[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 16 (Monday, February 4, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S470-S476]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mrs. Boxer):
  S. 208. A bill to require the Federal Aviation Administration to 
prescribe regulations to reduce helicopter noise pollution in 
residential areas in Los Angeles County, California; to the Committee 
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Los Angeles 
Residential Helicopter Noise Relief Act of 2013.
  This legislation, which I introduce with Senator Boxer, would require 
the

[[Page S471]]

Federal Aviation Administration to prescribe regulations for helicopter 
operations in the skies above Los Angeles in order to reduce helicopter 
noise pollution in residential areas.
  In addition to addressing noise, the FAA's regulations would have to 
increase safety, minimize commercial aircraft delays, and exempt first 
responders and military aircraft from their limitations.
  The bill also would direct the FAA to consult with local communities 
and local helicopter operators when developing the regulations.
  This legislation is necessary because today the citizens of Los 
Angeles County suffer intrusive and disruptive low-flying helicopter 
traffic above their neighborhoods to an unprecedented degree.
  The unique terrain of Los Angeles, with its many canyons and valleys, 
often concentrates the high decibel level noise from low-flying 
helicopters on many of the millions of homes in the county.
  The noise interrupts daily life for Los Angeles County's residents, 
drowning out conversations and disrupting sleep cycles.
  Despite multiple efforts from several community and homeowner 
organizations in Los Angeles County to address these disturbances over 
many years, helicopter traffic in Los Angeles County is not currently 
regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration or any other agency.
  As one expert recently explained to The Los Angeles Times, a 
helicopter pilot is free to hover over a person's home for as many 
hours as he would like. The only limitation on helicopter hovering, in 
fact, appears to be fuel supply.
  Last year, at my request the Senate Appropriations Committee directed 
the Federal Aviation Administration to begin developing solutions to 
this matter.
  In response, the Federal Aviation Administration formed an internal 
working group in July 2012 to solicit input from local communities and 
stakeholders on helicopter noise and safety issues in Los Angeles 
County.
  As part of that process, FAA Regional Administrator Bill Withycombe 
hosted several public meetings in the summer and fall of 2012 that have 
allowed stakeholders and citizens to express their concerns and propose 
solutions.
  The Federal Aviation Administration will release a report in May 2013 
evaluating a full set of voluntary and regulatory options to reduce 
helicopter noise and address safety issues in Los Angeles County.
  The study is a necessary first step in order to determine how 
helicopters can be regulated in Los Angeles County in a manner that 
provides relief to residents from helicopter noise and increase safety.
  But the study is only a first step. It must be followed by meaningful 
and effective regulations to limit the impacts of these helicopters. I 
introduce this legislation in order to ensure that the FAA will follow 
through on the regulatory options it plans to evaluate in its May 2013 
report.
  This legislation directs the FAA to act in the interest of the 
millions of Americans in Los Angeles County. I appreciate the steps the 
FAA has taken to date, but only regulations appear capable of 
addressing the quality of life impact caused by helicopters in Los 
Angeles.
  Last August, thousands of people sat in the stands of the Hollywood 
Bowl for a night of Beethoven.
  Nestled into the Hollywood Hills and with little sign of the Nation's 
second largest city that surrounds it, the Hollywood Bowl is a unique 
spot to take in a concert.
  But just as violinist Renaud Capucon stood for a solo, an 
unidentified helicopter flew overhead, drowning out the sound of his 
music.
  It was an upsetting event for the audience, but it is far from 
unusual.
  The people of Los Angeles have had too many wonderful outdoor 
concerts and other cultural events disrupted by helicopters that fly 
without restriction.
  Choppers in L.A.'s sky have caused too many sleepless nights.
  Paparazzi helicopters have too often flown dangerously low and close 
to homes in their constant pursuit of celebrity images.
  The air space above Los Angeles is the exclusive jurisdiction of the 
Federal Aviation Administration, so to bring some sanity to the skies 
above L.A. requires Federal action, and Federal leadership.
  This legislation directs the FAA to provide that leadership necessary 
to protect the public interest.
  I encourage my colleagues to support it, and I look forward to 
working with my fellow members to enact this important legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 208

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Los Angeles Residential 
     Helicopter Noise Relief Act of 2013''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) Residents throughout Los Angeles County suffer 
     intrusive and disruptive low-flying helicopter traffic above 
     their neighborhoods. The unique terrain of canyons and 
     valleys that surround residential neighborhoods in Los 
     Angeles County often concentrate high decibel level noise 
     from the low-flying helicopters in and around Los Angeles 
     County residences. The concentrated noise interrupts daily 
     life for many Los Angeles County residents by drowning out 
     conversations and disrupting sleep cycles.
       (2) Los Angeles County is home to a uniquely large 
     concentration of scenic, historic, entertainment, and 
     transportation venues, including sight-seeing, movie studios, 
     movie star homes, outdoor entertainment facilities, Griffith 
     Park, the Hollywood Sign, freeways, and many others, that 
     generate extensive helicopter activity.
       (3) Los Angeles County is home to the world's leading civil 
     helicopter manufacturer that conducts extensive helicopter 
     operational testing across the region.
       (4) Despite multiple efforts from several community and 
     homeowner organizations in Los Angeles County to address 
     these disturbances, helicopter traffic in Los Angeles County 
     is not currently regulated by the Federal Aviation 
     Administration or any other agency.
       (5) At the request of members of Congress, the Federal 
     Aviation Administration formed an internal working group in 
     July 2012 to solicit input from local communities and 
     stakeholders on helicopter noise and safety issues in Los 
     Angeles County.
       (6) As part of that process, several public meetings were 
     held in the fall and summer of 2012 that have allowed the 
     Federal Aviation Administration and stakeholders to hear and 
     better understand the concerns and complaints of affected 
     residents.
       (7) The Federal Aviation Administration is scheduled to 
     release a report in May 2013 evaluating a full set of 
     voluntary and regulatory options to reduce helicopter noise 
     and address safety issues in Los Angeles County.
       (8) The report is expected to explore how helicopters can 
     be regulated in Los Angeles County in a manner that provides 
     relief to residents from helicopter noise while also meeting 
     the needs of relevant stakeholders, including first 
     responders.

     SEC. 3. REGULATIONS TO REDUCE HELICOPTER NOISE POLLUTION IN 
                   CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL AREAS.

       (a) Rulemaking.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal 
     Aviation Administration shall prescribe regulations for 
     helicopter operations in Los Angeles County, California, that 
     include requirements relating to the flight paths and 
     altitudes associated with such operations to reduce 
     helicopter noise pollution in residential areas, increase 
     safety, and minimize scheduled commercial aircraft delays.
       (b) Exemptions.--In prescribing regulations under 
     subsection (a), the Administrator shall exempt helicopter 
     operations related to emergency, law enforcement, or military 
     activities from the requirements described in that 
     subsection.
       (c) Consultations.--In prescribing regulations under 
     subsection (a), the Administrator shall make reasonable 
     efforts to consult with local communities and local 
     helicopter operators in order to develop regulations that 
     meet the needs of local communities, helicopter operators, 
     and the Federal Aviation Administration.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CORKER (for himself and Mr. Vitter):
  S. 215. A bill to ensure that the Federal Reserve conducts its 
policies to ensure long-term price stability and a low rate of 
inflation; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I am here today to introduce the Federal 
Reserve Mandate Act of 2013 in an effort to begin returning our country 
to the right place in monetary policy. Senator Vitter is joining me in 
this effort.

[[Page S472]]

  The objective of our bill is simple. Our Central Bank, like other 
Central Banks around the world, should be focused on creating an 
environment of price stability. This should be the guiding principle of 
monetary policy decisions.
  This is neither a radical nor a new idea. Most economists argue that 
the proper role of the Central Bank is to serve as a lender of last 
resort in a time of crisis, to supply payment distribution and clearing 
mechanisms, and to manage the money supply so that inflation stays in 
check. Managing unemployment is a completely separate task and not 
appropriate for the blunt tools of monetary policy. That is why almost 
every developed country's Central Bank has as its mandate the 
maintenance of price stability. In other words, we are an outlier.
  This is not to say that a focus on price stability means the Fed is 
abandoning unemployment. In fact, just the opposite is true. Monetary 
policy can and should create an environment where jobs can grow and 
thrive by giving the economy certainty that prices will remain stable 
over the long term.
  We have strayed a long way from traditional Central Bank actions. We 
have lost sight of the proper role of monetary policy in our economy. 
With roughly $3 trillion in assets--and I think the Presiding Officer 
knows that by the end of this year it is projected we will have $4 
trillion in assets--sitting on the Fed's balance sheet, there is no 
question that the Fed is distorting financial markets with multiple 
rounds of quantitative easing. At a minimum, we have completely lost 
price signals from instruments such as treasuries and mortgage-backed 
securities. It is likely, however, we are doing more damage than just 
that. We may be creating asset bubbles elsewhere as money moves into 
investments that are risky.
  We are also punishing savers. Purchasing assets to drive down rates 
forces pension funds and retirees to shift money into asset classes 
that may not be best for them. We are creating ``Fed addicts'' in our 
markets. Equity markets go through cycles where they become almost Fed 
obsessed. In these environments, good news is bad for equity markets 
because it means less QE buying. Meanwhile, bad economic news is good 
for markets because it means more easy money is on the way. Now we risk 
the perils of unwinding this policy.
  Economists are beginning to discuss the likelihood that the Fed will 
take significant losses on assets it has purchased. We just had one of 
the Fed Governors in our office last week sharing with us that as we 
begin unwinding these balance sheets, it is very likely, as the 
Presiding Officer can imagine, as interest rates go up and the Fed 
begins to buy these securities, we are going to lose money on those 
assets. So it is likely the Fed is going to take significant losses on 
the assets it purchased. Since the Fed is buying these bonds at record 
low yields, they will likely sell them down the road at higher yields. 
I don't think there is anybody right now who disagrees with that 
probability.
  The effect of this is a permanent increase in monetary supplies. This 
is an incredibly perverse situation we have now locked ourselves into.
  The employment mandate at the Fed has not always existed. A lot of 
people believe it has. It was added with the passage of the Humphrey-
Hawkins Act in 1978. Humphrey-Hawkins was passed in a moment of self-
congratulations, like a lot of things around here are passed. Congress 
patted itself on the back for ``ending unemployment.'' Obviously, 
nothing could be further from the truth. The Fed cannot end 
unemployment by printing money.
  The Central Bank should be tasked with maintaining price stability. 
We must return to this core principle. This is the reason we are 
offering this piece of legislation today.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mrs. Boxer):
  S. 224. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to 
establish a grant program to support the restoration of San Francisco 
Bay; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise on behalf of myself and Senator 
Boxer to introduce legislation to further the restoration of the San 
Francisco Bay.
  Over the last 150 years, the water quality and health of the San 
Francisco Bay Estuary have been diminished by pollution, invasive 
species, loss of wetland habitat and other factors. The degradation has 
not only impacted fish and wildlife, but has also reduced the estuary's 
ability to support important economic activities such as commercial and 
sport fishing, shipping, agriculture, recreation, and tourism.
  Federal funding in recent years has begun the Bay's recovery process 
by investing in projects which improve water quality and restore 
critical habitat. These investments, $28 million between 2008 and 2012 
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency alone, were critical to 
spurring $22 million in matching funds and leveraging $81 million from 
other partners. But much work remains.
  That is why I am pleased to introduce the San Francisco Bay 
Restoration Act with Senator Boxer, Chairwoman of the Senate 
Environment and Public Works Committee. Companion legislation will also 
be introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Congresswoman 
Jackie Speier.
  This bill was first introduced in the 112th Congress. The Senate 
Committee on Environment and Public Works reported favorably on the 
bill and recommended its passage on January 26, 2012.
  This bill recognizes the important restoration work that must be done 
to restore and protect the iconic San Francisco Bay by authorizing $5 
million a year for restoration work between 2013 and 2017, and 
prioritizing funding for projects that will protect and restore vital 
estuarine habitat for migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, and wildlife; 
improve and restore water quality and rearing habitat for fish; and in 
turn reinvigorate recreation, tourism, and agricultural activities in 
and around the bay.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in their support for this measure.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 224

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``San Francisco Bay 
     Restoration Act''.

     SEC. 2. SAN FRANCISCO BAY RESTORATION GRANT PROGRAM.

       Title I of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
     U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 123. SAN FRANCISCO BAY RESTORATION GRANT PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Annual priority list.--The term `annual priority 
     list' means the annual priority list compiled under 
     subsection (b).
       ``(2) Comprehensive plan.--The term `comprehensive plan' 
     means--
       ``(A) the comprehensive conservation and management plan 
     approved under section 320 for the San Francisco Bay estuary; 
     and
       ``(B) any amendments to that plan.
       ``(3) Estuary partnership.--The term `Estuary Partnership' 
     means the San Francisco Estuary Partnership, the entity that 
     is designated as the management conference under section 320.
       ``(b) Annual Priority List.--
       ``(1) In general.--After providing public notice, the 
     Administrator shall annually compile a priority list 
     identifying and prioritizing the activities, projects, and 
     studies intended to be funded with the amounts made available 
     under subsection (c).
       ``(2) Inclusions.--The annual priority list compiled under 
     paragraph (1) shall include--
       ``(A) activities, projects, or studies, including 
     restoration projects and habitat improvement for fish, 
     waterfowl, and wildlife, that advance the goals and 
     objectives of the approved comprehensive plan;
       ``(B) information on the activities, projects, programs, or 
     studies specified under subparagraph (A), including a 
     description of--
       ``(i) the identities of the financial assistance 
     recipients; and
       ``(ii) the communities to be served; and
       ``(C) the criteria and methods established by the 
     Administrator for selection of activities, projects, and 
     studies.
       ``(3) Consultation.--In developing the priority list under 
     paragraph (1), the Administrator shall consult with and 
     consider the recommendations of--
       ``(A) the Estuary Partnership;
       ``(B) the State of California and affected local 
     governments in the San Francisco Bay estuary watershed; and
       ``(C) any other relevant stakeholder involved with the 
     protection and restoration of the San Francisco Bay estuary 
     that the Administrator determines to be appropriate.

[[Page S473]]

       ``(c) Grant Program.--
       ``(1) In general.--Pursuant to section 320, the 
     Administrator may provide funding through cooperative 
     agreements, grants, or other means to State and local 
     agencies, special districts, and public or nonprofit 
     agencies, institutions, and organizations, including the 
     Estuary Partnership, for activities, studies, or projects 
     identified on the annual priority list.
       ``(2) Maximum amount of grants; non-federal share.--
       ``(A) Maximum amount of grants.--Amounts provided to any 
     individual or entity under this section for a fiscal year 
     shall not exceed an amount equal to 75 percent of the total 
     cost of any eligible activities that are to be carried out 
     using those amounts.
       ``(B) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of the 
     total cost of any eligible activities that are carried out 
     using amounts provided under this section shall be--
       ``(i) not less than 25 percent; and
       ``(ii) provided from non-Federal sources.
       ``(d) Funding.--
       ``(1) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Administrator to carry out this 
     section $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2013 through 
     2017.
       ``(2) Administrative expenses.--Of the amount made 
     available to carry out this section for a fiscal year, the 
     Administrator shall use not more than 5 percent to pay 
     administrative expenses incurred in carrying out this 
     section.
       ``(3) Relationship to other funding.--Nothing in this 
     section limits the eligibility of the Estuary Partnership to 
     receive funding under section 320(g).
       ``(4) Prohibition.--No amounts made available under 
     subsection (c) may be used for the administration of a 
     management conference under section 320.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mrs. Boxer):
  S. 225. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct 
a study of alternatives for commemorating and interpreting the role of 
the Buffalo Soldiers in the early years of the National Parks, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and 
Senator Boxer to introduce the Buffalo Soldiers in the National Parks 
Study Act. This legislation is an important step in preserving the 
legacy of the Army's first all-black infantry and cavalry units and 
their unique role in the creation of our National Park system.
  The Buffalo Soldiers served bravely in campaigns both at home and 
abroad before being stationed at the military Presidio in San Francisco 
and being given charge of patrolling the National Park system. Although 
first tasked with taming the frontier, these troops also took on the 
responsibility of preserving that wilderness for future generations. 
Each summer, Buffalo Soldier regiments traveled roughly 320 miles from 
San Francisco to either Sequoia or Yosemite National Park, where they 
patrolled the parks for poachers and loggers, built trails, and 
escorted visitors. They were, in essence if not in name, the nation's 
first park rangers.
  In a time of segregation and adversity, these soldiers served their 
country bravely and the National Parks they worked to establish are 
part of the legacy they leave behind. Unfortunately, this unique aspect 
of their history is neither widely recognized nor remembered. This 
legislation would address that by authorizing a study to determine the 
most appropriate way to memorialize the Buffalo Soldiers.
  The study would evaluate the suitability and feasibility of 
establishing a national historic trail commemorating the route traveled 
by the Buffalo Soldiers from their post in the Presidio of San 
Francisco to Sequoia and Yosemite National Parks and to any other 
National Parks where they may have served.
  The bill will identify properties associated with the Buffalo 
Soldiers that could be added to the National Register of Historic 
Places.
  The bill will develop educational initiatives and a public awareness 
campaign about the contribution of African-American soldiers after the 
Civil War.
  Although the experiences of the Buffalo Soldiers are an important 
piece of our national history, we are in danger of losing their legacy 
to the passage of time unless we take conscious steps to preserve the 
memory. This legislation works to ensure that the contributions of the 
Buffalo Soldiers will be remembered and shared by all.
  Furthermore, as the centennial of the National Park Service in 2016 
approaches, it is an especially appropriate time to conduct research 
and increase public awareness of the stewardship role the Buffalo 
Soldiers played in the early years of the National Parks.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in their support for this measure.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 225

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Buffalo Soldiers in the 
     National Parks Study Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1) In the late 19th century and early 20th century, 
     African-American troops who came to be known as the Buffalo 
     Soldiers served in many critical roles in the western United 
     States, including protecting some of the first National 
     Parks.
       (2) Based at the Presidio in San Francisco, Buffalo 
     Soldiers were assigned to Sequoia and Yosemite National Parks 
     where they patrolled the backcountry, built trails, stopped 
     poaching, and otherwise served in the roles later assumed by 
     National Park rangers.
       (3) The public would benefit from having opportunities to 
     learn more about the Buffalo Soldiers in the National Parks 
     and their contributions to the management of National Parks 
     and the legacy of African-Americans in the post-Civil War 
     era.
       (4) As the centennial of the National Park Service in 2016 
     approaches, it is an especially appropriate time to conduct 
     research and increase public awareness of the stewardship 
     role the Buffalo Soldiers played in the early years of the 
     National Parks.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to authorize a 
     study to determine the most effective ways to increase 
     understanding and public awareness of the critical role that 
     the Buffalo Soldiers played in the early years of the 
     National Parks.

     SEC. 3. STUDY.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior shall 
     conduct a study of alternatives for commemorating and 
     interpreting the role of the Buffalo Soldiers in the early 
     years of the National Parks.
       (b) Contents of Study.--The study shall include--
       (1) a historical assessment, based on extensive research, 
     of the Buffalo Soldiers who served in National Parks in the 
     years prior to the establishment of the National Park 
     Service;
       (2) an evaluation of the suitability and feasibility of 
     establishing a national historic trail commemorating the 
     route traveled by the Buffalo Soldiers from their post in the 
     Presidio of San Francisco to Sequoia and Yosemite National 
     Parks and to any other National Parks where they may have 
     served;
       (3) the identification of properties that could meet 
     criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic 
     Places or criteria for designation as National Historic 
     Landmarks;
       (4) an evaluation of appropriate ways to enhance historical 
     research, education, interpretation, and public awareness of 
     the story of the Buffalo Soldiers' stewardship role in the 
     National Parks, including ways to link the story to the 
     development of National Parks and the story of African-
     American military service following the Civil War; and
       (5) any other matters that the Secretary of the Interior 
     deems appropriate for this study.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 3 years after funds are made 
     available for the study, the Secretary of the Interior shall 
     submit to the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources of the Senate a report containing the study's 
     findings and recommendations.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mrs. Boxer):
  S. 228. A bill to establish the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta National 
Heritage Area; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise on behalf of myself and Senator 
Boxer to introduce legislation to establish a National Heritage Area in 
the California Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. This legislation will 
create the first Heritage Area in California.
  This bill was first introduced in January 2011 during the 112th 
Congress and received a hearing in the Senate Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks. Since then, the Delta 
Protection Commission has completed a feasibility study, as required, 
and endorsed the legislation. Additionally, the National Park Service 
has confirmed that the study is consistent with the agency's interim 
National Heritage Area Feasibility Study Guidelines.
  I was pleased to have had the opportunity to work with Senator Boxer,

[[Page S474]]

Representative John Garamendi, and the County Supervisors from the five 
Delta Counties to develop this legislation and look forward to 
continuing to partner with them as well as local, State and Federal 
agencies to care for and improve the Delta.
  This bill will establish the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta as a 
National Heritage Area.
  The Delta Protection Commission, created by California law and 
responsible to the citizens of the Delta and California, will manage 
the Heritage Area. It will ensure an open and public process, working 
with all levels of Federal, State, and local government, tribes, local 
stakeholders, and private property owners as it develops and implements 
the management plan for the Heritage Area. The goal is to conserve and 
protect the Delta, its communities, its resources, and its history.
  It is also important to understand what this legislation will not do.
  It will not affect water rights.
  It will not affect water contracts.
  It will not affect private property.
  Nothing in this bill gives any governmental agency any more 
regulatory power than it already has, nor does it take away regulatory 
from agencies that have it.
  In short, this bill does not affect water rights or water contracts, 
nor does it impose any additional responsibilities on local government 
or residents. Instead, it authorizes Federal assistance to a local 
process already required by State law that will elevate the Delta, 
providing a means to conserve and protect its valued communities, 
resources, and history.

  The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is the largest estuary on the West 
Coast. It is the most extensive inland delta in the world, and a unique 
national treasure.
  Today, it is a labyrinth of sloughs, wetlands, and deepwater channels 
that connect the waters of the high Sierra mountain streams to the 
Pacific Ocean through the San Francisco Bay. Its approximately 60 
islands are protected by 1,100 miles of levees, and are home to 
3,500,000 residents, including 2,500 family farmers. The Delta and its 
farmers produce some of the highest quality specialty crops in the 
United States.
  The Delta offers recreational opportunities to the two million 
Californians who visit the Delta each year for boating, fishing, 
hunting, visiting historic sites, and viewing wildlife. It provides 
habitat for more than 750 species of plants and wildlife. These include 
sand hill cranes that migrate to the Delta wetland from places as far 
away as Siberia. The Delta also provides habitat for 55 species of 
fish, including Chinook salmon--some as large as 60 pounds--that return 
each year to travel through the Delta to spawn in the tributaries.
  These same waterways also channel fresh water to the Federal and 
State-owned pumps in the South Delta that provide water to 23 million 
Californians and three million acres of irrigated agricultural land 
elsewhere in the State.
  Before the Delta was reclaimed for farmland in the 19th Century, the 
Delta flooded regularly with snow melt each spring, and provided the 
rich environment that, by 1492, supported the largest settlement of 
Native Americans in North America.
  The Delta was the gateway to the gold fields in 1849, after which 
Chinese workers built hundreds of miles of levees throughout the 
waterways of the Delta to make its rich peat soils available for 
farming and to control flooding.
  Japanese, Italians, German, Portuguese, Dutch, Greeks, South Asians 
and other immigrants began the farming legacy, and developed 
technologies specifically adapted to the unique environment, including 
the Caterpillar Tractor, which later contributed to agriculture and 
transportation internationally.
  Delta communities created a river culture befitting their dependence 
on water transport, a culture which has attracted the attention of 
authors from Mark Twain and Jack London to Joan Didion.
  The Delta is in crisis due to many factors, including invasive 
species, urban and agricultural run-off, wastewater discharges, 
channelization, dredging, water export operations, and other stressors.
  Many of the islands of the Delta are between 10 and 20 feet below sea 
level, and the levee system is presently inadequate to provide reliable 
flood protection for historic communities, significant habitats, 
agricultural enterprises, water resources, transportation and other 
infrastructure.
  Existing levees have not been engineered to withstand earthquakes. 
Should levees fail for any reason, a rush of seawater into the interior 
of the Delta could damage the already fragile ecosystem, contaminate 
drinking water for many Californians, flood agricultural land, inundate 
towns, and damage roads, power lines, and water project infrastructure.
  The State of California has been working for decades on a resolution 
to the water supply and ecosystem crisis in the State, and has a long 
history of partnerships with Federal agencies, working together to 
resolve challenges to the Delta's historic communities, ecosystem and 
the water it supplies so many Californians.
  The Delta Protection Commission, established under State law, has 
been tasked by the California State Legislature with providing a forum 
for Delta residents to engage in decisions regarding actions to 
recognize and enhance the unique cultural, recreational, agricultural 
resources, infrastructure and legacy communities of the Delta and to 
serve as the facilitating agency for the implementation of a National 
Heritage Area in the Delta.
  This legislation will complement the broadly supported State Water 
Legislation of 2009, which called for a Heritage designation for the 
Delta.
  This legislation authorizes the creation of the Delta Heritage Area 
and Federal assistance to the Delta Protection Commission in 
implementing the Area. This legislation is just a small part of the 
commitment the Federal Government must make to the Delta. I look 
forward to continuing to work with my colleagues at every level of 
government to restore and sustain the ecosystem in the Delta, to 
provide for reliable water supply in the State of California, to 
recover the native species of the Delta, protect communities in the 
Delta from flood risk, ensure economic sustainability in the Delta, 
improve water quality in the Delta, and sustain the unique cultural, 
historical, recreational, agricultural and economic values of the 
Delta.
  The National Heritage Area designation for the Sacramento-San Joaquin 
Delta will help local governments develop and implement a plan for a 
sustainable future by providing Federal recognition, technical 
assistance and small amounts of funding to a community-based process 
already underway.
  Through the Delta Heritage Area, local communities and citizens will 
partner with Federal, State and local governments to collaboratively 
work to promote conservation, community revitalization, and economic 
development projects.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 228

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta 
     National Heritage Area Establishment Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Heritage area.--The term ``Heritage Area'' means the 
     Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Heritage Area established by 
     section 3(a).
       (2) Heritage area management plan.--The term ``Heritage 
     Area management plan'' means the plan developed and adopted 
     by the management entity under this Act.
       (3) Management entity.--The term ``management entity'' 
     means the management entity for the Heritage Area designated 
     by section 3(d).
       (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (5) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of 
     California.

     SEC. 3. SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA HERITAGE AREA.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established the ``Sacramento-
     San Joaquin Delta Heritage Area'' in the State.
       (b) Boundaries.--The boundaries of the Heritage Area shall 
     be in the counties of Contra Costa, Sacramento, San Joaquin, 
     Solano, and Yolo in the State of California, as generally 
     depicted on the map entitled ``Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta 
     National Heritage Area Proposed Boundary'', numbered T27/
     105,030, and dated September 2010.

[[Page S475]]

       (c) Availability of Map.--The map described in subsection 
     (b) shall be on file and available for public inspection in 
     the appropriate offices of the National Park Service and the 
     Delta Protection Commission.
       (d) Management Entity.--The management entity for the 
     Heritage Area shall be the Delta Protection Commission 
     established by section 29735 of the California Public 
     Resources Code.
       (e) Administration.--
       (1) Authorities.--For purposes of carrying out the Heritage 
     Area management plan, the Secretary, acting through the 
     management entity, may use amounts made available under this 
     Act to--
       (A) make grants to the State or a political subdivision of 
     the State, nonprofit organizations, and other persons;
       (B) enter into cooperative agreements with, or provide 
     technical assistance to, the State or a political subdivision 
     of the State, nonprofit organizations, and other interested 
     parties;
       (C) hire and compensate staff, which shall include 
     individuals with expertise in natural, cultural, and 
     historical resources protection, and heritage programming;
       (D) obtain money or services from any source including any 
     that are provided under any other Federal law or program;
       (E) contract for goods or services; and
       (F) undertake to be a catalyst for any other activity that 
     furthers the Heritage Area and is consistent with the 
     approved Heritage Area management plan.
       (2) Duties.--The management entity shall--
       (A) in accordance with subsection (f), prepare and submit a 
     Heritage Area management plan to the Secretary;
       (B) assist units of local government, regional planning 
     organizations, and nonprofit organizations in carrying out 
     the approved Heritage Area management plan by--
       (i) carrying out programs and projects that recognize, 
     protect, and enhance important resource values in the 
     Heritage Area;
       (ii) establishing and maintaining interpretive exhibits and 
     programs in the Heritage Area;
       (iii) developing recreational and educational opportunities 
     in the Heritage Area;
       (iv) increasing public awareness of, and appreciation for, 
     natural, historical, scenic, and cultural resources of the 
     Heritage Area;
       (v) protecting and restoring historic sites and buildings 
     in the Heritage Area that are consistent with Heritage Area 
     themes;
       (vi) ensuring that clear, consistent, and appropriate signs 
     identifying points of public access, and sites of interest 
     are posted throughout the Heritage Area; and
       (vii) promoting a wide range of partnerships among 
     governments, organizations, and individuals to further the 
     Heritage Area;
       (C) consider the interests of diverse units of government, 
     businesses, organizations, and individuals in the Heritage 
     Area in the preparation and implementation of the Heritage 
     Area management plan;
       (D) conduct meetings open to the public at least 
     semiannually regarding the development and implementation of 
     the Heritage Area management plan;
       (E) for any year that Federal funds have been received 
     under this Act--
       (i) submit an annual report to the Secretary that describes 
     the activities, expenses, and income of the management entity 
     (including grants to any other entities during the year that 
     the report is made);
       (ii) make available to the Secretary for audit all records 
     relating to the expenditure of the funds and any matching 
     funds;
       (iii) require, with respect to all agreements authorizing 
     expenditure of Federal funds by other organizations, that the 
     organizations receiving the funds make available to the 
     Secretary for audit all records concerning the expenditure of 
     the funds; and
       (F) encourage by appropriate means economic viability that 
     is consistent with the Heritage Area.
       (3) Prohibition on the acquisition of real property.--The 
     management entity shall not use Federal funds made available 
     under this Act to acquire real property or any interest in 
     real property.
       (4) Cost-sharing requirement.--The Federal share of the 
     cost of any activity carried out using any assistance made 
     available under this Act shall be 50 percent.
       (f) Heritage Area Management Plan.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 3 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the management entity shall submit to 
     the Secretary for approval a proposed Heritage Area 
     management plan.
       (2) Requirements.--The Heritage Area management plan 
     shall--
       (A) incorporate an integrated and cooperative approach to 
     agricultural resources and activities, flood protection 
     facilities, and other public infrastructure;
       (B) emphasizes the importance of the resources described in 
     subparagraph (A);
       (C) take into consideration State and local plans;
       (D) include--
       (i) an inventory of--

       (I) the resources located in the core area described in 
     subsection (b); and
       (II) any other property in the core area that--

       (aa) is related to the themes of the Heritage Area; and
       (bb) should be preserved, restored, managed, or maintained 
     because of the significance of the property;
       (ii) comprehensive policies, strategies and recommendations 
     for conservation, funding, management, and development of the 
     Heritage Area;
       (iii) a description of actions that governments, private 
     organizations, and individuals have agreed to take to protect 
     the natural, historical and cultural resources of the 
     Heritage Area;
       (iv) a program of implementation for the Heritage Area 
     management plan by the management entity that includes a 
     description of--

       (I) actions to facilitate ongoing collaboration among 
     partners to promote plans for resource protection, 
     restoration, and construction; and
       (II) specific commitments for implementation that have been 
     made by the management entity or any government, 
     organization, or individual for the first 5 years of 
     operation;

       (v) the identification of sources of funding for carrying 
     out the Heritage Area management plan;
       (vi) analysis and recommendations for means by which local, 
     State, and Federal programs, including the role of the 
     National Park Service in the Heritage Area, may best be 
     coordinated to carry out this Act; and
       (vii) an interpretive plan for the Heritage Area; and
       (E) recommend policies and strategies for resource 
     management that consider and detail the application of 
     appropriate land and water management techniques, including 
     the development of intergovernmental and interagency 
     cooperative agreements to protect the natural, historical, 
     cultural, educational, scenic, and recreational resources of 
     the Heritage Area.
       (3) Restrictions.--The Heritage Area management plan 
     submitted under this subsection shall--
       (A) ensure participation by appropriate Federal, State, 
     tribal, and local agencies, including the Delta Stewardship 
     Council, special districts, natural and historical resource 
     protection and agricultural organizations, educational 
     institutions, businesses, recreational organizations, 
     community residents, and private property owners; and
       (B) not be approved until the Secretary has received 
     certification from the Delta Protection Commission that the 
     Delta Stewardship Council has reviewed the Heritage Area 
     management plan for consistency with the plan adopted by the 
     Delta Stewardship Council pursuant to State law.
       (4) Deadline.--If a proposed Heritage Area management plan 
     is not submitted to the Secretary by the date that is 3 years 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, the management 
     entity shall be ineligible to receive additional funding 
     under this Act until the date that the Secretary receives and 
     approves the Heritage Area management plan.
       (5) Approval or disapproval of heritage area management 
     plan.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     receipt of the Heritage Area management plan under paragraph 
     (1), the Secretary, in consultation with the State, shall 
     approve or disapprove the Heritage Area management plan.
       (B) Criteria for approval.--In determining whether to 
     approve the Heritage Area management plan, the Secretary 
     shall consider whether--
       (i) the management entity is representative of the diverse 
     interests of the Heritage Area, including governments, 
     natural and historic resource protection organizations, 
     educational institutions, businesses, and recreational 
     organizations;
       (ii) the management entity has afforded adequate 
     opportunity, including public hearings, for public and 
     governmental involvement in the preparation of the Heritage 
     Area management plan; and
       (iii) the resource protection and interpretation strategies 
     contained in the Heritage Area management plan, if 
     implemented, would adequately protect the natural, 
     historical, and cultural resources of the Heritage Area.
       (C) Action following disapproval.--If the Secretary 
     disapproves the Heritage Area management plan under 
     subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall--
       (i) advise the management entity in writing of the reasons 
     for the disapproval;
       (ii) make recommendations for revisions to the Heritage 
     Area management plan; and
       (iii) not later than 180 days after the receipt of any 
     proposed revision of the Heritage Area management plan from 
     the management entity, approve or disapprove the proposed 
     revision.
       (D) Amendments.--
       (i) In general.--The Secretary shall approve or disapprove 
     each amendment to the Heritage Area management plan that the 
     Secretary determines make a substantial change to the 
     Heritage Area management plan.
       (ii) Use of funds.--The management entity shall not use 
     Federal funds authorized by this Act to carry out any 
     amendments to the Heritage Area management plan until the 
     Secretary has approved the amendments.
       (g) Relationship to Other Federal Agencies.--
       (1) In general.--Nothing in this Act affects the authority 
     of a Federal agency to provide technical or financial 
     assistance under any other law.
       (2) Consultation and coordination.--The head of any Federal 
     agency planning to conduct activities that may have an impact 
     on the Heritage Area is encouraged to consult and coordinate 
     the activities with the Secretary and the management entity 
     to the maximum extent practicable.

[[Page S476]]

       (3) Other federal agencies.--Nothing in this Act--
       (A) modifies, alters, or amends any law or regulation 
     authorizing a Federal agency to manage Federal land under the 
     jurisdiction of the Federal agency;
       (B) limits the discretion of a Federal land manager to 
     implement an approved land use plan within the boundaries of 
     the Heritage Area; or
       (C) modifies, alters, or amends any authorized use of 
     Federal land under the jurisdiction of a Federal agency.
       (h) Private Property and Regulatory Protections.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), nothing in this 
     Act--
       (A) abridges the rights of any property owner (whether 
     public or private), including the right to refrain from 
     participating in any plan, project, program, or activity 
     conducted within the Heritage Area;
       (B) requires any property owner to permit public access 
     (including access by Federal, State, or local agencies) to 
     the property of the property owner, or to modify public 
     access or use of property of the property owner under any 
     other Federal, State, or local law;
       (C) alters any duly adopted land use regulation, approved 
     land use plan, or other regulatory authority of any Federal, 
     State or local agency, or conveys any land use or other 
     regulatory authority to the management entity;
       (D) authorizes or implies the reservation or appropriation 
     of water or water rights;
       (E) diminishes the authority of the State to manage fish 
     and wildlife, including the regulation of fishing and hunting 
     within the Heritage Area; or
       (F) creates any liability, or affects any liability under 
     any other law, of any private property owner with respect to 
     any person injured on the private property.
       (2) Opt out.--An owner of private property within the 
     Heritage Area may opt out of participating in any plan, 
     project, program, or activity carried out within the Heritage 
     Area under this Act, if the property owner provides written 
     notice to the management entity.
       (i) Evaluation; Report.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 3 years before the date on 
     which authority for Federal funding terminates for the 
     Heritage Area, the Secretary shall--
       (A) conduct an evaluation of the accomplishments of the 
     Heritage Area; and
       (B) prepare a report in accordance with paragraph (3).
       (2) Evaluation.--An evaluation conducted under paragraph 
     (1)(A) shall--
       (A) assess the progress of the management entity with 
     respect to--
       (i) accomplishing the purposes of this Act for the Heritage 
     Area; and
       (ii) achieving the goals and objectives of the approved 
     Heritage Area management plan;
       (B) analyze the Federal, State, local, and private 
     investments in the Heritage Area to determine the leverage 
     and impact of the investments; and
       (C) review the management structure, partnership 
     relationships, and funding of the Heritage Area for purposes 
     of identifying the critical components for sustainability of 
     the Heritage Area.
       (3) Report.--
       (A) In general.--Based on the evaluation conducted under 
     paragraph (1)(A), the Secretary shall prepare a report that 
     includes recommendations for the future role of the National 
     Park Service, if any, with respect to the Heritage Area.
       (B) Required analysis.--If the report prepared under 
     subparagraph (A) recommends that Federal funding for the 
     Heritage Area be reauthorized, the report shall include an 
     analysis of--
       (i) ways in which Federal funding for the Heritage Area may 
     be reduced or eliminated; and
       (ii) the appropriate time period necessary to achieve the 
     recommended reduction or elimination.
       (C) Submission to congress.--On completion of the report, 
     the Secretary shall submit the report to--
       (i) the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the 
     Senate; and
       (ii) the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (j) Effect of Designation.--Nothing in this Act--
       (1) precludes the management entity from using Federal 
     funds made available under other laws for the purposes for 
     which those funds were authorized; or
       (2) affects any water rights or contracts.

     SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--There is authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out this Act $10,000,000, of which not more than 
     $1,000,000 may be made available for any fiscal year.
       (b) Cost-Sharing Requirement.--The Federal share of the 
     total cost of any activity under this Act shall be determined 
     by the Secretary, but shall be not more than 50 percent.
       (c) Non-Federal Share.--The non-Federal share of the total 
     cost of any activity under this Act may be in the form of in-
     kind contributions of goods or services.

     SEC. 5. TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.

       (a) In General.--If a proposed Heritage Area management 
     plan has not been submitted to the Secretary by the date that 
     is 5 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     Heritage Area designation shall be rescinded.
       (b) Funding Authority.--The authority of the Secretary to 
     provide assistance under this Act terminates on the date that 
     is 15 years after the date of enactment of this Act.

                          ____________________