Control Act of 1948 (62 Stat. 1176), and modified by section 
     203 of the Flood Control Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 740), and 
     further modified by section 316 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3715), and the project to 
     improve water deliveries to Everglades National Park.

                   TITLE VII--LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA

     SEC. 7001. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title, the following definitions apply:
       (1) Coastal louisiana ecosystem.--The term ``coastal 
     Louisiana ecosystem'' means the coastal area of Louisiana 
     from the Sabine River on the west and the Pearl River on the 
     east, including those parts of the Deltaic Plain and the 
     Chenier Plain included within the study area of the Plan.
       (2) Governor.--The term ``Governor'' means the Governor of 
     the State of Louisiana.
       (3) Plan.--The term ``Plan'' means the report of the Chief 
     of Engineers for ecosystem restoration for the Louisiana 
     Coastal Area dated January 31, 2005.
       (4) Task force.--The term ``Task Force'' means the Coastal 
     Louisiana Ecosystem Protection and Restoration Task Force 
     established by section 7003.

     SEC. 7002. ADDITIONAL REPORTS.

       (a) Mississippi River Gulf Outlet.--Not later than 2 years 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall 
     submit to Congress a report recommending modifications to the 
     Mississippi River Gulf Outlet to address navigation, salt 
     water intrusion, channel bank erosion, mitigation, and 
     threats to life and property.
       (b) Chenier Plain.--Not later than July 1, 2006, the 
     Secretary shall submit to Congress a report recommending 
     near-term ecosystem restoration measures for the Chenier 
     Plain, Louisiana.
       (c) Long-Term Plan.--
       (1) Comprehensive framework.--Not later than one year after 
     the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall 
     submit to Congress a recommended framework for developing a 
     long-term program that provides for the comprehensive 
     protection, conservation, and restoration of the wetlands, 
     estuaries (including Barataria-Terrebonne Estuary), barrier 
     islands, and related land and features that protect critical 
     resources, habitat, and infrastructure in the coastal 
     Louisiana ecosystem from the impacts of coastal storms, 
     hurricanes, erosion, and subsidence.
       (2) Consideration.--In developing the recommended 
     framework, the Secretary shall consider integrating other 
     Federal or State projects

[[Page H5861]]

     or activities within the coastal Louisiana ecosystem into the 
     long-term restoration program.
       (3) Comprehensive plan.--
       (A) Deadline.--Not later than five years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress 
     a feasibility study recommending a comprehensive, long-term, 
     plan for the protection, conservation, and restoration of the 
     coastal Louisiana ecosystem.
       (B) Integration.--The comprehensive, long-term, plan shall 
     include recommendations for the integration of ongoing 
     Federal and State projects, programs, and activities.

     SEC. 7003. COASTAL LOUISIANA ECOSYSTEM PROTECTION AND 
                   RESTORATION TASK FORCE.

       (a) Establishment and Membership.--There is established the 
     Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem Protection and Restoration Task 
     Force, which shall consist of the following members (or, in 
     the case of the head of a Federal agency, a designee at the 
     level of Assistant Secretary or an equivalent level):
       (1) The Secretary.
       (2) The Secretary of the Interior.
       (3) The Secretary of Commerce.
       (4) The Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency.
       (5) The Secretary of Agriculture.
       (6) The Secretary of Transportation.
       (7) The Secretary of Energy.
       (8) The Director of the Federal Emergency Management 
     Agency.
       (9) The Commandant of the Coast Guard.
       (10) The Coastal Advisor to the Governor.
       (11) The Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Natural 
     Resources.
       (12) A representative of the Louisiana Governor's Advisory 
     Commission on Coastal Restoration and Conservation.
       (b) Duties of Task Force.--The Task Force shall--
       (1) make recommendations to the Secretary regarding 
     policies, strategies, plans, programs, projects, and 
     activities for addressing protection, conservation, and 
     restoration of the coastal Louisiana ecosystem;
       (2) prepare financial plans for each of the agencies 
     represented on the Task Force for funds proposed for the 
     protection, conservation, and restoration of the coastal 
     Louisiana ecosystem under authorities of each agency, 
     including--
       (A) recommendations that identify funds from current agency 
     missions and budgets; and
       (B) recommendations for coordinating individual agency 
     budget requests; and
       (3) submit to Congress a biennial report that summarizes 
     the activities of the Task Force and progress towards the 
     purposes set forth in section 7002(c)(1).
       (c) Procedures and Advice.--The Task Force shall--
       (1) implement procedures to facilitate public participation 
     with regard to Task Force activities, including--
       (A) providing advance notice of meetings;
       (B) providing adequate opportunity for public input and 
     comment;
       (C) maintaining appropriate records; and
       (D) making a record of proceedings available for public 
     inspection; and
       (2) establish such working groups as are necessary to 
     assist the Task Force in carrying out its duties.
       (d) Compensation.--Members of the Task Force or any 
     associated working group may not receive compensation for 
     their services as members of the Task Force or working group.
       (e) Travel Expenses.--Travel expenses incurred by members 
     of the Task Force, or members of an associated working group, 
     in the performance of their service on the Task Force or 
     working group shall be paid by the agency or entity that the 
     member represents.
       (f) Application of Federal Advisory Committee Act.--The 
     Task Force and any working group established by the Task 
     Force shall not be considered an advisory committee under the 
     Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.).

     SEC. 7004. INVESTIGATIONS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct feasibility 
     studies for future authorization and large-scale studies 
     substantially in accordance with the Plan at a total cost 
     $130,000,000.
       (b) Existing Federally Authorized Water Resources 
     Projects.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall review existing 
     federally authorized water resources projects in the coastal 
     Louisiana ecosystem in order to determine their consistency 
     with the purposes of this section and whether the projects 
     have the potential to contribute to ecosystem restoration 
     through revised operations or modified project features.
       (2) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
     $10,000,000 to carry out this subsection.

     SEC. 7005. CONSTRUCTION.

       (a) Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem Program.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out a coastal 
     Louisiana ecosystem program substantially in accordance with 
     the Plan, at a total cost of $50,000,000.
       (2) Objectives.--The objectives of the program shall be 
     to--
       (A) identify uncertainties about the physical, chemical, 
     geological, biological, and cultural baseline conditions in 
     the coastal Louisiana ecosystem;
       (B) improve the State of knowledge of the physical, 
     chemical, geological, biological, and cultural baseline 
     conditions in the coastal Louisiana ecosystem; and
       (C) identify and develop technologies, models, and methods 
     that could be useful in carrying out the purposes of this 
     title.
       (3) Working groups.--The Secretary may establish such 
     working groups as are necessary to assist in carrying out 
     this subsection.
       (4) Procedures and advice.--In carrying out this 
     subsection, the Secretary is authorized to enter into 
     contracts and cooperative agreements with scientific and 
     engineering experts in the restoration of aquatic and marine 
     ecosystems, including a consortium of academic institutions 
     in Louisiana and Mississippi for coastal restoration and 
     enhancement through science and technology.
       (b) Demonstration Projects.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), the 
     Secretary may carry out projects substantially in accordance 
     with the Plan for the purpose of resolving critical areas of 
     scientific or technological uncertainty related to the 
     implementation of the comprehensive plan to be developed 
     under section 7002(c)(3).
       (2) Maximum cost.--
       (A) Total cost.--The total cost for planning, design, and 
     construction of all demonstration projects under this 
     subsection shall not exceed $100,000,000.
       (B) Individual project.--The total cost of an individual 
     demonstration project under this subsection shall not exceed 
     $25,000,000.
       (c) Initial Projects.--The Secretary is authorized to carry 
     out the following projects substantially in accordance with 
     the Plan:
       (1) Mississippi River Gulf Outlet Environmental Restoration 
     at a total cost of $105,300,000.
       (2) Small Diversion at Hope Canal at a total cost of 
     $68,600,000.
       (3) Barataria Basin Barrier Shoreline Restoration at a 
     total cost of $242,600,000.
       (4) Small Bayou Lafourche Reintroduction at a total cost of 
     $133,500,000.
       (5) Medium Diversion at Myrtle Grove with Dedicated 
     Dredging at a total cost of $278,300,000.
       (d) Beneficial Use of Dredged Material.--The Secretary, 
     substantially in accordance with the Plan, shall implement in 
     the coastal Louisiana ecosystem a program for the beneficial 
     use of material dredged from federally maintained waterways 
     at a total cost of $100,000,000.

     SEC. 7006. NON-FEDERAL COST SHARE.

       (a) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of a study authorized by section 
     7004 or a project authorized by section 7005 the cost of work 
     carried out in the coastal Louisiana ecosystem by the non-
     Federal interest before the date of the partnership agreement 
     for the study or project, as the case may be, if the 
     Secretary determines that the work is integral to the study 
     or project, as the case may be.
       (b) Treatment of Credit Between Projects.--Any credit 
     provided under this section toward the non-Federal share of 
     the cost of a study authorized by section 7004 or a project 
     authorized by section 7005 may be applied toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of any other study authorized by 
     section 7004 or any other project authorized by section 7005, 
     as the case may be.
       (c) Periodic Monitoring.--
       (1) In general.--To ensure that the contributions of the 
     non-Federal interest equal the non-Federal share of the cost 
     of a study authorized by section 7004 or a project authorized 
     by section 7005, during each 5-year period beginning after 
     the date of commencement of the first study under section 
     7004 or construction of the first project under section 7005, 
     as the case may be, the Secretary shall--
       (A) monitor the non-Federal provision for each study 
     authorized by section 7004 or each project authorized by 
     section 7005, as the case may be, of cash, in-kind services 
     and materials, and land, easements, rights-of-way, 
     relocations, and disposal areas; and
       (B) manage, to the extent practicable, the requirement of 
     the non-Federal interest to provide for each such project 
     cash, in-kind services and materials, and land, easements, 
     rights-of-way, relocations, and disposal areas.
       (2) Other monitoring.--The Secretary shall conduct 
     monitoring separately for the study phase, construction 
     phase, the preconstruction engineering and design phase, and 
     the planning phase for each project authorized on or after 
     date of enactment of this Act for all or any portion of the 
     coastal Louisiana ecosystem.
       (d) Audits.--Credit for land, easements, rights-of-way, 
     relocations, and disposal areas (including land value and 
     incidental costs) provided under this section, and the cost 
     of work provided under this section, shall be subject to 
     audit by the Secretary.

     SEC. 7007. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 209 of the Flood 
     Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962-2) or any other provision 
     of law, in carrying out any project or activity authorized by 
     or under this title or any other provision of law to protect, 
     conserve, and restore the coastal Louisiana ecosystem, the 
     Secretary may determine that--
       (1) the project or activity is justified by the 
     environmental benefits derived by the coastal Louisiana 
     ecosystem; and
       (2) no further economic justification for the project or 
     activity is required if the Secretary determines that the 
     project or activity is cost effective.
       (b) Limitation on Applicability.--Subsection (a) shall not 
     apply to any separable element intended to produce benefits 
     that are predominantly unrelated to the protection, 
     conservation, and restoration of the coastal Louisiana 
     ecosystem.

     SEC. 7008. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.

       (a) Existing Authority.--Except as otherwise provided in 
     this title, nothing in this title affects any authority in 
     effect on the date of enactment of this Act, or any 
     requirement relating to the participation in protection, 
     conservation, and restoration projects and activities in the 
     coastal Louisiana ecosystem, including projects and 
     activities referred to in subsection (a) of--
       (1) the Department of the Army;

[[Page H5862]]

       (2) the Department of the Interior;
       (3) the Department of Commerce;
       (4) the Environmental Protection Agency;
       (5) the Department of Agriculture;
       (6) the Department of Transportation;
       (7) the Department of Energy;
       (8) the Federal Emergency Management Agency;
       (9) the Coast Guard; and
       (10) the State of Louisiana.
       (b) New Authority.--Nothing in this title confers any new 
     regulatory authority on any Federal or non-Federal entity 
     that carries out any project or activity authorized by or 
     under this title.

    TITLE VIII--UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND ILLINOIS WATERWAY SYSTEM

     SEC. 8001. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title, the following definitions apply:
       (1) Plan.--The term ``Plan'' means the project for 
     navigation and ecosystem improvements for the Upper 
     Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System: Report of the 
     Chief of Engineers, dated December 15, 2004.
       (2) Upper mississippi river and illinois waterway system.--
     The term ``Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway 
     System'' means the projects for navigation and ecosystem 
     restoration authorized by Congress for--
       (A) the segment of the Mississippi River from the 
     confluence with the Ohio River, River Mile 0.0, to Upper St. 
     Anthony Falls Lock in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota, River 
     Mile 854.0; and
       (B) the Illinois Waterway from its confluence with the 
     Mississippi River at Grafton, Illinois, River Mile 0.0, to 
     T.J. O'Brien Lock in Chicago, Illinois, River Mile 327.0.

     SEC. 8002. NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS AND RESTORATION.

       Except as modified by this title, the Secretary shall 
     undertake navigation improvements and restoration of the 
     ecosystem for the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Water 
     System substantially in accordance with the Plan and subject 
     to the conditions described therein.

     SEC. 8003. AUTHORIZATION OF CONSTRUCTION OF NAVIGATION 
                   IMPROVEMENTS.

       (a) Small Scale and Nonstructural Measures.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall--
       (A) construct mooring facilities at Locks 12, 14, 18, 20, 
     22, 24, and LaGrange Lock;
       (B) provide switchboats at Locks 20 through 25; and
       (C) conduct development and testing of an appointment 
     scheduling system.
       (2) Authorization of appropriations.--The total cost of 
     projects authorized under this subsection shall be 
     $235,000,000. Such costs shall be paid \1/2\ from amounts 
     appropriated from the general fund of the Treasury and \1/2\ 
     from amounts appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust 
     Fund.
       (b) New Locks.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall construct new 1,200-
     foot locks at Locks 20, 21, 22, 24, and 25 on the Upper 
     Mississippi River and at LaGrange Lock and Peoria Lock on the 
     Illinois Waterway.
       (2) Authorization of appropriations.--The total cost of 
     projects authorized under this subsection shall be 
     $1,795,000,000. Such costs shall be paid \1/2\ from amounts 
     appropriated from the general fund of the Treasury and \1/2\ 
     from amounts appropriated from the Inland Waterways Trust 
     Fund.
       (c) Concurrence.--The mitigation required for the projects 
     authorized under subsections (a) and (b), including any 
     acquisition of lands or interests in lands, shall be 
     undertaken or acquired concurrently with lands and interests 
     in lands for the projects authorized under subsections (a) 
     and (b), and physical construction required for the purposes 
     of mitigation shall be undertaken concurrently with the 
     physical construction of such projects.

     SEC. 8004. ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION AUTHORIZATION.

       (a) Operation.--To ensure the environmental sustainability 
     of the existing Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway 
     System, the Secretary shall modify, consistent with 
     requirements to avoid adverse effects on navigation, the 
     operation of the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois 
     Waterway System to address the cumulative environmental 
     impacts of operation of the system and improve the ecological 
     integrity of the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois River.
       (b) Ecosystem Restoration Projects.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out, consistent 
     with requirements to avoid adverse effects on navigation, 
     ecosystem restoration projects to attain and maintain the 
     sustainability of the ecosystem of the Upper Mississippi 
     River and Illinois River in accordance with the general 
     framework outlined in the Plan.
       (2) Projects included.--Ecosystem restoration projects may 
     include--
       (A) island building;
       (B) construction of fish passages;
       (C) floodplain restoration;
       (D) water level management (including water drawdown);
       (E) backwater restoration;
       (F) side channel restoration;
       (G) wing dam and dike restoration and modification;
       (H) island and shoreline protection;
       (I) topographical diversity;
       (J) dam point control;
       (K) use of dredged material for environmental purposes;
       (L) tributary confluence restoration;
       (M) spillway, dam, and levee modification; and
       (N) land and easement acquisition.
       (3) Cost sharing.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraphs (B) 
     and (C), the Federal share of the cost of carrying out an 
     ecosystem restoration project under this subsection shall be 
     65 percent.
       (B) Exception for certain restoration projects.--In the 
     case of a project under this section for ecosystem 
     restoration, the Federal share of the cost of carrying out 
     the project shall be 100 percent if the project--
       (i) is located below the ordinary high water mark or in a 
     connected backwater;
       (ii) modifies the operation of structures for navigation; 
     or
       (iii) is located on federally owned land.
       (C) Savings clause.--Nothing in this subsection affects the 
     applicability of section 906(e) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283(e)).
       (D) Nongovernmental organizations.--Notwithstanding section 
     221(b) of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-
     5(b)), for any project carried out under this title, a non-
     Federal sponsor may include a nonprofit entity, with the 
     consent of the affected local government.
       (4) Land acquisition.--The Secretary may acquire land or an 
     interest in land for an ecosystem restoration project from a 
     willing seller through conveyance of--
       (A) fee title to the land; or
       (B) a flood plain conservation easement.
       (c) Ecosystem Restoration Preconstruction Engineering and 
     Design.--
       (1) Restoration design.--Before initiating the construction 
     of any individual ecosystem restoration project, the 
     Secretary shall--
       (A) establish ecosystem restoration goals and identify 
     specific performance measures designed to demonstrate 
     ecosystem restoration;
       (B) establish the without-project condition or baseline for 
     each performance indicator; and
       (C) for each separable element of the ecosystem 
     restoration, identify specific target goals for each 
     performance indicator.
       (2) Outcomes.--Performance measures identified under 
     paragraph (1)(A) shall include specific measurable 
     environmental outcomes, such as changes in water quality, 
     hydrology, or the well-being of indicator species the 
     population and distribution of which are representative of 
     the abundance and diversity of ecosystem-dependent aquatic 
     and terrestrial species.
       (3) Restoration design.--Restoration design carried out as 
     part of ecosystem restoration shall include a monitoring plan 
     for the performance measures identified under paragraph 
     (1)(A), including--
       (A) a timeline to achieve the identified target goals; and
       (B) a timeline for the demonstration of project completion.
       (d) Specific Projects Authorization.--
       (1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out this subsection $1,580,000,000, of which not more 
     than $226,000,000 shall be available for projects described 
     in subsection (b)(2)(B) and not more than $43,000,000 shall 
     be available for projects described in subsection (b)(2)(J).
       (2) Limitation on available funds.--Of the amounts made 
     available under paragraph (1), not more than $35,000,000 in 
     any fiscal year may be used for land acquisition under 
     subsection (b)(4).
       (3) Individual project limit.--Other than for projects 
     described in subparagraphs (B) and (J) of subsection (b)(2), 
     the total cost of any single project carried out under this 
     subsection shall not exceed $25,000,000.
       (e) Implementation Reports.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than June 30, 2007, and every 4 
     years thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee 
     on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives an implementation report that--
       (A) includes baselines, milestones, goals, and priorities 
     for ecosystem restoration projects; and
       (B) measures the progress in meeting the goals.
       (2) Advisory panel.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall appoint and convene an 
     advisory panel to provide independent guidance in the 
     development of each implementation report under paragraph 
     (1).
       (B) Panel members.--Panel members shall include--
       (i) 1 representative of each of the State resource agencies 
     (or a designee of the Governor of the State) from each of the 
     States of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin;
       (ii) 1 representative of the Department of Agriculture;
       (iii) 1 representative of the Department of Transportation;
       (iv) 1 representative of the United States Geological 
     Survey;
       (v) 1 representative of the United States Fish and Wildlife 
     Service;
       (vi) 1 representative of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency;
       (vii) 1 representative of affected landowners;
       (viii) 2 representatives of conservation and environmental 
     advocacy groups; and
       (ix) 2 representatives of agriculture and industry advocacy 
     groups.
       (C) Chairperson.--The Secretary shall serve as chairperson 
     of the advisory panel.
       (D) Application of federal advisory committee act.--The 
     Advisory Panel and any working group established by the 
     Advisory Panel shall not be considered an advisory committee 
     under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.).
       (f) Ranking System.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Advisory Panel, shall develop a system to rank proposed 
     projects.
       (2) Priority.--The ranking system shall give greater weight 
     to projects that restore natural river processes, including 
     those projects listed in subsection (b)(2).

     SEC. 8005. COMPARABLE PROGRESS.

       (a) In General.--As the Secretary conducts pre-engineering, 
     design, and construction for

[[Page H5863]]

     projects authorized under this title, the Secretary shall--
       (1) select appropriate milestones; and
       (2) determine, at the time of such selection, whether the 
     projects are being carried out at comparable rates.
       (b) No Comparable Rate.--If the Secretary determines under 
     subsection (a)(2) that projects authorized under this 
     subsection are not moving toward completion at a comparable 
     rate, annual funding requests for the projects shall be 
     adjusted to ensure that the projects move toward completion 
     at a comparable rate in the future.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the committee amendment is in 
order except those printed in House Report 109-160. Each amendment may 
be offered only in the order printed in the report, by a Member 
designated in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable 
for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by 
the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and 
shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in House 
Report 109-160.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Duncan

  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Duncan:
       Page 11, line 7, insert ``(a) Projects With Chief's 
     Report.--'' before ``Except as''.
       Page 12, line 16, strike ``shily''' and insert ``shly'''.
       Page 12, line 18, strike ``Shily' '' and insert ``Shly' ''.
       Page 21, after line 21, insert the following:
       (b) Projects Subject to Final Report.--The following 
     projects for water resources development and conservation and 
     other purposes are authorized to be carried out by the 
     Secretary substantially in accordance with the plans, and 
     subject to the conditions, recommended in a final report of 
     the Chief of Engineers if a favorable report of the Chief is 
     completed not later than December 31, 2005:
       (1) Des moines/raccoon rivers, iowa.-- The project for 
     flood damage reduction, Des Moines/Raccoon Rivers, Iowa, at a 
     total cost of $10,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $6,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,500,000.
       (2) Port of iberia, louisiana.--The project for navigation, 
     Port of Iberia, Louisiana, at a total cost of $194,000,000, 
     with an estimated Federal cost of $123,000,000 and an 
     estimated non-Federal cost of $71,000,000.
       (3) Raritan and sandy hook bays, union beach, new jersey.--
     The project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Raritan 
     and Sandy Hook Bays, Union Beach, New Jersey, at a total cost 
     of $99,095,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $64,412,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $34,683,000.
       (4) Hocking river, monday creek sub-basin, ohio.--The 
     project for environmental restoration, Hocking River, Monday 
     Creek Sub-basin, Ohio, at a total cost of $20,000,000, with 
     an estimated Federal cost of $17,000,000 and an estimated 
     non-Federal cost of $3,000,000.
       (5) Pawley's island, south carolina.--The project for 
     hurricane and storm damage reduction, Pawley's Island, South 
     Carolina, at a total cost of $8,813,000, with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $4,133,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
     of $4,680,000.
       Page 23, strike lines 9 through 13 and redesignate 
     subsequent paragraphs accordingly.
       Page 24, after line 18, insert the following:
       (25) Dry and otter creeks, cortland, new york.--Project for 
     flood damage reduction, Dry and Otter Creeks, Cortland, New 
     York.
       Page 27, line 8, strike ``(a)(21)'' and insert ``(a)(19)''.
       Page 27, line 19, strike ``(a)(18)'' and insert 
     ``(a)(16)''.
       Page 28, line 1, strike ``(a)(35)'' and insert ``(a)(34)''.
       Page 29, after line 17, insert the following:
       (10) Dry and otter creeks, cortland county, new york.--
     Project for emergency streambank protection, Dry and Otter 
     Creeks, Cortland County, New York.
       Page 29, after line 24, insert the following:
       (12) Owego creek, tioga county, new york.--Project for 
     emergency streambank protection, Owego Creek, Tioga County, 
     New York.
       Page 40, line 1, after the second comma, insert ``Shore 
     Parkway Greenway,''.
       Page 83, strike line 20 and all that follows through line 
     18 on page 85 and insert the following:
       (a) Determination of Certain National Benefits.--
       (1) Sense of congress.--It is the sense of Congress that, 
     consistent with the Economic and Environmental Principles and 
     Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources 
     Implementation Studies (1983), the Secretary may select a 
     water resources project alternative that does not maximize 
     net national economic development benefits or net national 
     ecosystem restoration benefits if there is an overriding 
     reason based on other Federal, State, local, or international 
     concerns.
       (2) Flood damage reduction, navigation, and hurricane storm 
     damage reduction projects.--With respect to a water resources 
     project the primary purpose of which is flood damage 
     reduction, navigation, or hurricane and storm damage 
     reduction, an overriding reason for selecting a plan other 
     than the plan that maximizes net national economic 
     development benefits may be if the Secretary determines, and 
     the non-Federal interest concurs, that an alternative plan is 
     feasible and achieves the project purposes while providing 
     greater ecosystem restoration benefits.
       (3) Ecosystem restoration projects.--With respect to a 
     water resources project the primary purpose of which is 
     ecosystem restoration, an overriding reason for selecting a 
     plan other than the plan that maximizes net national 
     ecosystem restoration benefits may be if the Secretary 
     determines, and the non-Federal interest concurs, that an 
     alternative plan is feasible and achieves the project 
     purposes while providing greater economic development 
     benefits.
       Page 110, after line 20, insert the following:

     SECTION 2041. SUPPORT OF ARMY CIVIL WORKS PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 2361 of title 10, 
     United States Code, the Secretary is authorized to provide 
     assistance through contracts, cooperative agreements, and 
     grants to--
       (1) the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, for 
     establishment and operation of the Southeastern Water 
     Resources Institute to study sustainable development and 
     utilization of water resources in the southeastern United 
     States;
       (2) Lewis and Clark Community College, Illinois, for the 
     Great Rivers National Research and Education Center 
     (including facilities that have been or will be constructed 
     at one or more locations in the vicinity of the confluence of 
     the Illinois River, the Missouri River, and the Mississippi 
     River), a collaborative effort of Lewis and Clark Community 
     College, the University of Illinois, the Illinois Department 
     of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences, and other 
     entities, for the study of river ecology, developing 
     watershed and river management strategies, and educating 
     students and the public on river issues; and
       (3) the University of Texas at Dallas for support and 
     operation of the International Center for Decision and Risk 
     Analysis to study risk analysis and control methods for 
     transboundary water resources management in the southwestern 
     United States and other international water resources 
     management problems.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out subsection 
     (a)(1) $5,000,000, to carry out subsection (a)(2) $5,000,000, 
     and to carry out subsection (a)(3) $5,000,000. Such sums 
     shall remain available until expended.
       Page 110, after line 22, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent sections accordingly):

     SEC. 3001. COOK INLET, ALASKA.

       Section 118(a)(2) of the Energy and Water Development 
     Appropriations Act, 2005 (title I of division C of the 
     Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005; 118 Stat. 2945) is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting ``maximum navigational'' before ``draft'';
       (2) by striking ``greater than''; and
       (3) by inserting ``or greater'' after ``35 feet''.
       Page 125, after line 23, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent sections accordingly):

     SEC. 3032. SOUTH PLATTE RIVER BASIN, COLORADO.

       Section 808 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
     (100 Stat. 4168) is amended by striking ``agriculture,'' and 
     inserting ``agriculture, environmental restoration,''.
       Page 130, line 17, strike ``costs it'' and insert ``the 
     Federal share of the costs the non-Federal interest''.
       Page 130, line 18, after ``project'' insert ``(including 
     environmental mitigation costs and costs incurred for 
     incomplete usable increments of the project)''.
       Page 134, strike lines 10 through 22 and insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 3046. BEARDSTOWN COMMUNITY BOAT HARBOR, BEARDSTOWN, 
                   ILLINOIS.

       (a) In General.--The project for navigation, Muscooten Bay, 
     Illinois River, Beardstown Community Boat Harbor, Beardstown, 
     Illinois, constructed under section 107 of the River and 
     Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), is modified--
       (1) to include the channel between the harbor and the 
     Illinois River; and
       (2) to direct the Secretary to enter into a partnership 
     agreement with the city of Beardstown to replace the local 
     cooperation agreement dated August 18, 1983, with the 
     Beardstown Community Park District.
       (b) Terms of Partnership Agreement.--The partnership 
     agreement referred to in subsection (a) shall include the 
     same rights and responsibilities as the local cooperation 
     agreement dated August 18, 1983, changing only the identity 
     of the non-Federal sponsor.
       Page 134, line 23, strike ``(b)'' and insert ``(c)''.
       Page 159, strike section 3093 and insert the following:

     SEC. 3093. ORCHARD BEACH, BRONX, NEW YORK.

       Section 554 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
     (110 Stat. 3781) is amended by striking ``maximum Federal 
     cost of $5,200,000'' and inserting ``total cost of 
     $20,000,000''.
       Page 190, after line 8, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent subsections accordingly):

[[Page H5864]]

       (c) Calcasieu Ship Channel, Louisiana.--
       (1) In general.--At such time as Pujo Heirs and Westland 
     Corporation conveys all right, title, and interest in and to 
     the real property described in paragraph (2)(A) to the United 
     States, the Secretary shall convey all right, title, and 
     interest of the United States in and to the real property 
     described in paragraph (2)(B) to Pujo Heirs and Westland 
     Corporation.
       (2) Land description.--The parcels of land referred to in 
     paragraph (1) are the following:
       (A) Non-federal land.--An equivalent area to the real 
     property described in subparagraph (B). The parcels that may 
     be exchanged include Tract 128E, Tract 129E, Tract 131E, 
     Tract 41A, Tract 42, Tract 132E, Tract 130E, Tract 134E, 
     Tract 133E-3, Tract 140E, or some combination thereof.
       (B) Federal land.--An area in Cameron Parish, Louisiana, 
     known as portions of Government Tract Numbers 139E-2 and 48 
     (both tracts on the west shore of the Calcasieu Ship 
     Channel), and known as Corps of Engineers Dredge Material 
     Placement Area O.
       (3) Conditions.--The exchange of real property under 
     paragraph (1) shall be subject to the following conditions:
       (A) Deeds.--
       (i) Non-federal land.--The conveyance of the real property 
     described in paragraph (2)(A) to the Secretary shall be by a 
     warranty deed acceptable to the Secretary.
       (ii) Federal land.--The conveyance of the real property 
     described in paragraph (2)(B) to Pujo Heirs and Westland 
     Corporation shall be by quitclaim deed.
       (B) Time limit for exchange.--The land exchange under 
     paragraph (1) shall be completed not later than 1 year after 
     the date of enactment of this Act.
       (4) Value of properties.--If the appraised fair market 
     value, as determined by the Secretary, of the real property 
     conveyed to Pujo Heirs and Westland Corporation by the 
     Secretary under paragraph (1) exceeds the appraised fair 
     market value, as determined by the Secretary, of the real 
     property conveyed to the United States by Pujo Heirs and 
     Westland Corporation under paragraph (1), Pujo Heirs and 
     Westland Corporation shall make a payment to the United 
     States equal to the excess in cash or a cash equivalent that 
     is satisfactory to the Secretary.
       Page 201, after line 24, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent sections accordingly):

     SEC. 4005. DELAWARE RIVER.

       The Secretary shall review, in consultation with the 
     Delaware River Basin Commission and the States of Delaware, 
     Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York, the report of the 
     Chief of Engineers on the Delaware River, published as House 
     Document Numbered 522, 87th Congress, Second Session, as it 
     relates to the Mid-Delaware River Basin from Wilmington to 
     Port Jervis, and any other pertinent reports (including the 
     strategy for resolution of interstate flow management issues 
     in the Delaware River Basin dated August 2004 and the 
     National Park Service Lower Delaware River Management Plan 
     (1997-1999)), with a view to determining whether any 
     modifications of recommendations contained in the first 
     report referred to are advisable at the present time, in the 
     interest of flood damage reduction, ecosystem restoration, 
     and other related problems.
       Page 213, lines 11 and 12, strike ``services, materials, 
     supplies, or other in-kind contributions'' and insert ``in-
     kind services and materials''.
       Page 221, after line 20, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent sections accordingly):

     SEC. 4073. SHORE PARKWAY GREENWAY, BROOKLYN, NEW YORK.

        The Secretary shall conduct a study of the feasibility of 
     carrying out a project for shoreline protection in the 
     vicinity of the confluence of the Narrows and Gravesend Bay, 
     Upper New York Bay, Shore Parkway Greenway, Brooklyn, New 
     York.
       Page 233, after line 4, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent sections accordingly):

     SEC. 4105. JOHNSON CREEK, ARLINGTON, TEXAS.

       (a) Reevaluation of Environmental Restoration Features.--
     The Secretary shall reevaluate the project for flood damage 
     reduction, environmental restoration, and recreation, 
     authorized by section 101(b)(14) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 280), to develop 
     alternatives to the separable environmental restoration 
     element of the project.
       (b) Study of Additional Flood Damage Reduction Measures.--
     The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of additional flood damage reduction measures and 
     erosion control measures within the boundaries of the project 
     referred to in subsection (a).
       (c) Plans and Designs.--In conducting the studies referred 
     to in subsections (a) and (b), the Secretary shall review 
     plans and designs developed by non-Federal interests and 
     shall use such plans and designs to the extent that the 
     Secretary determines that such plans and designs are 
     consistent with Federal standards.
       (d) Credit Toward Federal Share.--If an alternative 
     environmental restoration element is authorized by law, the 
     Secretary shall credit toward the Federal share of the cost 
     of that project the costs incurred by the Secretary to carry 
     out the separable environmental restoration element of the 
     project referred to in subsection (a). The non-Federal 
     interest shall not be responsible for reimbursing the 
     Secretary for any amount credited under this subsection.
       (e) Credit Toward the Non-Federal Share.--The Secretary 
     shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the 
     studies under subsections (a) and (b), and the cost of any 
     project carried out as a result of such studies the cost of 
     work carried out by the non-Federal interest.
       Page 238, strike line 9 and redesignate subsequent 
     paragraphs accordingly.
       Page 241, strike lines 4 through 10 and insert the 
     following:
       (c) Fern Ridge Dam, Oregon.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall plan, design, and 
     complete emergency corrective actions to repair the 
     embankment dam at the Fern Ridge Lake project, Oregon.
       (2) Treatment.--The Secretary may treat work to be carried 
     out under this subsection as a dam safety project, and the 
     cost of the work may be recovered in accordance with section 
     1203 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 
     U.S.C. 467n; 100 Stat. 4263).
       Page 242, line 6, strike ``river mile 205 to river mile 
     308.4,''.
       Page 243, after line 14, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent quoted paragraphs accordingly):
       ``(10) $27,000,000 for the project described in subsection 
     (c)(19);
       Page 245, after line 11, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent paragraphs accordingly):
       (6) North River, Peabody, Massachusetts, being carried out 
     under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 
     701s).
       Page 249, line 19, strike ``The Secretary'' and insert the 
     following:
       ``(1)  Delaware river.--The Secretary''.
       Page 250, after line 2, insert the following:
       (2) Susquehanna river.--The Secretary may enter into an 
     agreement with the Susquehanna River Basin Commission to 
     provide temporary water supply and conservation storage at 
     Corps of Engineers facilities in the Susquehanna River Basin 
     during any period in which the Commission has determined that 
     a drought warning or drought emergency exists. The agreement 
     shall provide that the cost for any such water supply and 
     conservation storage shall not exceed the incremental 
     operating costs associated with providing the storage.
       Page 252, after line 3, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent sections accordingly):

     SEC. 5021. REHABILITATION.

       The Secretary, at Federal expense and not to exceed 
     $1,000,000, shall rehabilitate and improve the water-related 
     infrastructure and the transportation infrastructure for the 
     historic property in the Anacostia River Watershed located in 
     the District of Columbia, including measures to address wet 
     weather conditions. To carry out this section, the Secretary 
     shall accept funds provided for such project under any other 
     Federal program.

     SEC. 5022. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR COLUMBIA AND 
                   SNAKE RIVER SALMON SURVIVAL.

       Section 511 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
     (16 U.S.C. 3301 note; 110 Stat. 3761; 113 Stat. 375) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(6) by striking ``$10,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$25,000,000''; and
       (2) in subsection (c)(2) by striking ``$1,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$10,000,000''.

     SEC. 5023. WAGE SURVEYS.

       Employees of the United States Army Corps of Engineers who 
     are paid wages determined under the last undesignated 
     paragraph under the heading ``Administrative Provisions'' of 
     chapter V of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1982 (5 
     U.S.C. 5343 note; 96 Stat. 832) shall be allowed, through 
     appropriate employee organization representatives, to 
     participate in wage surveys under such paragraph to the same 
     extent as are prevailing rate employees under subsection 
     (c)(2) of section 5343 of title 5, United States Code. 
     Nothing in such section 5343 shall be considered to affect 
     which agencies are to be surveyed under such paragraph.
       Page 253, after line 25, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent sections accordingly):

     SEC. 5026. FIRE ISLAND, ALASKA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to provide 
     planning, design, and construction assistance to the non-
     Federal interest for the construction of a causeway between 
     Point Campbell and Fire Island, Alaska, including the 
     beneficial use of dredged material in the construction of the 
     causeway.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated $5,000,000 to carry out this section.
       Page 257, strike lines 6 through 19 (and redesignate 
     subsequent sections accordingly).
       Page 262, after line 12, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent sections accordingly):

     SEC. 5045. LA-3 DREDGED MATERIAL OCEAN DISPOSAL SITE 
                   DESIGNATION, CALIFORNIA.

       The third sentence of section 102(c)(4) of the Marine 
     Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 
     1412(c)(4)) is amended by striking ``January 1, 2003'' and 
     inserting ``January 1, 2007''.

     SEC. 5046. LANCASTER, CALIFORNIA.

        Section 219(f)(50) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1992 (114 Stat. 2763A-220) is amended--
       (1) by inserting after ``water'' the following: ``and 
     wastewater'';
       (2) by striking ``$14,500,000'' and inserting 
     ``$24,500,000''.

[[Page H5865]]

     SEC. 5047. ONTARIO AND CHINO, CALIFORNIA.

       The Secretary shall carry out a project for flood damage 
     reduction under section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 
     (33 U.S.C. 701s), in the vicinity of Ontario and Chino, 
     California, if the Secretary determines that the project is 
     feasible.
       Page 263, after line 16, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent sections accordingly):

     SEC. 5046. RAYMOND BASIN, SIX BASINS, CHINO BASIN, AND SAN 
                   GABRIEL BASIN, CALIFORNIA.

       (a) Comprehensive Plan.--The Secretary, in consultation and 
     coordination with appropriate Federal, State, and local 
     entities, shall develop a comprehensive plan for the 
     management of water resources in the Raymond Basin, Six 
     Basins, Chino Basin, and San Gabriel Basin, California. The 
     Secretary may carry out activities identified in the 
     comprehensive plan to demonstrate practicable alternatives 
     for water resources management.
       (b) Non-Federal Share.--
       (1) In general.--The non-Federal share of the cost of 
     activities carried out under this section shall be 35 
     percent.
       (2) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of activities carried out under 
     this section the cost of planning, design, and construction 
     work completed by or on behalf of the non-Federal interests 
     for implementation of measures under this section. The amount 
     of such credit shall not exceed the non-Federal share of the 
     cost of such activities.
       (3) Operation and maintenance.--The non-Federal share of 
     the cost of operation and maintenance of any measures 
     constructed under this section shall be 100 percent.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000.
       Page 267, after line 2, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent sections accordingly):

     SEC. 5049. SAN PABLO BAY, CALIFORNIA, WATERSHED AND SUISUN 
                   MARSH ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.

       (a) San Pablo Bay Watershed, California.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall complete work, as 
     expeditiously as possible, on the ongoing San Pablo Bay 
     watershed, California, study to determine the feasibility of 
     opportunities for restoring, preserving and protecting the 
     San Pablo Bay watershed.
       (2) Report.--Not later than March 31, 2008, the Secretary 
     shall submit to Congress a report on the results of the 
     study.
       (b) Suisun Marsh, California.--The Secretary shall conduct 
     a comprehensive study to determine the feasibility of 
     opportunities for restoring, preserving and protecting the 
     Suisun Marsh, California.
       (c) San Pablo and Suisun Bay Marsh Watershed Critical 
     Restoration Projects.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may participate in critical 
     restoration projects that will produce, consistent with 
     Federal programs, projects, and activities, immediate and 
     substantial ecosystem restoration, preservation, and 
     protection benefits in the following sub-watersheds of the 
     San Pablo and Suisun Bay Marsh watersheds:
       (A) The tidal areas of the Petaluma River, Napa-Sonoma 
     Marsh.
       (B) The shoreline of West Contra Costa County.
       (C) Novato Creek.
       (D) Suisun Marsh.
       (E) Gallinas-Miller Creek.
       (2) Types of assistance.--Participation in critical 
     restoration projects under this subsection may include 
     assistance for planning, design, or construction.
       (d) Non-Federal Interests.--Notwithstanding the 
     requirements of section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 
     (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), a nonprofit entity may serve, with the 
     consent of the affected local government, as a non-Federal 
     interest for a project undertaken under this section.
       (e) Cost Sharing.--Before carrying out any project under 
     this section, the Secretary shall enter into a partnership 
     agreement with the non-Federal interest that shall require 
     the non-Federal interest--
       (1) to pay 35 percent of the cost of construction for the 
     project;
       (2) to provide any lands, easements, rights-of-way, dredged 
     material disposal areas, and relocations necessary to carry 
     out the project; and
       (3) to pay 100 percent of the operation, maintenance, 
     repair, replacement, and rehabilitation costs associated with 
     the project.
       (f) Credit.--The Secretary shall credit toward the non-
     Federal share of the cost of construction of a project under 
     this section--
       (1) the value of any lands, easements, rights-of-way, 
     dredged material disposal areas, or relocations provided by 
     the non-Federal interest for carrying out the project, 
     regardless of the date of acquisition;
       (2) funds received from the CALFED Bay-Delta program; and
       (3) the cost of the studies, design, and construction work 
     carried out by the non-Federal interest before the date of 
     execution of a partnership agreement for the project if the 
     Secretary determines that the work is integral to the 
     project.
       (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $40,000,000.
       Page 270, strike lines 10 through 14 and insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 5056. FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS.

       Section 109 of the Miscellaneous Appropriations Act, 2001 
     (enacted into law by Public Law 106-554) (114 Stat. 2763A-
     222) is amended--
       (1) by adding at the end of subsection (e)(2) the 
     following:
       Page 270, line 25, strike the final period and insert ``; 
     and''.
       Page 270, after line 25, insert the following:
       (2) in subsection (f) by striking ``$100,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$100,000,000, of which not more than $15,000,000 
     may be used to provide planning, design, and construction 
     assistance to the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority for a water 
     treatment plant, Florida City, Florida''.
       Page 274, after line 17, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent subparagraphs accordingly):
       (D) to ensure aquatic integrity of sidechannels and 
     backwaters and their connectivity with the mainstem river;
       Page 275, after line 12, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent subparagraphs accordingly):
       (D) a conveyance study of the Kaskaskia River floodplain 
     from Vandalia, Illinois, to Carlyle Lake to determine the 
     impacts of existing and future waterfowl improvements on 
     flood stages, including detailed surveys and mapping 
     information to ensure proper hydraulic and hydrological 
     analysis;
       Page 275, line 22, strike ``Coordinating Council'' and 
     insert ``Watershed Association''.
       Page 277, after line 14, add the following:
       (6) Other programs that may be developed by the State of 
     Illinois or the Federal Government, or that are carried out 
     by non-profit organizations, to carry out the objectives of 
     the Kaskaskia River Basin Comprehensive Plan.
       Page 280, strike lines 14 through 20 and insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 5065. PROMONTORY POINT, LAKE MICHIGAN, ILLINOIS.

       In carrying out the project for storm damage reduction and 
     shoreline erosion protection, Lake Michigan, authorized by 
     section 101(a)(12) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1996 (110 Stat. 3664), the Secretary shall reconstruct the 
     Promontory Point section consistent with the original 
     limestone step design. Additional costs associated with such 
     reconstruction shall be a non-Federal responsibility. The 
     costs of reconstruction not consistent with the original 
     limestone step design shall be a non-Federal responsibility.

     SEC. 5066. SOUTHWEST ILLINOIS.

       (a) Southwest Illinois Defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``Southwest Illinois'' means the counties of Madison, St. 
     Clair, Monroe, Randolph, Perry, Franklin, Jackson, Union, 
     Alexander, Pulaski, and Williamson, Illinois.
       (b) Establishment of Program.--The Secretary may establish 
     a program to provide environmental assistance to non-Federal 
     interests in Southwest Illinois.
       (c) Form of Assistance.--Assistance under this section may 
     be in the form of design and construction assistance for 
     water-related environmental infrastructure and resource 
     protection and development projects in Southwest Illinois, 
     including projects for wastewater treatment and related 
     facilities, water supply and related facilities, and surface 
     water resource protection and development.
       (d) Ownership Requirement.--The Secretary may provide 
     assistance for a project under this section only if the 
     project is publicly owned.
       (e) Partnership Agreements.--
       (1) In general.--Before providing assistance under this 
     section, the Secretary shall enter into a partnership 
     agreement with a non-Federal interest to provide for design 
     and construction of the project to be carried out with the 
     assistance.
       (2) Requirements.--Each partnership agreement entered into 
     under this subsection shall provide for the following:
       (A) Plan.--Development by the Secretary, in consultation 
     with appropriate Federal and State officials, of a facilities 
     or resource protection and development plan, including 
     appropriate engineering plans and specifications.
       (B) Legal and institutional structures.--Establishment of 
     such legal and institutional structures as are necessary to 
     ensure the effective long-term operation of the project by 
     the non-Federal interest.
       (3) Cost sharing.--
       (A) In general.--The Federal share of the project costs 
     under each partnership agreement entered into under this 
     subsection shall be 75 percent. The Federal share may be in 
     the form of grants or reimbursements of project costs.
       (B) Credit for work.--The non-Federal interests shall 
     receive credit for the reasonable cost of design work on a 
     project completed by the non-Federal interest before entering 
     into a partnership agreement with the Secretary for such 
     project.
       (C) Credit for interest.--In case of a delay in the funding 
     of the non-Federal share of a project that is the subject of 
     an agreement under this section, the non-Federal interest 
     shall receive credit for reasonable interest incurred in 
     providing the non-Federal share of the project's costs.
       (D) Land, easements, and rights-of-way credit.--The non-
     Federal interest shall receive credit for land, easements, 
     rights-of-way, and relocations toward the non-Federal share 
     of project costs (including all reasonable costs associated 
     with obtaining permits necessary for the construction, 
     operation, and maintenance of the project on publicly

[[Page H5866]]

     owned or controlled land), but not to exceed 25 percent of 
     total project costs.
       (E) Operation and maintenance.--The non-Federal share of 
     operation and maintenance costs for projects constructed with 
     assistance provided under this section shall be 100 percent.
       (f) Applicability of Other Federal and State Laws.--Nothing 
     in this section waives, limits, or otherwise affects the 
     applicability of any provision of Federal or State law that 
     would otherwise apply to a project to be carried out with 
     assistance provided under this section.
       (g) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) of 
     the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), for 
     any project undertaken under this section, a non-Federal 
     interest may include a nonprofit entity.
       (h) Corps of Engineers Expenses.--Ten percent of the 
     amounts appropriated to carry out this section may be used by 
     the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer 
     projects under this section at 100 percent Federal expense.
       (i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $40,000,000. 
     Such sums shall remain available until expended.
       Page 287, after line 11, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent sections accordingly):

     SEC. 5080. LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN, LOUISIANA.

       For purposes of carrying out section 121 of the Federal 
     Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1271), the Lake 
     Pontchartrain, Louisiana, basin stakeholders conference 
     convened by the Environmental Protection Agency, National 
     Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and United States 
     Geological Survey on February 25, 2002, shall be treated as 
     being a management conference convened under section 320 of 
     such Act (33 U.S.C. 1330).
       Page 287, after line 12, insert the following:
       (a) Modification of Study.--The study for waterfront and 
     riverine preservation, restoration, and enhancement, 
     Mississippi River, West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana, being 
     carried out under Committee Resolution 2570 of the Committee 
     on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives adopted July 23, 1998, is modified--
       (1) to add West Feliciana Parish and East Baton Rouge 
     Parish to the geographic scope of the study; and
       (2) to direct the Secretary to credit toward the non-
     Federal share the cost of the study and the non-Federal share 
     of the cost of any project authorized by law as a result of 
     the study the cost of work carried out by the non-Federal 
     interest before the date of the partnership agreement for the 
     project if the Secretary determines that the work is integral 
     to the study or project, as the case may be.
       Page 287, line 13, before ``Section'' insert ``(b) 
     Expedited Consideration.--''.
       Page 287, lines 15 and 16, strike ``Parish'' and insert ``, 
     West Feliciana, and East Baton Rouge Parishes''.
       Page 287, line 17, after the second comma insert ``and''.
       Page 287, lines 17 and 18, strike ``, and interpretive 
     center development''.
       Page 306, after line 4, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent sections accordingly):

     SEC. 5111. CLINTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.

        Section 219(f)(13) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1992 (113 Stat. 335) is amended by striking ``$1,000,000'' 
     and inserting ``$2,000,000''.
       Page 309, after line 24, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent sections accordingly):

     SEC. 5116. EAST TENNESSEE.

       (a) East Tennessee Defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``East Tennessee'' means the counties of Blount, Knox, 
     Loudon, McMinn, Monroe, and Sevier, Tennessee.
       (b) Establishment of Program.--The Secretary may establish 
     a program to provide environmental assistance to non-Federal 
     interests in East Tennessee.
       (c) Form of Assistance.--Assistance under this section may 
     be in the form of design and construction assistance for 
     water-related environmental infrastructure and resource 
     protection and development projects in East Tennessee, 
     including projects for wastewater treatment and related 
     facilities, water supply and related facilities, 
     environmental restoration, and surface water resource 
     protection and development.
       (d) Ownership Requirement.--The Secretary may provide 
     assistance for a project under this section only if the 
     project is publicly owned.
       (e) Partnership Agreements.--
       (1) In general.--Before providing assistance under this 
     section, the Secretary shall enter into a partnership 
     agreement with a non-Federal interest to provide for design 
     and construction of the project to be carried out with the 
     assistance.
       (2) Requirements.--Each partnership agreement entered into 
     under this subsection shall provide for the following:
       (A) Plan.--Development by the Secretary, in consultation 
     with appropriate Federal and State officials, of a facilities 
     or resource protection and development plan, including 
     appropriate engineering plans and specifications.
       (B) Legal and institutional structures.--Establishment of 
     such legal and institutional structures as are necessary to 
     ensure the effective long-term operation of the project by 
     the non-Federal interest.
       (3) Cost sharing.--
       (A) In general.--The Federal share of the project cost 
     under each partnership agreement entered into under this 
     subsection shall be 75 percent. The Federal share may be in 
     the form of grants or reimbursements of project costs.
       (B) Credit for work.--The non-Federal interests shall 
     receive credit for the reasonable cost of design work on a 
     project completed by the non-Federal interest before entering 
     into a partnership agreement with the Secretary for such 
     project.
       (C) Credit for interest.--In case of a delay in the funding 
     of the non-Federal share of a project that is the subject of 
     an agreement under this section, the non-Federal interest 
     shall receive credit for reasonable interest incurred in 
     providing the non-Federal share of the project cost.
       (D) Land, easements, and rights-of-way credit.--The non-
     Federal interest shall receive credit for land, easements, 
     rights-of-way, and relocations toward the non-Federal share 
     of project cost (including all reasonable costs associated 
     with obtaining permits necessary for the construction, 
     operation, and maintenance of the project on publicly owned 
     or controlled land), but not to exceed 25 percent of total 
     project cost.
       (E) Operation and maintenance.--The non-Federal share of 
     operation and maintenance costs for projects constructed with 
     assistance provided under this section shall be 100 percent.
       (f) Applicability of Other Federal and State Laws.--Nothing 
     in this section waives, limits, or otherwise affects the 
     applicability of any provision of Federal or State law that 
     would otherwise apply to a project to be carried out with 
     assistance provided under this section.
       (g) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) of 
     the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), for 
     any project undertaken under this section, a non-Federal 
     interest may include a nonprofit entity with the consent of 
     the affected local government.
       (h) Corps of Engineers Expenses.--Ten percent of the 
     amounts appropriated to carry out this section may be used by 
     the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer 
     projects under this section at 100 percent Federal expense.
       (i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $40,000,000. 
     Such sums shall remain available until expended.
       Page 314, line 3, strike ``$5,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$10,000,000''.
       Page 314, after line 3, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent sections accordingly):

     SEC. 5122. DALLAS COUNTY REGION, TEXAS.

       (a) Dallas County Region Defined.--In this section, the 
     term ``Dallas County region'' means the city of Dallas, and 
     the municipalities of DeSoto, Duncanville, Lancaster, Wilmer, 
     Hutchins, Balch Springs, Cedar Hill, Glenn Heights, and 
     Ferris, Texas.
       (b) Establishment of Program.--The Secretary may establish 
     a program to provide environmental assistance to non-Federal 
     interests in the Dallas County region.
       (c) Form of Assistance.--Assistance under this section may 
     be in the form of design and construction assistance for 
     water-related environmental infrastructure and resource 
     protection and development projects in the Dallas County 
     region, including projects for wastewater treatment and 
     related facilities, water supply and related facilities, 
     environmental restoration, and surface water resource 
     protection and development.
       (d) Ownership Requirement.--The Secretary may provide 
     assistance for a project under this section only if the 
     project is publicly owned.
       (e) Partnership Agreements.--
       (1) In general.--Before providing assistance under this 
     section, the Secretary shall enter into a partnership 
     agreement with a non-Federal interest to provide for design 
     and construction of the project to be carried out with the 
     assistance.
       (2) Requirements.--Each partnership agreement entered into 
     under this subsection shall provide for the following:
       (A) Plan.--Development by the Secretary, in consultation 
     with appropriate Federal and State officials, of a facilities 
     or resource protection and development plan, including 
     appropriate engineering plans and specifications.
       (B) Legal and institutional structures.--Establishment of 
     such legal and institutional structures as are necessary to 
     ensure the effective long-term operation of the project by 
     the non-Federal interest.
       (3) Cost sharing.--
       (A) In general.--The Federal share of the project costs 
     under each partnership agreement entered into under this 
     subsection shall be 75 percent. The Federal share may be in 
     the form of grants or reimbursements of project costs.
       (B) Credit for work.--The non-Federal interests shall 
     receive credit for the reasonable cost of design work on a 
     project completed by the non-Federal interest before entering 
     into a partnership agreement with the Secretary for such 
     project.
       (C) Credit for interest.--In case of a delay in the funding 
     of the non-Federal share of a project that is the subject of 
     an agreement under this section, the non-Federal interest 
     shall receive credit for reasonable interest incurred in 
     providing the non-Federal share of the project's costs.
       (D) Land, easements, and rights-of-way credit.--The non-
     Federal interest shall receive credit for land, easements, 
     rights-of-

[[Page H5867]]

     way, and relocations toward the non-Federal share of project 
     costs (including all reasonable costs associated with 
     obtaining permits necessary for the construction, operation, 
     and maintenance of the project on publicly owned or 
     controlled land), but such credit may not exceed 25 percent 
     of total project costs.
       (E) Operation and maintenance.--The non-Federal share of 
     operation and maintenance costs for projects constructed with 
     assistance provided under this section shall be 100 percent.
       (f) Applicability of Other Federal and State Laws.--Nothing 
     in this section waives, limits, or otherwise affects the 
     applicability of any provision of Federal or State law that 
     would otherwise apply to a project to be carried out with 
     assistance provided under this section.
       (g) Nonprofit Entities.--Notwithstanding section 221(b) of 
     the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b(b)), for 
     any project undertaken under this section, a non-Federal 
     interest may include a nonprofit entity.
       (h) Corps of Engineers Expenses.--Ten percent of the 
     amounts appropriated to carry out this section may be used by 
     the Corps of Engineers district offices to administer 
     projects under this section at 100 percent Federal expense.
       (i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $40,000,000. 
     Such sums shall remain available until expended.
       Page 325, strike lines 22 through 25 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(9) Buffalo bayou, texas.--A project for flood control, 
     Buffalo Bayou, Texas, to provide an alternative to the 
     project authorized by the first section of the River and 
     Harbor Act of June 20, 1938 (52 Stat. 804) and modified by 
     section 3a of the Flood Control Act of August 11, 1939 (53 
     Stat. 1414).
       ``(10) Halls bayou, texas.--A project for flood control, 
     Halls Bayou, Texas, to provide an alternative to the project 
     for flood control, Buffalo Bayou and tributaries, Texas, 
     authorized by section 101(a)(21) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4610).
       Page 327, after line 9, insert the following:

     SEC. 5140. ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR CRITICAL PROJECTS.

       Section 219(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335-337; 114 Stat. 2763A-220-
     221) is amended--
       (1) by striking the undesignated paragraph relating to 
     Charleston, South Carolina, and inserting the following:
       ``(72) Charleston, south carolina.--$20,000,000 for 
     wastewater infrastructure, including wastewater collection 
     systems, and stormwater system improvements, Charleston, 
     South Carolina.'';
       (2) by redesignating the paragraph (71) relating to Placer 
     and El Dorado Counties, California, as paragraph (73);
       (3) by redesignating the paragraph (72) relating to Lassen, 
     Plumas, Butte, Sierra, and Nevada Counties, California, as 
     paragraph (74);
       (4) by striking the paragraph (71) relating to 
     Indianapolis, Indiana, and inserting the following:
       ``(75) Indianapolis, indiana.--$6,430,000 for environmental 
     infrastructure for Indianapolis, Indiana.'';
       (5) by redesignating the paragraph (73) relating to St. 
     Croix Falls, Wisconsin, as paragraph (76); and
       (6) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(77) St. clair county, alabama.--$5,000,000 for water 
     related infrastructure, St. Clair County, Alabama.
       ``(78) Crawford county, arkansas.--$35,000,000 for water 
     supply infrastructure, Crawford County, Arkansas.
       ``(79) Brawley colonia, imperial county, california.--
     $1,400,000 for water infrastructure to improve water quality 
     in the Brawley Colonia Water District, Imperial County, 
     California.
       ``(80) Contra costa water district, california.--
     $23,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure for the 
     Contra Costa Water District, California.
       ``(81) East bay, san francisco, and santa clara areas, 
     california.--$4,000,000 for a desalination project to serve 
     the East Bay, San Francisco, and Santa Clara areas, 
     California.
       ``(82) Imperial county, california.--$10,000,000 for 
     wastewater infrastructure, including a wastewater 
     disinfection facility and polishing system, to improve water 
     quality in the vicinity of Calexico, California, on the 
     southern New River, Imperial County, California.
       ``(83) Richmond, california.--$25,000,000 for a recycled 
     water treatment facility, Richmond, California.
       ``(84) Santa clara county, california.--$5,500,000 for an 
     advanced recycling water treatment plant in Santa Clara 
     County, California.
       ``(85) Southern los angeles county, california.--
     $15,000,000 for environmental infrastructure for the 
     groundwater basin optimization pipeline, Southern Los Angeles 
     County, California.
       ``(86) Sweetwater reservoir, san diego county, 
     california.--$375,000 to improve water quality, and remove 
     nonnative aquatic species from the Sweetwater Reservoir, San 
     Diego County, California.
       ``(87) Whittier, california.--$8,000,000 for water, 
     wastewater, and water related infrastructure, Whittier, 
     California.
       ``(88) Montezuma and la plata counties, colorado.--
     $1,000,000 for water and wastewater related infrastructure 
     for the Ute Mountain project, Montezuma and La Plata 
     Counties, Colorado.
       ``(89) Pueblo and otero counties, colorado.--$34,000,000 
     for water transmission infrastructure, Pueblo and Otero 
     Counties, Colorado.
       ``(90) Ledyard and montville, connecticut.--$7,113,000 for 
     water infrastructure, Ledyard and Montville, Connecticut.
       ``(91) Anacostia river, district of columbia and 
     maryland.--$20,000,000 for environmental infrastructure and 
     resource protection and development to enhance water quality 
     and living resources in the Anacostia River watershed, 
     District of Columbia and Maryland.
       ``(92) Washington, district of columbia.--$35,000,000 for 
     implementation of a combined sewer overflow long-term control 
     plan, Washington, District of Columbia.
       ``(93) Charlotte county, florida.--$3,000,000 for water 
     supply infrastructure, Charlotte County, Florida.
       ``(94) Charlotte, lee, and collier counties, florida.--
     $20,000,000 for water supply interconnectivity 
     infrastructure, Charlotte, Lee, and Collier Counties, 
     Florida.
       ``(95) Collier county, florida.--$5,000,000 for water 
     infrastructure to improve water quality in the vicinity of 
     the Gordon River, Collier County, Florida.
       ``(96) Jacksonville, florida.--$25,000,000 for wastewater 
     related infrastructure, including septic tank replacements, 
     Jacksonville, Florida.
       ``(97) North vernon and butlerville, indiana.--$1,700,000 
     for wastewater infrastructure, North Vernon and Butlerville, 
     Indiana.
       ``(98) Salem, washington county, indiana.--$3,200,000 for 
     water supply infrastructure, Salem, Washington County, 
     Indiana.
       ``(99) Central kentucky.--$10,000,000 for water related 
     infrastructure and resource protection and development, 
     Scott, Franklin, Woodford, Anderson, Fayette, Mercer, 
     Jessamine, Boyle, Lincoln, Garrard, Madison, Estill, Powell, 
     Clark, Montgomery, and Bourbon Counties, Kentucky.
       ``(100) Plaquemine, louisiana.--$7,000,000 for sanitary 
     sewer and wastewater infrastructure, Plaquemine, Louisiana.
       ``(101) City of biloxi, city of gulfport, and harrison 
     county, mississippi.--$15,000,000 for water and wastewater 
     related infrastructure, city of Biloxi, city of Gulfport, and 
     Harrison County, Mississippi.
       ``(102) Clark county, nevada.--$30,000,000 for wastewater 
     infrastructure, Clark County, Nevada.
       ``(103) Henderson, nevada.--$5,000,000 for wastewater 
     infrastructure, Henderson, Nevada.
       ``(104) Paterson, new jersey.--$35,000,000 for wastewater 
     infrastructure, Paterson, New Jersey.
       ``(105) Sennett, new york.--$1,500,000 for water 
     infrastructure, Town of Sennett, New York.
       ``(106) Springport and fleming, new york.--$10,000,000 for 
     water related infrastructure, including water mains, pump 
     stations, and water storage tanks, Springport and Fleming, 
     New York.
       ``(107) Cabarrus county, north carolina.--$4,500,000 for 
     water related infrastructure, Cabarrus County, North 
     Carolina.
       ``(108) Richmond county, north carolina.--$8,000,000 for 
     water related infrastructure, Richmond County, North 
     Carolina.
       ``(109) Union county, north carolina.--$6,000,000 for 
     wastewater infrastructure, Union County, North Carolina.
       ``(110) Lake county, ohio.--$1,500,000 for wastewater 
     infrastructure, Lake County, Ohio.
       ``(111) Mentor-on-lake, ohio.--$625,000 for water and 
     wastewater infrastructure, Mentor-on-Lake, Ohio.
       ``(112) Willowick, ohio.--$665,000 for water and wastewater 
     infrastructure, Willowick, Ohio.
       ``(113) Albany, oregon.--$35,000,000 for wastewater 
     infrastructure to improve water quality, Albany, Oregon.
       ``(114) Borough of stockerton, borough of tatamy, and 
     palmer township, pennsylvania.--$10,000,000 for stormwater 
     control measures, particularly to address sinkholes, in the 
     vicinity of the Borough of Stockerton, the Borough of Tatamy, 
     and Palmer Township, Pennsylvania.
       ``(115) Hatfield borough, pennsylvania.--$310,000 for 
     wastewater related infrastructure for Hatfield Borough, 
     Pennsylvania.
       ``(116) Lehigh county, pennsylvania.--$5,000,000 for 
     stormwater control measures and storm sewer improvements, 
     Lehigh County, Pennsylvania.
       ``(117) North wales borough, pennsylvania.--$1,516,584 for 
     wastewater related infrastructure for North Wales Borough, 
     Pennsylvania.
       ``(118) Pen argyl, pennsylvania.--$5,250,000 for wastewater 
     infrastructure, Pen Argyl, Pennsylvania.
       ``(119) Philadelphia, pennsylvania.--$1,600,000 for 
     wastewater related infrastructure for Philadelphia, 
     Pennsylvania.
       ``(120) Vera cruz, pennsylvania.--$5,500,000 for wastewater 
     infrastructure, Vera Cruz, Pennsylvania.
       ``(121) Commonwealth of puerto rico.--$35,000,000 for water 
     and wastewater infrastructure in the Commonwealth of Puerto 
     Rico.
       ``(122) Cross, south carolina.--$2,000,000 for water 
     related environmental infrastructure, Cross, South Carolina.
       ``(123) Myrtle beach, south carolina.--$6,000,000 for 
     environmental infrastructure, including ocean outfalls, 
     Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.

[[Page H5868]]

       ``(124) North myrtle beach, south carolina.--$6,000,000 for 
     environmental infrastructure, including ocean outfalls, North 
     Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.
       ``(125) Surfside, south carolina.--$6,000,000 for 
     environmental infrastructure, including stormwater system 
     improvements and ocean outfalls, Surfside, South Carolina.
       ``(126) Athens, tennessee.--$16,000,000 for wastewater 
     infrastructure, Athens, Tennessee.
       ``(127) Duchesne, iron, and uintah counties, utah.--
     $10,800,000 for water related infrastructure, Duchesne, Iron, 
     and Uintah Counties, Utah.
       ``(128) Monroe, north carolina.--$11,500,000 for water 
     related infrastructure, including water supply reservoir 
     dredging, Monroe, North Carolina.
       ``(129) Charlotte, north carolina.--$5,000,000 for phase II 
     of the Briar Creek wastewater project, Charlotte, North 
     Carolina.
       ``(130) Los angeles county, california.--$3,000,000 for 
     wastewater and water related infrastructure, Diamond Bar, La 
     Habra Heights, and Rowland Heights, Los Angeles County, 
     California.
       ``(131) Orange county, california.--$15,000,000 for 
     wastewater and water related infrastructure, Anaheim, Brea, 
     La Habra, Mission Viejo, Rancho Santa Margarita, and Yorba 
     Linda, Orange County, California.
       ``(132) San bernadino county, california.--$9,000,000 for 
     wastewater and water related infrastructure, Chino and Chino 
     Hills, San Bernadino County, California.
       ``(133) Fayetteville, grantville, lagrange, pine mountain 
     (harris county), douglasville, and carrollton, georgia.--
     $24,500,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, 
     Fayetteville, Grantville, LaGrange, Pine Mountain (Harris 
     County), Douglasville, and Carrollton, Georgia.
       ``(134) Meriwether and spalding counties, georgia.--
     $7,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, 
     Meriwether and Spalding Counties, Georgia.
       ``(135) Arcadia, sierra madre, and upland, california.--
     $33,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, Arcadia, 
     Sierra Madre, and Upland, California, including $13,000,000 
     for stormwater infrastructure for Upland, California.
       ``(136) Ft. bend county, texas.--$20,000,000 for wastewater 
     infrastructure, Ft. Bend County, Texas.
       ``(137) New river, california.--$10,000,000 for wastewater 
     infrastructure to improve water quality in the New River, 
     California.
       ``(138) Big bear area regional wastewater agency, 
     california.--$15,000,000 for water reclamation and 
     distribution, Big Bear Area Regional Wastewater Agency, 
     California.
       ``(139) Lake nacimiento, california.--$25,000,000 for water 
     supply infrastructure for the communities of Atascadero, Paso 
     Robles, Templeton, and San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo 
     County, California.
       ``(140) Otero, bent, crowley, kiowa, and prowers counties, 
     colorado.--$35,000,000 for water transmission infrastructure, 
     Otero, Bent, Crowley, Kiowa, and Prowers Counties, Colorado.
       ``(141) Saipan, northern mariana islands.--$20,000,000 for 
     water related infrastructure, Saipan, Northern Mariana 
     Islands.
       ``(142) Stockton, california.--$33,000,000 for water 
     treatment and distribution infrastructure, Stockton, 
     California.
       ``(143) Jackson, mississippi.--$25,000,000 for water and 
     wastewater infrastructure, Jackson, Mississippi.
       ``(144) Crooked creek, marlboro county, south carolina.--
     $25,000,000 for a project for water storage and water supply 
     infrastructure on Crooked Creek, Marlboro County, South 
     Carolina.
       ``(145) Central texas.--$20,000,000 for water and 
     wastewater infrastructure in Bosque, Brazos, Burleson, 
     Grimes, Hill, Hood, Johnson, Madison, McLennan, Limestone, 
     Robertson, and Somervell Counties, Texas.
       ``(146) El paso county, texas.--$25,000,000 for water 
     related infrastructure and resource protection and 
     development, El Paso County, Texas.
       ``(147) Northern west virginia.--$20,000,000 for water and 
     wastewater infrastructure in Hancock, Ohio, Marshall, Wetzel, 
     Tyler, Pleasants, Wood, Doddridge, Monongalia, Marion, 
     Harrison, Taylor, Barbour, Preston, Tucker, Mineral, Grant, 
     Gilmer, Brooke, Ritchie Counties, West Virginia.''.
       Page 329, line 19, strike the closing quotation marks and 
     the final period and insert the following:
       ``(4) Project subject to a final report.--The following 
     project for water resources development and conservation and 
     other purposes is authorized to be carried out by the 
     Secretary substantially in accordance with a final report of 
     the Chief of Engineers:
       ``(A) Picayune strand, florida.--The project for 
     environmental restoration, Picayune Strand, Florida, at a 
     total cost of $349,422,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $174,711,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
     $174,711,000, if a favorable report of the Chief is completed 
     not later than December 31, 2005.''.
       Page 355, line 6, strike ``this subsection'' and insert 
     ``this title''.
       Conform the table of contents of the bill accordingly.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 346, the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this en bloc amendment makes technical and conforming 
changes to project-related provisions in the bill and authorizes or 
modifies additional projects brought to the committee's attention 
following committee action.
  Specifically, the Corps of Engineers has informed the committee that 
six additional chief's reports recommending that Congress authorize a 
water resources project will be completed by December 31, 2005.
  The amendment also directs the Corps of Engineers to carry out a 
number of small projects under existing corps authority to provide 
flood damage reduction and emergency streambank protection.
  For other projects that have not been studied, the amendment 
authorizes for new Corps of Engineers' projects. The amendment 
authorizes one land transfer for a navigation project. Finally, the 
amendment authorizes a number of activities or programs for water 
resources management.
  This amendment, like the underlying bill, has been developed in a 
bipartisan fashion. All projects must be in the Federal interest and 
must comply with cost-sharing rules. This means not every project could 
be addressed, but within these constraints we did the best to meet the 
needs of all communities. I urge all Members to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent to control the time in opposition to this amendment, although I 
am not opposed to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Texas is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume, and I rise to support the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan). This amendment is a 
bipartisan amendment addressing technical changes and modifications 
that have come to the attention of the subcommittee since the bill was 
considered at markup time.
  The manager's amendment also contains a few new items, including the 
contingent authorization of five additional large-scale projects, 
provided that a favorable report of the chief of engineers is completed 
by the end of 2005.
  These five projects are a project for flood damage reduction along 
the Des Moines and Raccoon rivers in Iowa; a project of navigation for 
the Port Iberia, Louisiana; a project for hurricane and storm damage 
reduction, Union Beach, New Jersey; a project for environmental 
restoration along the Hocking River, Ohio; and a project for hurricane 
and storm damage reduction in Pawley's Island, South Carolina.
  Among the additional new items in the manager's amendment are 
authorizations for small flood damage reduction and emergency 
streambank protection projects in New York State, the authorization of 
a transfer of properties in the State of Louisiana, three additional 
Corps of Engineers' studies, and the authorization for the corps to 
participate in the restoration of the San Pablo Bay watershed in 
California.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), an outstanding member of the committee.
  Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I support the underlying bill, which is of great importance 
to U.S. commerce. The upper Mississippi and Illinois waterway project 
contained in the bill is critical to U.S. agriculture.
  It is my understanding that an amendment will be offered that will 
cripple the modernization of the lock and dam system on the Mississippi 
River. Due to an increase in unscheduled maintenance closures, shippers 
have been forced to choose other higher-priced modes of transportation 
for their goods, resulting in less barge traffic and more cost for 
producers.

[[Page H5869]]

  The upper Mississippi and Illinois river system is critically 
important to grain producers across the Nation because the price of 
grain nationwide is largely based on the price of grain that moves on 
the Mississippi River to our export markets. Over 1 billion bushels of 
grain, which is about 60 percent of all grain exports, move to export 
markets each year via the Mississippi River.
  According to the National Corn Growers Association, the failure to 
build the seven new 1,200 foot locks will result in a $562 million loss 
in farm income annually by 2020. Of that amount, $264 million will be 
lost to exports and $316 million will be from lower prices and 
decreased domestic demand.
  In addition to the economic impact on our country's farmers, shipping 
using waterways is one of the cheapest, safest, and most 
environmentally friendly ways to ship goods. The lock and dam system 
benefits the environment by creating backwaters and side channels that 
support habitat, recreation areas, and municipal water supplies. The 
backwaters created by the lock and dam system are estimated to support 
over 40 percent of the migratory waterfowl and fish breeding grounds 
and are home to over 500 miles of wildlife refuge.
  So I certainly hope we will support the lock and dam system as part 
of the bill. It is a good bill, and I urge support.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
manager's amendment, which I think demonstrates the work that has been 
done by our ranking member and our Chair and the staff to be able to 
work through some of these complex issues.
  I especially appreciate the work to incorporate planning language 
that will give more flexibility to the corps' planning process and 
starts the conversation about updating the principles and guidelines 
that are so desperately in need of revision.
  I would also at this time, in addition to thanking our Chair and 
ranking member, acknowledge the hard work of our staff, Susan Bodine 
and Ken Kopocis, who have been putting long hours into producing what I 
think is very important legislation. I appreciate their cooperation and 
the progress that it represents.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).
  (Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I think a picture takes the place of a 
thousand words. This is what we get a chance to do with modernizing our 
lock and dams. We take one tow of 15 barges and we displace 870 
tractor-trailer rigs on our Nation's highways. What this does is use 
the best means of transportation to get goods like coal, rock quarry 
goods, corn, and soybeans from New Orleans up to Chicago, or from 
Chicago down to New Orleans.
  Now, if you want to take that same load up there now without the 
locks and dams, one load takes 870 tractor-trailer trucks. That is 870 
trucks that are using diesel fuel. That is 870 trucks that are clogging 
our highways and our roads and our bridges. That is 870 trucks actually 
destroying or hurting the roadways that we spend a lot of money to 
build.
  So there are a lot of important reasons why the corrections here in 
this bill are so critical. If we want an environmentally sound policy, 
we need to support this bill.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy), a member of the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment under 
consideration. I also want to say that I am pleased to work on language 
that was included to authorize the Army Corps to study ways to provide 
additional flood relief in southwestern Pennsylvania, particularly the 
Chartiers Creek watershed.
  Over the years, many flood control projects have been built to 
minimize flood damage. However, as Hurricane Frances and Ivan made so 
clear, existing projects are inadequate. Last year's floods caused more 
than $260 million in damage in Pennsylvania, with Allegheny County the 
unwilling victim of most of it. Towns in my district incurred an 
estimated $60 million in damage; floodwaters killed one person and 
damaged more than 30,000 homes and businesses.
  To this day, many of my constituents in an already depressed area 
struggle to rebuild. Seventeen existing flood control projects have yet 
to be repaired or restored, and just this week, many of my local 
communities met to discuss leftover debris. Our towns cannot wait any 
longer for the projects authorized in this bill, and I encourage my 
colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I support the bipartisan managers' 
amendment offered on behalf of the Committee.
  This amendment addresses several issues that were brought to the 
attention of the committee following the committee markup of a 
technical or clarifying nature. It also adds six new projects 
contingent upon the completion of a report of the Chief of Engineers by 
December 31, 2005, These contingent authorizations are consistent with 
the criteria used by the committee in developing water resources 
legislation over the past several Congresses.
  The managers' amendment also reflects a failure of the current 
administration and the Congress to address the water and wastewater 
infrastructure needs of communities across the Nation.
  The amendment includes authorization for 73 new projects totaling 
$1.6 billion for water and wastewater related infrastructure. These are 
the types of projects that for many years had been financed through the 
Construction Grants and State Revolving Loan programs of the 
Environmental Protection Agency, the grant and loan programs of the 
Rural Utilities Service of the Department of Agriculture, and other 
Federal financial assistance programs.
  Unfortunately for communities, this administration continues to put 
forward budget requests that cut these vital programs, and this House 
continues to accede to those cuts.
  Just last month, this House approved funding for EPA's State 
revolving loan fund grants at $850 million. This compares to EPA 
funding 18 years ago of nearly $2.4 billion. This 65 percent cut in 
funding, is actually 80 percent when adjusted for inflation. The needs 
of communities have not declined, just the willingness of the 
Republican majority to help them.
  Where do these communities turn for help? To the Corps of Engineers, 
America's premier water resource agency. I know that the Corps is up to 
the task of addressing these pressing needs; I only hope that the 
administration and the Congress can find the will to adequately fund 
the Nation's infrastructure needs.
  I urge approval of the managers' amendment.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Latham). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in House Report 109-160.


                Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Menendez

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Menendez:
        After section 1001(b)(2) of the bill (as added by the 
     manager's amendment), add the following (and redesignate 
     subsequent paragraphs accordingly):
       (3) Hudson-raritan estuary, liberty state park, new 
     jersey.--The project for environmental restoration, Hudson-
     Raritan Estuary, Liberty State Park, New Jersey, at a total 
     cost of $32,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $20,800,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $11,200,000.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 346, the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I understand this amendment is going to 
be accepted by the committee so I will keep my remarks brief.
  This is an amendment that would authorize the Army Corps to perform 
environmental restoration activities at

[[Page H5870]]

Liberty State Park in Jersey City, New Jersey, provided a favorable 
report is issued by the Chief of Engineers.
  Liberty State Park is one of the crown jewels of the State of New 
Jersey. It is an oasis in an urban setting right by the Statute of 
Liberty and Ellis Island, a gateway to a lot of America's history, but 
at the same time there are the remnants of the history of industrial 
use in the vast interior section of the park which is currently fenced 
off from the public because of residual contamination.
  There is a restoration plan that would return 230 acres of the park 
to a state of ecological health. It is vital not only to the people of 
my State, but to literally tens of thousands of Americans who visit the 
park as a portal to the Statute of Liberty and Ellis Island.
  I thank the leadership of the committee for working with me to clear 
up some confusion between our district corps office and headquarters, 
and I commend the leadership of the committee for putting this bill 
together. I look forward to working with the committee as we go to 
conference and as the bill is signed into law.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that would authorize 
the Army Corps to perform environmental restoration activities at 
Liberty State Park in Jersey City, New Jersey, provided a favorable 
report is issued by the Chief of Engineers. This amendment is very 
simple and straightforward, and I thank the leadership of the committee 
for working with me as we cleared up some confusion between our 
district Corps office and headquarters.
  Liberty State Park is one of the jewels of the State of New Jersey. A 
reclaimed rail yard in the shadow of Ellis Island and the Statue of 
Liberty, the Park is rich in both history and scenic beauty. For over 
60 years, the Central Railroad of New Jersey train terminal was the 
first stop for immigrants after passing through Ellis Island. It was 
from this historic terminal that they caught trains that would bring 
them throughout the country to begin their new lives. In more recent 
times and under a less joyful setting, the park hosted thousands of 
evacuees from Lower Manhattan on September 11, 2001.
  As railroad traffic declined in the middle of the 20th Century, the 
area fell into disrepair. But through a tremendous amount of hard work, 
Liberty State Park was born, and has become an oasis in the heart of a 
densely packed metropolitan area, visited by over 4 million people each 
year. The residents of my district don't have a lot of open space to 
enjoy, but at Liberty State Park they have miles of walkways and bike 
paths, educational centers, over 100 acres of green space, and sweeping 
views of the Statue of Liberty and lower Manhattan.
  However, the remnants of a history of industrial use remain over the 
vast interior section of the park, which is currently fenced off from 
the public because of residual contamination. The Army Corps is 
currently finishing the study of a restoration plan that would return 
over 230 acres of the park to a state of ecological health. New tidal 
wetlands will be created, invasive species will be removed, and the 
Park will become a prototype for ecological restoration in an urban 
environment.
  Liberty State Park is just one example of why the Army Corps is 
getting a good reputation in my district for their environmental 
protection and restoration work. Their work on the Lower Passaic River, 
the Hudson-Raritan Estuary, at Minish Park and elsewhere has the 
potential to make a major difference in the quality of the land and 
water throughout New Jersey. This bill will help them continue and 
expand their environmental restoration work, and I appreciate the 
chairman and ranking member including so many projects that are 
important to my district.
  This bill is also about economic growth. The ongoing deepening 
project in New York Harbor and Newark Bay will ensure that the world's 
largest container ships can continue to dock at the east coast's 
largest port. These ships carry far more than just products for store 
shelves. They bring jobs and economic growth, and help fuel an economic 
engine whose power is felt up and down the eastern seaboard, and deep 
into the nation's heartland.
  There are a number of provisions in this bill that will be very 
helpful for the Harbor Deepening project, particularly in the handling 
and use of dredged material. The bill includes new financing tools for 
non-Federal agencies to create dredged material storage and handling 
facilities, and expands the allowed beneficial uses of that material to 
include environmental protection and restoration projects. New Jersey 
has thousands of sites--particularly Brownfields sites--that could 
benefit from this provision.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill, and I commend the chairman and 
ranking member for their work on it. I also thank them for their 
willingness to accept this amendment which is so important to my 
district, and look forward to working with them to move this bill 
forward through what I hope will be an imminent conference.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time 
in opposition, although I do not intend to speak in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Tennessee?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment would authorize an 
environmental restoration project in New Jersey contingent upon the 
Chief of Engineers completing a final report not later than December 
31, 2005.
  The chief's report is the final technical document submitted by the 
Corps of Engineers for a project. It describes the analysis done, the 
alternatives considered, and the recommended plan.
  In putting this bill together, the committee included those projects 
that had favorable chief's reports. With passage of the manager's 
amendment, we have added additional projects that the corps tells us 
will soon have completed chief's reports. These projects are authorized 
contingent on there being a completed chief's report by December 31, 
2005.
  Although the Liberty State Park project was not on the list of nearly 
completed studies provided earlier by the Corps, we now understand that 
this report is expected to be completed by the end of this year. 
Therefore, I have no objection to the gentleman's amendment to include 
his project as a contingent authorization.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment of the gentleman 
from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez to add the environmental restoration 
project in Liberty State Park, New Jersey to the list of projects that 
can proceed, contingent upon the completion of the Chief of Engineers 
report no later than December 31, 2005.
  This is a non-controversial amendment, and would have been included 
in the Committee amendment had the Corps of Engineers acknowledged 
earlier that the report will be finished this year.
  I commend the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez for his hard 
work and persistence to ensure that the study for this project stayed 
on track for completion this year. Without his efforts, we would not be 
able to include this authorization in this year's bill.
  I support the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in House Report 109-160.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Stupak

  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Stupak:
       Page 110, after line 20, insert the following (and conform 
     the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 2041. CRITERIA FOR OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF HARBOR 
                   DREDGING PROJECTS.

        The Secretary shall budget and request appropriations for 
     operation and maintenance of harbor dredging projects based 
     only upon criteria used for such projects in fiscal year 
     2004.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 346, the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this important amendment along with the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) and the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra). Our amendment directs the Army Corps of 
Engineers to budget and request appropriations for operation and 
maintenance harbor dredging based upon criteria used in fiscal year 
2004.

[[Page H5871]]

  Beginning in fiscal year 2005, OMB and the Army Corps began 
implementing new guidelines and criteria for determining whether a 
harbor is eligible to be considered to be funded for dredging in the 
President's budget. According to the Corps, in order for a commercial 
harbor to be considered high use and therefore eligible to be included 
in the budget, it must now move at least 1 million tons of cargo 
annually.
  As a result of this tonnage requirement, a number of routine Army 
Corps operations and maintenance harbor dredging projects will not be 
carried out this year or in fiscal year 2007. There are 293 harbors in 
the U.S. classified as low use. Thus, barring exceptional 
circumstances, these harbors are not eligible to be included in the 
Corps budget next year simply because of this tonnage requirement.
  These highly inadequate guidelines are unfairly biased against rural 
communities and will have a detrimental effect on 19 communities in my 
Northern Michigan district, and to 274 other communities across this 
country. If these harbors are not dredged, small town, rural America 
will suffer more job losses, businesses will struggle, and 
infrastructure could be damaged.
  Members only need to look at the community of Ontonagon in my 
district for an example of the devastating effect this policy will 
have. Ontonagon was taken by surprise when they were not included in 
the President's budget for the first time in more than 5 years. Just 
last year, Ontonagon was dredged to approximately 19 feet. Today, it 
has silted back to 6 feet. In less than a year, two-thirds of this 
harbor has been silted back in. This happens each and every year 
because of a silting problem unique to this harbor. While the Army 
Corps has recognized Ontonagon's unique problem in the past, the new 
tonnage requirement fails to recognize the unique circumstances around 
the country some of these harbors face.
  If this harbor is not dredged, the future of SmurfitStone Container 
Corporation, which relies on the harbor for coal and limestone 
deliveries, and the White Pine Power Company, a revitalized coal plant 
that depends on the harbor for coal deliveries by ship for its power 
generation, will be in jeopardy.
  Imagine the consequences for small towns like Ontonagon if their 
largest businesses are unable to receive the goods they need to remain 
competitive. This is just one example of many harbors that have been or 
will be shortchanged.
  Rural communities already have limited resources available to them, 
and this will just add an additional hardship. The Army Corps must 
develop requirements to determine whether a harbor is to be included in 
the President's budget for a yearly dredge that does not unfairly 
impact small harbors and rural communities. We need to ensure the Corps 
is putting forth guidelines and policies that are as fair as possible 
to all communities across the country. I urge my colleagues to support 
the Stupak-Delahunt-Hoekstra amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time 
in opposition, although I do not intend to speak in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Tennessee?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the administration has issued performance-based 
budgeting criteria based on tonnage being moved. That method places a 
very low priority on maintaining small ports.
  This process ignores the fact that two-thirds of all cargo on major 
waterways either start or finish at small ports. If we abandon our 
small harbors, we adversely affect the entire waterway system that is 
already plagued with deferred maintenance and crumbling infrastructure.
  The gentleman's amendment would ask the Corps to prepare its budget 
using its previous criteria that were based on maintaining an 
acceptable level of service at least cost for a commercial port. It is 
not primarily based on the tonnage in transit. Using this previous 
method would not ignore the contributions of our small harbors to the 
Nation's commercial transportation system.
  I believe the administration's current method of budgeting could 
adversely affect commercial navigation. Therefore, I support the 
gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, for my district--coastal Massachusetts--
our waterways are as important as our roadways. They are a vital part 
of the Nation's transportation infrastructure.
  It is the responsibility of the Army Corps of Engineers to help keep 
our harbors, rivers and other channels in navigable condition. Out of 
the blue, the rules have been changed to dramatically favor larger, 
commercial waterways. This constitutes complete abandonment of Federal 
responsibility and quite simply, is an assault on smaller communities 
all over the country, putting lives and livelihoods at risk.
  The rationale for these changes is that financial constraints require 
us to abruptly change Army Corps' priorities to favor projects with 
``true value to the Nation.'' This sounds good--but is dangerously 
misleading. The changed formula focuses only on commercial tonnage and 
mileage, so smaller projects do not have a chance--even though they are 
critical to the economy and public safety.
  When waterways close due to sediment build-up, the commercial fishing 
industry suffers. Tourism is compromised. And our transport stops--
sometimes dead in the water. The Coast Guard can't undertake ``search 
and rescue'' because they can't move--literally.
  Just as a deteriorating highway or bridge needs repair, our waterways 
need maintenance. If the traffic through a harbor requires an eight-
foot draft and sediment builds up, leaving only five feet available, 
vessels cannot pass. It is larger, commercial vessels like tankers, 
fishing boats and barges that face the greatest difficulty and are most 
likely to run aground.
  Entire portions of our local economy are organized around the sea and 
the easy transport of people and products in and out of our harbors. 
When you consider our island communities--such as Martha's Vineyard and 
Nantucket--the waterways carry all the necessities for local citizens, 
everything from food and water to lumber and heating oil.
  In Chatham Harbor, which hosts the largest fleet of commercial 
fishing vessels in my district, we face a constant problem with 
shoaling. It is a 900-foot channel and when it is not clear, millions 
of dollars are at risk. For the first time in many years, the FY06 
budget does not include dredging for Chatham because it does not meet 
these new criteria.
  Then there's Green Harbor in Marshfield, the second highest lobster 
catch harbor in New England. Green Harbor would be shut down next year, 
costing millions of lost dollars in lobster catch alone, and untold 
tourist and other fisheries revenue.
  In Woods Hole, we have a major Coast Guard station which launches 
many cutter search-and-rescue missions a year. Without regular 
dredging, that emergency equipment is land-bound. Tell that to the 
family of a fishing boat crew that can't reach shore. In that same 
harbor, the Federal government has invested millions in a state-of-the-
art NOAA research vessel. It currently cannot dock at its home station, 
the world-renowned Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, because the 
harbor is clogged with sediment.
  For coastal communities, waterways are the arteries. Dredging is 
vital for the lifeblood of commerce to flow through these arteries for 
the economic health and safety of our coastal communities.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment of the gentleman 
from Michigan, Mr. Stupak.
  The gentleman's amendment requires the administration to adequately 
budget for Federal maintenance of smaller or low-use harbors. It 
reflects the growing frustration of the Members of this House, and the 
people they represent with the Administration's continuing efforts to 
deny communities Federal support for navigation at smaller harbors.
  When the administration submitted its budget request for fiscal year 
2006, it once again sought to eliminate or reduce funding for 
maintenance activities at smaller, less busy harbors. By abandoning 
Federal maintenance of these harbors, the administration places lives 
and livelihoods at risk.
  Lives are at risk since many of these smaller harbors serve as 
harbors of refuge during inclement weather in many areas of the 
country, including the Great Lakes. Failure to adequately maintain 
harbors also creates unsafe navigation conditions, increasing the 
incidence of groundings and capsizing.
  Livelihoods are at risk since many of these smaller harbors serve an 
important economic role in moving cargo, commercial fishing, and 
recreational opportunities.
  Smaller harbors may not move hundreds or thousands of containers or 
tons of bulk cargo, but such harbors can be vital to the local 
community they serve. I hope that the message of

[[Page H5872]]

the gentleman's amendment is heard by the administration, and that the 
budgetary priorities for fiscal year 2007 reflect this serious concern.
  I support the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Duncan) for his support, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in House Report 109-160.


               Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Rohrabacher

  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Rohrabacher:
       Page 110, after line 20, insert the following (and 
     redesignate subsequent sections, and conform the table of 
     contents, of the bill accordingly):

     SEC. 2041. AUTHORITY OF NON-FEDERAL INTERESTS TO LEVY HARBOR 
                   FEES.

       Section 208(a) of Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
     (33 U.S.C. 2236(a)) is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by striking 
     ``tonnage duties or fees'' and inserting ``one or more of 
     tonnage duties, tonnage fees, and container fees''; and
       (2) in paragraph (1)(A)--
       (A) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (i);
       (B) by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (ii) and 
     inserting ``or''; and
       (C) by inserting after clause (ii) the following:
       ``(iii) to finance the cost of construction and operation 
     and maintenance of any infrastructure project for a harbor, 
     including an infrastructure project outside the boundaries of 
     the harbor if the project is for transportation to, from, or 
     through the harbor; and''; and
       (3) in paragraph (1)(B) by inserting ``and security'' after 
     ``emergency response''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 346, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Duncan) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 2864 that will expand the scope 
of section 208 in the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. My 
amendment will allow our ports to levy a fee on containers and use that 
fee to pay for security and infrastructure at the ports.
  The Rohrabacher amendment will facilitate the effort to modernize and 
secure American ports. In my district, the ports of Long Beach and Los 
Angeles handle approximately 44 percent of all of the goods delivered 
to American shores, yet they are in constant need of revenue for 
facilities, improvements and upgrades to roads and bridges and rails.
  Our marine terminals are invaluable commerce infrastructure, not only 
to our country but also for the many foreign manufacturers who sell 
primarily in the U.S. market. This is the portal through which foreign 
manufacturers deliver their goods to our markets. Yet these 
manufacturers provide almost none of the costs of operation or upkeep 
of these vital assets. This system, as it currently operates, is a 
subsidy to foreign manufacturers, paid by the American taxpayer, 
concealing the true cost of imported goods. What we have here is all 
backwards. What we are in effect doing, as the system works, is putting 
a tariff on products that are made in America.
  Section 208 of WRDA currently allows ports to charge fees on tonnage 
and use those fees to fund infrastructure improvements. This section is 
hardly, if ever, invoked by the ports to raise funds due to the fact 
that it is complicated to collect and tends to be too unwieldy to be 
used effectively.
  My amendment allows the ports to use a simpler and more efficient 
method: Fees on containers. The market-based fee in my amendment is 
simple to implement and to track, should be more widely used to raise 
funds for port projects. My amendment will also permit these fees to be 
used for homeland security projects at the ports, as well as 
infrastructure.
  And let us be frank, the security threats that emanate from our ports 
come from foreign cargo. Why are we paying for their threat? If they 
want access to our markets, overseas manufacturers should pay the cost 
to ensure the safety of their deliveries. For too long the funding of 
marine terminals has been a one-way street with the American taxpayer 
footing the bill for the factory owners of Shanghai, Beijing and Macau 
while American manufacturers have been subsidizing their own 
competition.
  Our port facilities should have the freedom to levy a market-based 
container fee which will provide new revenue and make our system more 
equitable to the American taxpayer and American manufacturers. The 
Rohrabacher amendment is the most efficient way to achieve these goals. 
The Rohrabacher amendment says we are on the side of the American 
taxpayer, and those people who run overseas to manufacture in China and 
elsewhere should be paying their part of the cost to make sure that 
that system, our port system, is working.

                              {time}  1315

  I would expect that people on both sides of the aisle would be 
supporting this. Unfortunately, our port systems, our ports, the people 
who run them, would rather come to the American taxpayer and get 
stipends from us rather than asking for a just fee to those 
manufacturers in China to pay for some of the costs that are required 
to ship their goods through our ports.
  This is an American versus foreign vote here. Whose side are we on? 
Who is going to pay the bill? Right now if our people go overseas and 
build their manufacturing plants, we end up subsidizing that by 
permitting them low-cost ways of getting their goods right into our 
market and undercutting the American producers who stayed behind to 
hire American people.
  I would ask people on both sides of the aisle to seriously consider 
this. Do not listen to the ports who simply want more taxpayer 
subsidies. Let us let the people who use this system, the foreign 
manufacturers, pay their fair share.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman from California is one of the best friends I have in 
this Congress, and I certainly have great admiration and respect for 
him, and I sympathize with everything that he has just said; but I must 
regretfully state the position of the committee at this point, which is 
in opposition to this amendment.
  The civil works program of the Army Corps of Engineers provides 
Federal assistance for dredging entrance channels and harbors and the 
Department of Homeland Security now offers grants for security 
projects.
  But, generally, capital improvements to port infrastructure are a 
non-Federal responsibility. The gentleman's amendment would permit a 
non-Federal interest, which could be the port authority or the State 
generally, to collect a fee per container that moves through the harbor 
and to use those funds for security purposes or for infrastructure 
projects within the port or any transportation infrastructure outside 
the harbor.
  First, if the goal is to help ports, this amendment is unnecessary. 
Ports can already charge fees for services under the authority of 
section 208 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, which they 
can use to help them with the cost of security and port infrastructure.
  Second, this amendment goes too far by allowing the collected funds 
to be used for transportation projects outside the port. This could 
mean potentially a State fee paid by shippers of containers at ports 
being used to pay for highway and rail projects elsewhere in the State. 
This is why the American Association of Port Authorities and even the 
gentleman's home port of LA/Long Beach oppose this amendment.
  The Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment held a hearing on 
this bill in November 2003. The American Association of Port 
Authorities, the Waterfront Coalition, and the World Shipping Council 
all testified in opposition to this proposal.
  This amendment is the same as the amendment the gentleman from 
California brought to the House floor last

[[Page H5873]]

Congress. It was defeated by a vote of 359-65. The committee believes 
that the ports can and should charge whatever fees they believe are 
necessary to cover their security needs and infrastructure projects. 
They have the authority to do that now, and Congress should not dictate 
how they make this business decision.
  I can assure the gentleman that I would like to work with him on some 
of the broader section 208 issues to see if we can better address his 
very legitimate concerns. We certainly sympathize with the gentleman's 
amendment. The gentleman's amendment is well-intentioned, but at this 
point the committee position is to urge our colleagues to oppose this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Eddie Bernice Johnson).
  (Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in 
opposition to the amendment.
  This amendment is virtually the same as the amendment offered by the 
gentleman to the Water Resources Development Act of 2003, and which was 
defeated by a vote of 65 to 359.
  The arguments against this amendment are the same, and unfortunately 
the gentleman from California has not addressed the concerns raised by 
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure the last time this 
amendment was offered.
  I can understand the gentleman's interest in supporting additional 
investment in our Nation's ports and harbor infrastructure, but I do 
not believe that this amendment is the best way to achieve that goal.
  Port authorities currently have the authority to collect fees for the 
services they provide, as provided by section 208 of the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1986, and decisions of the Supreme Court.
  These fees can be used for services provided, and the construction, 
and operation and maintenance of, or emergency response services for 
navigation projects for a harbor.
  The fees contemplated by the Rohrabacher amendment would be available 
for ports and States to use for any infrastructure project, including 
infrastructure outside the boundaries of the harbor, if the project is 
for transportation to, from, or through the harbor.
  This could be any road, rail, or even airport project associated with 
the harbor.
  It could also include the locks and dams on the inland waterway 
system.
  This amendment could encourage ports or States to view containerized 
cargo as a simple source of revenue, in effect, a hidden tax to finance 
any and all transportation modes.
  While I support the efforts of our Nation's port facilities to 
provide intermodal connections between the ports and the highways and 
rail systems that move goods to their final destinations, I believe 
that it is inappropriate to establish a fee system where the 
containerized cargo industry could be supporting other transportation 
modes.
  In addition, this amendment is described as a way to pay for much-
needed security enhancements at our Nation's ports.
  However, in effect, the revenue raised by this amendment would be 
limited to only those in conjunction with the construction, operation, 
and maintenance of a navigation project or other infrastructure, and 
would cease to exist once these projects were complete.
  It would not provide a long-term solution to reducing the 
vulnerability of our Nation's ports.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The establishment has set up a system that we have built a 
Frankenstein monster in China by ensuring that jobs and manufacturing 
are going to China. I do not know why that is, I think that was a 
horrible decision, but it is time for us to start backing away from 
that policy. The most important way to start backing away from the 
policy of taking American jobs and shipping them to China, building the 
economic strength of China, the first step to take is to make sure that 
those people who go to China to manufacture are paying the cost of 
shipping their goods into America's markets rather than having the 
taxpayer provide that for them at the expense of our own manufacturers.
  I would ask people on both sides of the aisle, let us turn around 
this policy, change the basic policy on China, vote ``yes'' on the 
Rohrabacher amendment.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I must oppose the amendment of the 
gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, in its current form.
  While I congratulate the gentleman for seeking ways to enhance the 
availability of resources to address security and infrastructure needs, 
I believe that his proposal is too broad.
  The proposal would amend the authority contained in the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1986 for ports to charge fees to recover a 
portion of their costs associated with port deepening projects. That 
authority was carefully crafted to ensure that the fees that were 
charged on a vessel were associated with improvements and activities at 
the port. This amendment allows for fees to finance activities well 
beyond the confines of the port.
  The amendment specifically allows for the imposition of fees on 
containers and for those proceeds to be used for financing the cost of 
construction and operation and maintenance of infrastructure outside 
the boundaries of the harbor. This is simply too broad.
  The amendment would allow for the imposition of container fees to 
finance highways or rail expansion, with the only requirement being 
that the project go to, from, or through the harbor. This could 
certainly benefit other transportation modes, but it would do so on the 
back of container traffic.
  This proposal needs further review. We can look at the passenger 
facility charges currently used in the aviation program as a model. 
There, Congress working in collaboration with aviation interests 
developed a financing mechanism that has benefited airports, the 
airline industry, and air passengers. But, we did not allow these 
revenues to become the financing mechanism for a wide variety of 
infrastructure projects.
  I would be pleased to work with the gentleman on his proposal, 
participate in hearings, and work with interested parties. But, in its 
current form, I oppose the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Rohrabacher) will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed in House 
Report 109-160.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 printed in House 
Report 109-160.


                  Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Flake:
       Page 346, strike lines 19 and 20 and insert the following:
       (C) implement not later than January 1, 2006, an 
     appointment system to schedule and prioritize, based upon the 
     average lockage time of each barge company, traffic movements 
     at each lock on the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois 
     Waterway.
       Page 347, strike lines 4 through 7 and insert the 
     following:
       (1) In General.--The Secretary shall construct new 1,200-
     foot-long locks at Locks 20, 21, 22, 24 and 25 on the Upper 
     Mississippi River and at Lagrange Lock and Peoria Lock on the 
     Illinois Waterway if the combined, 3-year average of the 
     number of total tons of commodities processed at these 7 
     locks in calender years 2007, 2008, and 2009 exceeds 
     35,000,000 tons.
       (2) Reporting Requirements.--The Secretary shall submit to 
     Congress--
       (A) before December 31, 2010, a notification report, 
     prepared in consultation with the National Research Council 
     of the National Academy of Sciences, indicating a 
     recommendation on whether to proceed with new lock 
     construction described in paragraph (1) based on a cost-
     benefit analysis and on activities undertaken under 
     subsection (a)(1); and
       (B) before December 31, 2013, a reevaluation report on 
     whether to proceed with new lock construction described in 
     paragraph (1) taking into account regional, national, and 
     world market conditions and the development and application 
     of new peer-reviewed models.
       Page 347, line 8, strike ``(2)'' and insert ``(3)''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 346, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  This amendment, contrary to what has been said on the floor earlier, 
in

[[Page H5874]]

fact, a Dear Colleague just went around that somebody brought my 
attention to that says that this project would prevent this critical 
piece of infrastructure modernization from going forward, this 
amendment would do nothing of the sort, unless the tonnage requirements 
that the corps has actually put forward on its own are not met that 
would justify the project. This simply says that this project only goes 
forward if the benefits outweigh the costs. It will not go forward 
under this amendment if the costs outweigh the benefits. It is a simple 
amendment. I would encourage my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Akin).
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment for 
several reasons. The first thing, it is a very basic kind of principle 
of politics and how we do government, that is, the idea of a use tax. 
When we buy gasoline at the gas pump, there is a tax on it and the 
purpose of that tax is to be able to build roads.
  In this case, there are tow boats and barges and they pay a gasoline 
tax and the purpose of that tax is to help build our infrastructure. 
Through the years, the people that have been going up and down the 
Mississippi and the Ohio river valleys with the barges and the tow 
boats have been paying this tax. The tax, I believe, should be used to 
rebuild these locks.
  I am from the St. Louis area, and some of these locks are just 
antiques. We do not even know when they are going to break sometimes. 
We have to move goods up and down the river. There are some critical 
supplies that have to get to various cities, such as fuel oil to 
Chicago and other things like that, not to mention the grain that is 
going out of the country. That is why it is very important to rebuild 
these locks. We are using a gasoline tax effectively to do that.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, the previous colleague who was 
concerned about this said it was time to rebuild the locks. It betrays 
a fundamental misunderstanding of what the project is. The project is 
not about rebuilding the locks. We have been doing that over the last 
25 years. In fact, there is an $88 million project going right now for 
Lock 24. This is a $1.8 billion addition, building new locks in 
addition to what we already have there.
  In that regard, the proposal that the gentleman from Arizona and I 
have offered up, saying we do not do a new one unless it is justified, 
seems reasonable, modest and important.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Costello).
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for 
yielding me this time.
  I said previously, and I will say again, that I am in opposition to 
this amendment. Almost 70 percent of U.S. ag exports travel the upper 
Mississippi River and the Illinois waterway system. The current locks 
are 50 to 70 years old. They were built to handle 600-foot barges, not 
the 1,200-foot barges today. We are spending millions of dollars in 
emergency repairs. I have four pages of a computer printout in small 
print where we have spent $65 million in repairs, emergency repairs, to 
the current locks. Taxpayers are spending millions of dollars to put a 
Band-Aid on a system that is antiquated. We must modernize these locks. 
We cannot waste time. We cannot delay the project.
  There is not another bill that has come to this floor this session 
that I am aware of that has had the support of the business community 
and labor unions. The building trades as well as the American Chamber 
of Commerce and a number of other groups and organizations have come 
together in support of this bill. I ask that our colleagues reject this 
amendment and vote ``yes'' on final passage.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Again, I am going 
to sound like a broken record by the time this is through. All this 
amendment says is that based on the corps' own assumptions, river 
traffic is going to have to reach 35 million tons. That would be 
required to justify the project. If that is not met, the project will 
not go forward. If it is met, it will go forward.
  We are simply saying that the corps' own assumptions need to be met, 
need to be satisfied, in order for the project to go forward. Again, 
this is not scuttle the project. This simply says it needs to be 
justified by their own figures.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in opposition to the Flake-Blumenauer amendment. The gentleman 
from Oregon is one of the most active and one of the finest members of 
our Subcommittee on Water Resources and the Environment. The gentleman 
from Arizona and I vote alike on probably 98 or 99 percent of the 
issues that come before this Congress, so I cannot overstate my respect 
and admiration for both of these gentlemen; but I do have to oppose 
this amendment.
  Failure to upgrade our infrastructure is not fiscally conservative. 
Not constructing the upper Mississippi navigation improvement project, 
according to the National Corn Growers Association, will result in a 
loss of $562 million in annual farm income by 2020. Of this, $246 
million would be lost in reduced exports to other countries. Navigation 
on the upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway provides for more than 
400,000 jobs, including 90,000 high-paying manufacturing jobs. The 
navigation improvement project in H.R. 2864 would create an additional 
48 million man-hours of work. There is a critical Federal interest in 
navigation. The vast array of navigation infrastructure is important to 
the Nation's economy and a secure economy is a necessary part of a 
secure Nation.
  Right now, increased transportation costs mean that some of our 
farmers and manufacturers will not be able to compete in the world 
market and may go out of business. This means the shipment of cargo on 
these rivers will decrease, not increase. So it is sort of a self-
fulfilling prophecy that we have been discussing. Right now, traffic on 
these rivers is constrained, very constrained, by small aging locks. It 
is not fiscally conservative to constrain the United States economy 
with outdated and obsolete infrastructure. If you do not improve or 
maintain buildings and homes, they deteriorate. That is not a fiscally 
conservative thing to do. We could say the same about our locks and our 
dams.
  The language contained in title 8 of the bill is compromise language. 
This language was negotiated last year with the other body. The WRDA 
bill pending in the other body contains virtually identical language. 
The Flake-Blumenauer amendment will either delay or halt the project, 
costing U.S. taxpayers much, much more in the future. As a fiscal 
conservative, I try to be a careful steward of taxpayer dollars. This 
project is an investment in America, and I support it. Voting against 
the Flake-Blumenauer amendment is the fiscally conservative thing to 
do. Accordingly, I must oppose this amendment and urge a ``no'' vote on 
it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I would make two brief points. First, 
what is not being focused on is where the traffic is going in this 
corridor. Some products that previously had gone out the mouth of the 
Mississippi River are now going north to Canada by rail, south to 
Mexico by rail, they are going west for export, or they are being 
consumed domestically.
  That is why, and it comes to the second point: traffic on the river 
is not going up as these studies have shown. It has been flat for the 
last 20 years. It has been going down for the last 3 years. What the 
gentleman from Arizona and I have offered is a modest compromise. If 3 
years is not enough, take 4 years. But look at where the trend line is 
going and justify a project before you start new construction, $1.8 
billion, for something that frankly does not appear to be warranted 
according to the independent estimates, CRS, three studies from the 
National Academy of Science, and we have already seen that the corps' 
process has been severely discredited according to an investigation by 
the Inspector General.

[[Page H5875]]

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Let me just say, again, I am sympathetic to the needs, and I have 
seen the locks. In fact, last week I was in Keokuk, Iowa and saw a lock 
not unlike the ones that are going to be funded by this project. And 
they are old. They do need maintenance. We are providing a lot of money 
for that now. We have been ongoing for the past several decades.
  But this is new dollars, new money for new locks. And it seems to me 
that if we are fiscally conservative, we ought to say there ought to be 
a justification. There are ways one can justify it. They could say it 
is going to create a lot of jobs, a lot of people are going to be 
working on that project, but that all makes sense if we are all 
Keynesians now, and I hope we are not. I hope that we believe that 
taxpayers ought to be protected, and they spend their money best, 
unless there is a justified need. And here all we are saying, as the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) said, this is a carefully 
constructed compromise saying that it should move forward if there is 
an economic justification for it. If there is not, then it should not 
move forward. That is all we are saying here.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake) is saying. I think it is important to have this 
safety valve. Nobody is suggesting that we close the locks, stop the 
rehabilitation, and shove all this stuff on trucks. That is not what we 
are talking about. There is plenty of time, plenty of money that can be 
spent boosting the local economy by doing this right. But concentrate 
on the priorities. Make sure what we have got works, scale it to 
traffic, give it a fair test, see if the experts are right. If the 
experts are all wrong, then the project will go forward. If the experts 
are right, we will have saved $1.8 billion.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I appreciate the debate that has been had on this topic. Again, we 
have this year over a $300 billion deficit. It is better than we 
thought it was going to be, but it is still over $300 billion. We have 
a debt near $8 trillion now. If we, as stewards of the taxpayers' 
money, cannot step in and when a project does not meet its own goals to 
move forward, if we cannot step in and say we are not going to do this, 
we are not going to spend the taxpayers' money on this, we are going to 
wait and get a project that is justified, then who are we as Members of 
Congress? We will never get a handle on this debt or deficit.
  I would say that, if one is fiscally conservative, this amendment is 
a lock.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield for a unanimous consent request to 
the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
  (Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in 
opposition to this amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Flake) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  This amendment would prohibit the construction of new locks for the 
Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway navigation project unless 
the volume of cargo moving along the system increases at a pre-
determined rate.
  I understand the concerns of the authors of this amendment.
  The Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway navigation project 
has a history of being the longest, the most costly, and the most 
controversial study by the Corps of Engineers that anyone can recall.
  During the formulation of the navigation and ecosystem restoration 
components of this project, numerous outside groups, including the 
National Research Council, expressed concern with the economic 
justification for the project, including the predicted increases in 
grain shipments and other commodities that will utilize the new locks 
called for in the report of the Chief of Engineers.
  However, the way to address these concerns is not to restrict the 
Corps' capability to carry out its mission, but to commit to the 
necessary congressional oversight on this project as each component 
proceeds towards implementation.
  As with every major project carried out by the Corps, including the 
restoration of the Florida Everglades, the restoration of Coastal 
Louisiana, and the construction of the new locks on the Upper 
Mississippi River, it is the Congress that must ensure that Federal 
dollars are wisely spent.
  As keepers of the Federal purse, we must commit to careful oversight 
of these major projects over the coming decades to ensure that taxpayer 
dollars are not wasted.
  The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure stands ready to 
keep careful watch over this project, as well as other programs of the 
Corps of Engineers.
  For this reason, I must oppose the amendment offered by Mr. Flake and 
Mr. Blumenauer.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof).
  Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this 
time.
  In the remaining time, first of all, to my friend from Arizona, this 
is an authorization, not an appropriation. Half of the cost is going to 
be borne by those that use it, $900 million from the inland waterway 
trust fund. To my friend from Oregon, the trends on the inland waterway 
system have gone up except in this area where the locks and dams are 
crumbling because we are losing the reliability of these antiquated 
structures that were built in the 1930s with a 50-year useful life. And 
would they put the same sort of requirement on our national highway 
system?
  The fact is that the Inland Waterway Structure and these locks and 
dams on the Upper Mississippi do have national significance. That is 
why we must modernize them and reject this amendment.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to 
express my opposition to the Flake amendment.
  I know many following this debate today are not from Wisconsin--or 
the Upper Midwest for that matter. You may look at this amendment and 
wonder--``is this investment in our infrastructure really worth the 
cost?'' I can assure you, the answer to that question is ``yes.''
  The Mississippi River is critical to Wisconsin's economic viability. 
Whether it is providing an efficient, cost-effective transportation 
system for Wisconsin agricultural products or helping bring lower-cost 
coal to Wisconsin power plants, the Mississippi River is the engine 
that keeps many communities in Wisconsin running. Unfortunately, this 
essential engine is aging--at times even sputtering. The infrastructure 
on the river is nearly 70 years old. Unplanned lock closures are 
increasing by 10 percent each year and the waiting time at critical 
locks continues to increase.
  The proposal we have before us today is what is needed to ensure that 
the Mississippi River continues to be a vital economic link for 
American commerce and exports. Waiting three more years will only 
marginalize this waterway system. The proposal we have before us today 
is over 12 years and $75 million dollars in the making. It is a sound 
proposal and has the strong support of states in the basin as well as 
85% of participants at recent public meetings.
  Frankly, I think this issue really boils down to this: if you think 
shutting down access to our export markets is good for America's 
farmers, you should vote for this amendment. If you think Congress 
should abandon its commitment to rural communities, then you should 
vote for this amendment. If you oppose efficient, reliable, 
environmentally-friendly, low-cost transportation, then you should vote 
for this amendment.
  Modernization of the Upper Mississippi River System is good for our 
economy and good for our environment. If you support agriculture; if 
you support rural communities; if you support efficient infrastructure, 
then you should oppose the Flake amendment and support the bill we have 
before us today.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment.
  An efficient, modern, intermodal transportation system is vital to 
the economic well being of the Nation. Our inland waterways are a 
critical component of that system. This amendment sacrifices any hope 
of regaining a leadership role in world grain markets for Midwest 
producers.
  I can appreciate the concerns of the gentlemen that offer this 
amendment. The Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway Navigation 
Study has been the costliest and most controversial study ever 
undertaken by the Corps of Engineers. It has had whistleblower 
complaints, an investigation by the Office of Special Counsel, an 
investigation by the Army Inspector General, three National Academy of 
Sciences reviews, Congressional hearings, and more newspaper articles 
and editorials

[[Page H5876]]

than one could imagine. Throughout all this, the Corps remained 
thorough, professional, and exemplary in its review of alternatives and 
its willingness to adapt to new information presented to it.
  The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and its 
predecessors, has consistently supported a diverse and efficient 
national transportation system. This includes ports, highways, rail, 
aviation, and the inland waterway system. Each of these modes 
contributes to the overall transportation system that fuels the world's 
leading economy.
  In pursuing the national transportation system, we cannot stand 
still. We did not build the Interstate Highway System and then walk 
away. We continue to expand and modernize the system to meet evolving 
needs--the House/Senate conference intends to conclude its work on a 
reauthorization bill this month. The same is true for ports, rail and 
aviation. The inland waterway system is no different.
  The Corps recommends the construction of five new locks on the Upper 
Mississippi River, and two new locks on the Illinois Waterway. At 1,200 
feet, these locks will accommodate today's common 15-barge tows. 
Instead of having to break the tows into two sections to pass through 
the locks, a 1,200-foot lock allows passage as a single unit. This can 
save an hour or more of transit time, resulting in lower transportation 
costs, and grain exports that are more competitive on world markets.
  There are the small-scale structural and non-structural measures that 
should be pursued immediately. Initially, the Corps plans to implement 
mooring facilities and switchboats over the next 15 years. The Corps 
should also continue to explore options to improve the utilization of 
existing facilities through improved scheduling techniques and river 
traffic management. The Nation constantly explores improvements in 
managing air traffic congestion; the inland transportation sector could 
benefit from lessons learned in aviation traffic management. After all, 
the Corps will have to aggressively pursue nonstructural traffic 
management techniques during any construction period. It is never too 
early to explore what works.
  While the Corps is implementing the small-scale structural and 
nonstructural changes, the Corps should continue its efforts in 
planning the construction of the new locks. These are the large-scale 
improvements calling for the construction of 7 new 1,200-foot locks. 
These components should stay on track. The Nation's grain producers, 
the transportation industry, and our export customers need to have a 
stable, reliable economic environment in which to grow and develop. In 
the meantime, the Corps and the Congress will have the opportunity to 
evaluate the effectiveness of the small-scale measures, monitor grain 
trade patterns, and proceed with the most current and accurate 
information available.
  The amendment before the Committee would simply add delay for no 
benefit. A contributing cause of stagnant traffic patterns is the very 
congestion that these locks would alleviate. By requiring traffic to 
grow before the locks can proceed will forever doom the locks. The 
proponents of the amendment fail to acknowledge that these new locks 
are desperately needed to allow traffic to grow.
  Grain sales occur in world markets based on extremely small 
variations in price. I recall instances when as little as one-eighth of 
a cent per bushel was enough to be the deciding factor. By reducing 
congestion and lowering transportation costs, we can do our part to 
ensure that U.S. grain products can successfully compete on world 
markets. Requiring more traffic, more congestion, and higher prices 
before the locks can proceed will only further harm the Midwest 
agricultural economy.
  The small-scale and large-scale construction components will require 
significant mitigation components. Let me be clear to the Corps and the 
other Federal agencies involved that the Corps must adhere to the 
requirements of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 and ensure 
that all required mitigation is undertaken either in advance, or 
concurrent with the construction. Too often, mitigation becomes the 
orphan of the project and the environment suffers. That cannot be the 
case here, or elsewhere in the Corps program.
  The remaining critical element of the proposal is the recommendation 
for a large-scale ecosystem restoration program for the area. While the 
total $5.3 billion cost is large, the value to the United States of the 
Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway navigation system justifies the 
costs.
  Since 1940, the Nation has benefited from the efficient and safe 
transportation of goods by barge. Waterborne transportation remains the 
most fuel-efficient way to transfer bulk commodities. Yet, this highly 
efficient system has exacted a price on the ecosystem of the Upper 
Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway.
  This ecosystem comprises 2.6 million acres in parts of five States. 
It includes hundreds of thousands of acres of bottomland forest, 
islands, backwaters, side channels, and wetlands. The region supports 
270 species of birds, 57 species of mammals, 45 species of reptiles and 
amphibians, 113 species of fish, and nearly 50 species of mussels. More 
than 40 percent of North America's migratory waterfowl and shorebirds 
depend on the resources, shelter, and habitat that the region provides. 
We must do our part to restore this precious resource.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the recommendations of the Chief of Engineers 
to enhance the Nation's inland waterway transportation system, and to 
restore the ecosystem of the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois 
Waterway.
  I strongly oppose the amendment offered by Mr. Flake and Mr. 
Blumenauer, and urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, with great respect for the two members who 
have offered this amendment, I rise in opposition to its content.
  What is at issue is whether we want a first or second class 
transportation infrastructure. The locks are designed to last at least 
fifty years. It is impossible to predict what goods will be transported 
up or down the river fifty years from now. Will it be corn or some new 
fiber that is either calorie or energy intensive? Will it be steel, 
aluminum, iron ore, fertilizer, or a refined corn or plastic product?
  Accordingly, I am extremely doubtful of capacity testing approaches 
that fit a couple year time frame which would put the future economic 
viability of the Midwest in jeopardy. Unlike the coasts with their 
spacious oceans--we are landlocked. The Mississippi River and its locks 
are our doors to the world. The question with the Blumenauer and Flake 
Amendment is whether these doors will be small or constraining or 
somewhat larger and more hospitable to commerce.
  There are environmental as well as humanitarian questions that must 
be pondered. To the surprise of some, the environmental and 
humanitarian case for somewhat larger locks is compelling. After all, 
all forms of transportation cause environmental disruption. But barges 
use less energy than other forms of transportation. Indeed, logically, 
upgrading our locks and dams should be part of the Energy bill. Barges 
are fuel efficient moving goods upstream; and when they travel 
downstream they are partly gravity driven. Gravity is analogous to cost 
free, solar energy. Barges, with their waves and physical interactions 
with the river cause interruptions with nature. But so do trucks, 
trains and airplanes, and it is quite possible that barges are the 
least nature-intrusive technique to move commercial goods. They are 
also the cheapest in many circumstances. At great risk, this Congress 
turns a cold shoulder to infrastructure investments that improve 
American competitiveness.
  As for the humanitarian issue, the great American breadbasket has 
provided food at minimal cost to the American people. It has also 
provided foodstuffs to a starving world. To trim the doors of commerce 
in food is to trim our humanitarian obligations to impoverished peoples 
throughout the world.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me say that the lock system of the 
Mississippi River is a vibrant part of the American transportation 
infrastructure. This is the first amendment that I have encountered in 
this body that suggests our infrastructure should be second rate. The 
history of this country has been one of opening, not closing, the 
heartland. That is why we built the Erie Canal. That is why we built 
the St. Lawrence Seaway. That is why we should not constrain the future 
and narrow the valves of our heartland's greatest artery.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Flake) will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 printed in House 
report 109-160.


                  Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Kind

  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Kind:
       Page 354, line 23, strike ``and'';
       Page 355, line 3, strike ``rates.'' and insert ``rates; 
     and''.
       Page 355, after line (3), insert the following:
       ``(3) make an annual report to Congress, beginning in 
     fiscal year 2008, regarding whether the projects are being 
     carried out at a comparable rate.''.
       Page 355 line 4, after ``Secretary'' insert ``or 
     Congress''.


[[Page H5877]]


  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 346, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this legislation. I think it 
is a very positive step forward and a very balanced approach.
  The amendment I am offering is a friendly amendment. It is not an 
amendment that is calling for a retraction or cutback of any programs. 
It is not an amendment asking for more money or less money for any 
project. It is not an amendment that changes the definition of anything 
in the bill. It is an amendment that appreciates the approach in 
regards to the management of the Upper Mississippi River basin, 
especially under title VIII.
  Title VIII contains two major features: One, as the previous 
amendment spoke to, is the modernization of the lock and dam system for 
a certain number of locks in the middle part of the Mississippi and 
along the Illinois River. But the other component of all that, that 
really has not received that much attention, is the ecosystem 
restoration plan that was also a part of the navigation study and one 
that has been put forward with us today.
  In the underlying bill, I think the authors of the legislation, those 
in support of it, understand the use of the Mississippi River. Yes, 
there is commercial navigation on it, and there will be tomorrow. It is 
an important feature of economic development and for our regional 
economy in the Midwest area. But it is also a river that is used for 
recreational purposes and tourism purposes. And what is being proposed 
in the ecosystem restoration portion of the bill is one of the most 
major investments in the ecosystem of the Mississippi River Basin. And 
the language actually asks for a comparable rate of progress being made 
in both the modernization of the lock and dam system along with the 
investment in the ecosystem restoration, an adaptive management 
approach that the Corps of Engineers along with other outside experts 
have recommended in regards to the management of the river system.
  My amendment does two very simple things. One is, the Secretary of 
Army, under the current bill, is required every 4 years to submit a 
report to Congress showing the progress being made in both the 
ecosystem restoration and lock and dam modernization. My amendment asks 
for an annual report by the Secretary to do that so that the taxpayers 
can determine whether or not the investment is being well spent, so we 
can determine here in Congress whether the comparable rate of progress 
is being met, and so that there is that continuing underlying 
justification that the authors of the previous amendment were alluding 
to previously.
  But my amendment also just clarifies that Congress also has a role in 
regards to making sure that we do have a comparable rate of progress 
being made in both the ecosystem portion of the underlying bill and the 
lock and dam modernization.
  Those who grew up on the Mississippi, as I did, and I would probably 
call myself a river rat, having grown up in western Wisconsin and spent 
my youth on the river and now enjoy it immensely with my own family and 
two little boys, understand the importance of maintaining the balance 
of this vitally important national treasure that we have called the 
Mississippi River Basin. That area has been the key to the fertile 
lands that we now call the bread basket of America. It is now a multi-
billion dollar industry, the agricultural production that occurs in the 
upper Midwest. But it is also a multi-billion dollar industry in 
regards to the recreational and tourism use of the upper Mississippi 
area. In fact, the Upper Mississippi Wildlife Refuge, the largest 
refuge in the Nation, has more visitors to it than Yellowstone National 
Park every year. This river basin is the primary drinking source of 
over 33 million Americans. It is North America's largest migratory 
route. Forty percent of water foul species, and any person who loves to 
duck hunt, as I do, will tell Members how vitally important that 
Mississippi River corridor is to the duck populations in the North 
American continent. And it is a tremendous economic value to our 
regional economies, not just the commercial navigation that is vital 
but also the recreational and the tourism value that it brings to the 
region.
  So all we are asking in this amendment is having an annual report by 
the Secretary of the Army so we can track the progress being made on 
both fronts and also this clarification that Congress is going to play 
a role in making sure that we do maintain balance in regards to lock 
and dam modernization but also the important investment that has to go 
into ecosystem restoration.
  Both components are expensive, and that is why we need to come back, 
I think, on a much more frequent basis to review the progress that is 
being made and be able to justify this to the American taxpayer.
  My friend from Arizona is exactly right. We are running budget 
deficits. These are expensive projects. We should be held accountable. 
And I think having an annual report to do that is a step forward in 
that direction.
  I just want to conclude by commending and thanking the work that the 
committee has done in putting together, I think, a very fair and 
balanced bill; the work that the staff has put in to try to reach 
consensus. Obviously, it is not without controversy. The NAFF study is 
something that has been around for over 10 years. It has cost us close 
to $100 million to conclude before the Corps of Engineers submitted 
their final report to Congress for our consideration. And my guess is, 
we are probably going to have to continue working on lock and 
modernization and the ecosystem portion of the river in years to come.
  But I think it is an important first step. I think my amendment does 
add some value to the underlying bill, and I encourage my colleagues to 
support it.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time 
in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Tennessee?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I will not oppose the amendment. I will simply say, the gentleman's 
amendment relates to the project for navigation improvements and 
ecosystem restoration on the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois 
Waterway System. This framework for what will be multiple projects is 
authorized in title VIII of the reported bill.
  Section 8005 of H.R. 2864, as reported, requires that the Secretary 
make a determination whether or not the projects are being carried out 
at comparable rates. This amendment directs the Secretary to submit an 
annual report to Congress on this determination that is already 
required by the reported bill. I have no objection to the Secretary's 
reporting to Congress on this issue, and therefore, I have no objection 
to this amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment relates 
to the many projects that make up Title 8 of the bill, the Upper 
Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System. The amendment has two 
parts.
  The first part requires that the Secretary report to Congress on his 
determination of whether the projects are being carried out at 
comparable rates. I have no objection to the Secretary reporting to 
Congress on his findings.
  The second part of the amendment has no meaning since it suggests 
that the Congress shall be making adjustments to annual funding 
requests for the various projects under this Title. Congress does not 
make funding requests.
  Therefore, the only operative part of this amendment is the report to 
Congress, and on that point, I have no objection.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment of the gentleman 
from Wisconsin, Mr. Kind.
  This amendment seeks to ensure that the navigation project for the 
Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway proceeds in tandem with 
the environmental restoration program that this bill simultaneously 
authorizes. It also calls for the budgetary process to be adjusted to 
accomplish this goal.
  I believe that this amendment reflects the original intent of the 
interested parties and the Corps of Engineers. When the environmental 
component was added to the navigation study, it was in recognition that 
the two programs needed to complement each other.

[[Page H5878]]

  The Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway are a multi-purpose 
system. They serve important navigation needs yet are a vital part of 
the Nation's environmental ecosystem. The Mississippi River, its 
sidechannels, and tributaries constitute the central flyway for 
millions of migrating waterfowl. It also serves as the home for a 
variety of fish and shellfish.
  I support the twin goals of improving navigation on the Upper 
Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway and conducting environmental 
restoration. This amendment is consistent with these goals. I support 
the amendment.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I take this 
opportunity to acknowledge the strong bipartisanship that is the 
hallmark of this bill, and I especially acknowledge the bipartisanship 
of the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), subcommittee chairman; 
and the cooperation of the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), committee 
chairman; and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), ranking 
member.
  This bill demonstrates the kind of cooperation that too often is 
lacking in this House. We on the Democratic side do not agree with 
everything that is in this bill. We might have written it differently 
had we written it alone. I am sure that any colleagues on the 
Republican side feel the same way. But working together, listening to 
each other, we developed a bill that I am sure will have broad 
bipartisan support in this House when the vote is taken in just a few 
minutes.
  I also take this time to acknowledge the highly professional and 
skilled work of Susan Bodine, the Republican staff director and counsel 
for the subcommittee. This will be her last water resources bill. She 
has been nominated to become the assistant administrator for Solid 
Waste and Emergency Response at the Environmental Protection Agency, 
and I am sure that she will soon be confirmed and will do a wonderful 
job. She has served the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
in this House with the knowledge, professionalism, advocacy and 
pragmatism that exemplifies the best of the legislative process.
  On behalf of the Democrats on the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, we congratulate Ms. Bodine and wish her every success 
in her new position.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last 
word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Tennessee?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) for those very kind remarks, and I 
could say everything back to her that she just said. And we appreciate 
the cooperation and the hard work of the staff on both sides.
  I had the privilege to introduce Susan Bodine to the Senate committee 
this morning, and I said so many good things about her at that time 
that I would not want to repeat those again or her head would get so 
big, she would not be able to get out of this room here today.
  But we do appreciate so much the work that she has done over the 
years for our subcommittee, and she has been one of the finest staffers 
that this Congress has ever had, and we want to congratulate her. We 
hate to lose her to the EPA, but certainly she is moving onward and 
upward and we wish her the very best.
  With that, I urge passage of this bill.


          Sequential Votes Postponed In Committee Of The Whole

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed in the following order: amendment No. 4 by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher), amendment No. 6 by the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for the second electronic 
vote in this series.


               Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Rohrabacher

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Rohrabacher) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 111, 
noes 310, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 376]

                               AYES--111

     Abercrombie
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bono
     Brown (OH)
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Case
     Coble
     Costa
     Costello
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Emerson
     Engel
     Evans
     Farr
     Flake
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Harman
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Herseth
     Hinchey
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Issa
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     King (IA)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larson (CT)
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Maloney
     Marshall
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Mica
     Moore (WI)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Olver
     Otter
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Renzi
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Slaughter
     Sodrel
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Walsh
     Watt
     Wilson (SC)

                               NOES--310

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hensarling
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lynch
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Poe
     Pomeroy

[[Page H5879]]


     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Gallegly
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     McIntyre
     Miller (FL)
     Oberstar
     Platts
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1411

  Messrs. ISRAEL, LoBIONDO, KOLBE, CASTLE, MOORE of Kansas, BARRETT of 
South Carolina, MEEK of Florida, CONAWAY, KUHL of New York, MELANCON, 
Mrs. TAUSCHER and Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ changed their vote from ``aye'' 
to ``no.''
  Messrs. McDERMOTT, PETRI, BROWN of Ohio, WATT, GUTKNECHT, SHUSTER, 
BURTON of Indiana, ISSA, ISTOOK, LARSON of Connecticut, MURTHA, EVANS, 
DELAHUNT, MEEHAN, SHADEGG, HERGER, KENNEDY of Rhode Island, LANGEVIN, 
DOYLE, RENZI, FARR, Ms. DeLAURO, Ms. BALDWIN, Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin, 
Ms. DeGETTE, and Ms. McCOLLUM changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                  Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Flake

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simpson). The pending business is the demand 
for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 105, 
noes 315, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 377]

                               AYES--105

     Andrews
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Berkley
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bono
     Bradley (NH)
     Brown (OH)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Cooper
     Crowley
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Feeney
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Harman
     Hayworth
     Hensarling
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Johnson (CT)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kind
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     Langevin
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Myrick
     Obey
     Olver
     Otter
     Pallone
     Paul
     Payne
     Pence
     Ramstad
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Royce
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Saxton
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Sherman
     Smith (WA)
     Stark
     Stearns
     Tancredo
     Tierney
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Watson
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu

                               NOES--315

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carter
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     Delahunt
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kildee
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pearce
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Towns
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Gallegly
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     McIntyre
     Miller (FL)
     Oberstar
     Pelosi
     Sanders
     Young (FL)


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simpson)(during the vote). Members are 
advised that 2 minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1418

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. There being no other amendments, the question is 
on the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Bass) having assumed the chair, Mr. Simpson, Acting Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2864) 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, pursuant to House Resolution 346, he reported 
the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee 
of the Whole.

[[Page H5880]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read a third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on passage of H.R. 2864 will be followed by a 5-minute vote 
on the motion to suspend the rules on H. Con. Res. 191.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 406, 
nays 14, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 378]

                               YEAS--406

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                                NAYS--14

     Boehner
     Cooper
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Flake
     Franks (AZ)
     Hensarling
     Inglis (SC)
     Paul
     Royce
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Stearns
     Tancredo

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Gallegly
     Hall
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     McIntyre
     Miller (FL)
     Oberstar
     Pelosi
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1437

  Mr. ROYCE and Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________