[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 19772-19776]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



       WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1999--CONFERENCE REPORT

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, to my absolute surprise and delight, I 
understand the water resources development bill has been completed in 
conference. I extend my hearty congratulations to the managers and to 
the distinguished chairman of the committee, Senator Chafee, for his 
efforts in getting that conclusion.
  I yield the floor to him for a consent request with regard to that 
conference report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now 
proceed to consideration of the conference report to accompany S. 507.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee on conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the House to the bill (S. 
     507), have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their 
     respective Houses this report, signed by a majority of the 
     conferees.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the 
conference report.
  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of today.)
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
conference report be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon 
the table, and any statement relating to the conference report be 
printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the majority leader for moving this legislation 
along, and I thank all concerned.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, as a member of the minority who had the 
honor to be a conferee, may I say that this legislation of great 
importance could not have happened in the absence of our chairman. Our 
chairman did a superb job, never an easy one with the other side. But 
here it is before us and he is to be congratulated. I, for one, am 
deeply grateful.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from New 
York. He has headed many of these conferences. I particularly recall 
some of the transportation conferences he has headed in which he did 
landmark work. Having kind words coming from him and praises is doubly 
important to me. I greatly appreciate them. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, today the Senate is considering the conference report 
to accompany S. 507, the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. This 
measure, similar to water resources legislation enacted in 1986, 1988, 
1990 and 1992, is comprised of water resources project and study 
authorizations, as well as important policy initiatives, for the U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works program.
  This bill was introduced by Senator Warner at the beginning of this 
year. In previous years, the Senator from Virginia had been the 
chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee of the 
Senate. In that role he guided a similar bill through the Senate during 
the previous Congress. We are very grateful for his hard work on this 
legislation and sticking with the project considering the new demands 
on his time as chairman of the Armed Services Committee.
  Unfortunately, the House was unable to pass a companion measure last 
year because of a dispute over flood control and water supply in the 
State of California. So, this WRDA bill is somewhat overdue.
  This year, S. 507 was adopted unanimously by the Senate on April 19, 
1999. On April 29 of this year, the House of Representatives adopted 
its version of the legislation by a vote of 418 to 6.
  Since that time, we have worked together with our colleagues from the 
House of Representatives and the administration to reach bipartisan 
agreement on a sensible compromise measure. Because of the numerous 
differences between the Senate- and House-passed bills, completion of 
this conference report has required many hours of negotiation.
  To ensure that the items contained in this legislation are responsive 
to the nation's most pressing water infrastructure and environmental 
needs, we have adhered to a set of criteria established in previous 
water resources law.

[[Page 19773]]

Mr. President, let me take a few moments here to discuss these 
criteria--that is--the criteria used by the Senate Environment and 
Public Works Committee to determine the merit of proposed projects, 
project studies and policy directives.
  In 1986 Congress enacted and President Reagan signed a Water 
Resources Development Act that broke new ground. Importantly, the 1986 
Act marked an end to the sixteen-year deadlock between Congress and the 
executive branch regarding authorization of the Army Corps Civil Works 
program.
  In addition to authorizing numerous projects, the 1986 Act resolved 
longstanding disputes relating to cost-sharing between the Army Corps 
and non-federal sponsors, waterway user fees, environmental 
requirements and, importantly, the types of projects in which federal 
involvement is appropriate and warranted.
  Each flood control, navigation, environmental restoration, or other 
project requires a local cost share that is applied uniformly across 
the nation.
  Second, projects are not authorized until various reports and studies 
have been completed to assure that the projects are justified from 
economic, engineering and environmental perspectives.
  Third, projects must fit within the traditional mission of the civil 
works program of the Army Corps. That mission includes flood control, 
improvements to navigation, shoreline protection, and environmental 
restoration.
  These are the precepts that we have applied to the provisions 
contained in the pending conference report. Although there are special 
circumstances that justify exceptions to every rule, I believe that 
this bill does a good job of adhering to the fundamental purposes and 
principles of the WRDA program.
  Water resources legislation has been enacted on a biennial basis 
since 1986, with the exception of 1994.
  The bill we are bringing back from conference today includes scores 
of projects with a total federal authorization of approximately $4.3 
billion. Importantly, more than $1.5 billion of this amount will go 
toward environmental mitigation and restoration and water cleanup 
projects for sewage discharges, stormwater retention, and the control 
of combined sewer overflows.
  A bill like this takes hard work by many parties. I would like to 
salute our Senate conferees, Senators Smith, Baucus, Moynihan, 
Voinovich, and Boxer. As I said earlier, Senator Warner has been the 
key player on this bill as its author, manager and member of the 
conference committee.
  Senate staff playing a key role on this bill included Ann Loomis for 
Senator Warner and JoEllen Darcy for Senator Baucus. On my staff, first 
Dan Delich and, after he left us, Abigail Kinnison and Chelsea 
Henderson, have worked many long hours to make this bill possible.
  On the House side, the chairman of the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee, Congressman Shuster, and committee members, 
Congressman Oberstar and Congressman Boehlert deserve high praise for 
their work. We thank them very much for the spirit of compromise they 
brought to the conference and for their efforts to complete this task 
before the recess.
  I am pleased to bring this conference report to the Senate. I trust 
that those who every day depend on the fine work of the Corps of 
Engineers to protect their lives and their livelihoods will benefit 
greatly from the legislative work that has been done.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to support the adoption of 
the Conference Report to accompany S. 507, The Water Resources 
Development Act of 1999, WRDA.
  As we all know, the Water Resources Development Act of 1998 passed 
this Chamber last year, but was never enacted. This Conference Report 
builds upon the work done on that legislation and includes some 
additional projects and programs for the Army Corps of Engineers. With 
the adoption of this conference report, we wrap up some unfinished 
business from the 105th Congress and are back on course for development 
of a Water Resources Development Act for 2000.
  S. 507 authorizes projects for flood control, navigation, shore 
protection, environmental restoration, water supply storage and 
recreation, as well as several studies which will be the basis for 
future Corps projects. The projects have the support of a local sponsor 
willing to share the cost of the project with the Federal Government.
  Many of the projects contained in this bill are necessary to protect 
the nation's shorelines, along oceans, lakes and rivers. Several of the 
navigation projects need timely authorization in order to keep our 
ports competitive in the global marketplace. The projects will be 
reviewed by the Army Corps of Engineers and must be in the federal 
interest, technologically feasible, economically justified and 
environmentally sound in order to go forward. In other words, these are 
projects worthy of our support.
  Furthermore, the bill authorizes studies, including a comprehensive, 
cumulative impact study of the Yellowstone River in my home state of 
Montana, that need to get underway so that we can make informed 
decisions about the future use and management of these precious 
resources.
  In addition, the conference report contains a new continuing 
authorities program, known as Challenge 21. This program, proposed by 
the Administration and supported by the conferees, emphasizes non-
structural flood damage reduction measures and riverine and wetland 
ecosystem measures that conserve, restore and manage the natural 
functions and values of the floodplain. We hope that this new program 
will integrate needed flood damage reduction with the ecosystem in a 
more natural way than traditional brick and mortar. Programs like 
Challenge 21 will help move the traditional Corps' mission into the 
next century.
  I am pleased the conference report has been approved.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate today will 
enact the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. This important 
legislation continues the Corps of Engineers civil works critical 
mission to provide flood control, hurricane protection, river and 
harbor navigation improvements, environmental restoration of our 
nation's waterways and other water resource infrastructure 
improvements.
  Since 1986 when the Congress and the Executive Branch reach agreement 
on landmark cost-sharing principles that apply to the preparation and 
construction of these projects, the Congress has endeavored to enact 
this reauthorization bill on a two-year cycle.
  As the former Chairman of the Environment and Public Works 
Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the Congress enacted 
a water resources reauthorization bill in 1996. Regrettably, due to the 
complexities involving a project to provide flood protection for the 
Sacramento, California area, the House and Senate were unable to 
resolve the differences concerning this project in 1998.
  Today, the conference report before the Senate includes those 
projects in last year's bill along with other construction projects 
that the Corps of Engineers has reviewed and judged to be in the 
national interest. Through a comprehensive process to study and analyze 
the scope of individual projects, the Chief of the Corps of Engineers 
has found the 45 authorizations for new construction projects to be 
technically sound, economically justified and environmentally 
acceptable.
  Mr. President, this simply means that the Federal taxpayer will 
receive a higher return on the economic benefits resulting from 
construction of these projects compared to the individual construction 
costs. Also, for these projects, a state or local government will 
provide from 35 percent to 50 percent of the costs of construction.
  The Corps civil works program provides significant protection to 
lives and property from flooding and coastal storms. The maintenance of 
our river and harbor navigation channels are critical for us to 
maintain a competitive edge in a ``one-world'' economic market.
  The value of water resource projects is well-documented. In 1997, 
Corps flood

[[Page 19774]]

control projects prevented approximately $45.2 billion in damages. The 
Corps continues to support the navigation channel deepening projects so 
that the larger class of cargo ships and super coal colliers can call 
on our commercial water ports. The value of commerce on these waterways 
totaled over $600 billion in 1997, generating approximately 16 million 
jobs.
  Mr. President, the conference report also contains very important 
provisions to strengthen and expand the Corps new focus on 
environmental restoration of our nation's waterways. We have 
established a new program, known as ``Challenge 21'', which provides 
the Corps with the direction to work with local communities to 
developed non-structural flood control projects. This is an initiative 
that will hopefully produce less-costly flood control options. This 
program will be important to financially-strapped communities who may 
not be able to afford to provide the 35 percent local costs for a 
traditional flood control project. Also, this program will foster the 
preservation of sensitive ecosystems that provide vital flood 
protection in the floodplain.
  Challenge 21 also has the potential to produce significant savings in 
the reduction of flood damages and Federal flood damage assistance 
costs.
  Mr. President, since the enactment of the 1986 water resources bill 
which established cost-sharing requirements for the construction of 
water projects, I have been committed to applying these requirements to 
projects authorized in subsequent bills. I applaud my Senate colleagues 
for enacting Senate legislation that adhere to these rules. The cost-
sharing requirements have been successful in leveraging non-Federal 
funds and they have ensured that only those projects with the greatest 
merit, economic benefit and local support move forward.
  It was my view, along with Chairman Chafee and the Ranking member, 
Senator Baucus, that we must insist on the cost-sharing requirement for 
projects authorized in this bill. I regret, however, that the 
conference report does not apply the cost-sharing principles in all 
cases.
  I would just ask my House and Senate colleagues to remember the 10-
year stalemate that existed between the Congress and the Executive 
Branch from 1975 to 1986. At that time no water resource projects moved 
forward because the Executive Branch insisted on some level financial 
contribution from those who would benefit from these projects. By 1986, 
the Congress and the Administration reached agreement on a fair 
allocation of costs and since that time there has been an orderly 
process for planning, designing and constructing water resource 
projects.
  We must not abandon cost-sharing rules, or else there is the very 
real possibility of again triggering a halt to Federal funding for 
these important projects. I will continue to work to follow the 
requirements of the 1986 bill and stand ready to work with my 
colleagues on this issue.
  Mr. President, this legislation, which was three years in the making, 
involved a great deal of staff time and commitment. I want to express 
my appreciation to the staff of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee--Jimmie Powell, the Staff Director, Dan Delich, Abigail 
Kinnison, Chelsea Henderson, Jo-Ellen Darcy, Ellen Stein and Peter 
Washburn for all of their efforts. Also, the professional expertise of 
the Corps of Engineers was invaluable. I particularly want to thank 
Larry Prather, Gary Campbell and the many dedicated professionals at 
the Corps of Engineers Headquarters for their technical evaluation of 
the many projects that came before the Committee for consideration.
  Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the conference report.


                 the savannah harbor deepening project

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I rise to request that the Chairman of 
the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee help me to clarify 
the intent of the Savannah Harbor Expansion Project that appears in 
Section 102 of the 1999 Water Resources Development Act. It is my 
understanding that this legislation authorizes a project to deepen the 
Savannah River channel to a depth of up to 48 feet subject to a 
favorable report by the Chief of Engineers and a favorable 
recommendation of the Secretary by December 31, 1998.
  Mr. CHAFEE. The senior Senator from Georgia is correct.
  Mr. COVERDELL. It is my understanding as well, that both the Chief of 
Engineer's Tier I Environmental Impact Statement and Feasibility Report 
provide for the establishment of a stakeholders' evaluation group which 
will have early and consistent involvement in the project, and as part 
of the process, the EIS requires the development of a mitigation plan 
to fully and adequately address predicted and potential adverse impacts 
on, among other things, the Savannah National Wildlife Refuge; striped 
bass population; short-nose sturgeon; salt water and fresh water 
wetlands; chloride levels; dissolved oxygen levels; erosion; and 
historical resources. Is that correct?
  Mr. CHAFEE. That is correct.
  Mr. COVERDELL. It is my further understanding that before this 
project is carried out, the Secretary, in consultation with affected 
federal and non-federal entities, must develop a mitigation plan 
addressing adverse project impacts and that the plan must be 
implemented in advance of or concurrent with project construction and 
must ensure that the project cost estimates are sufficient to address 
all potential mitigation alternatives. Is that correct?
  Mr. CHAFEE. That is correct.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I thank the Chairman for his assistance and look 
forward to working with him on this important matter.
  Mr. CLELAND. Will the Chairman yield for two additional questions on 
this project?
  Mr. CHAFEE. I would be happy to answer any questions the Senator may 
have.
  Mr. CLELAND. As the Senator recalls, during the Senate's 
consideration of the Water Resources Development Act in the 105th 
Congress, we discussed the matter of whether the bill authorized the 
Secretary or the Georgia Ports Authority to proceed with construction 
of the project without the respective department heads concurring on an 
appropriate implementation plan and mitigation plan and that it was our 
understanding that the bill did not provide such authority. In this 
current version, is this still your understanding?
  Mr. CHAFEE. The Senator's understanding is correct.
  Mr. CLELAND. Further, is it still the Senator's understanding that 
any funds to be appropriated by Congress for the project must be 
allocated in a manner that ensures that project impacts are fully and 
adequately mitigated and are otherwise consistent with the mitigation 
plan developed by the Secretary and the stakeholder evaluation group?
  Mr. CHAFEE. That is correct.
  Mr. CLELAND. I thank the Chairman for the opportunity to clarify 
these understandings.


                           howard hanson dam

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Committee for its 
efforts to help resolve several very important and contentious issues 
affecting the Howard Hanson Dam project in Washington state.
  I applaud the Howard Hanson provision in the Managers Statement 
accompanying this legislation, which recognizes the ongoing 
negotiations between the Corps of Engineers and the National Marine 
Fisheries Service with respect to the Corps' responsibilities under the 
Endangered Species Act for the protection of threatened Puget Sound 
Chinook Salmon. These fish runs are directly impacted by the Corps of 
Engineers' operation of Howard Hanson Dam and, as a consequence, the 
Corps will be asked to bear responsibility for these impacts under the 
ESA.
  I appreciate the Committee's acknowledgment that the requirements of 
ESA might force a revision of the cost allocation for the Howard Hanson 
project. Given the urgent need to have mitigation measures in place as 
soon as possible to protect salmon runs in the Puget Sound region, is 
it the Committee's intent that the Corps provide

[[Page 19775]]

a proposal for a cost reallocation to the Committee for consideration 
in the Water Resources Development Act for the year 2000?
  Mr. CHAFEE. It is the Committee's intent to urge the Corps and the 
National Marine Fisheries Service to complete their ESA consultation 
expeditiously so that a cost share adjustment can be considered by the 
Committee in a timely manner.
  Mr. GORTON. I thank the Chairman.


                    american river watershed project

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues on the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works, and Senator Voinovich, Chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and my ranking 
member, Senator Baucus, a question on the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1999 as we prepare to give approval to the conference report.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. I will be happy to respond to the Senator from 
California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I first thank the leadership of this 
distinguished committee and its members for their perseverance in 
working to finally pass the Water Resources Development Act, WRDA, an 
effort that has taken about a year. I also want to say how I appreciate 
Senator Voinovich's leadership as our new chairman of the subcommittee.
  Despite our hard work and achievements, I am disappointed at the 
outcome in conference on the American River Watershed project. We 
failed to include the Senate program for providing a 170-year level of 
flood protection for the City of Sacramento in the American River 
Watershed. The Senate bill represented the local consensus agreement to 
increase in the level of flood protection for our state capital, 
Sacramento. Sacramento's 400,000 residents, 130 schools and 5,000 
businesses are located in the flood plain at the confluence of the 
Sacramento River flowing from the north and the American River, which 
cascades from the High Sierra mountains, from the east. The most likely 
cause of a flood would be a breach in the American River levees which 
could inundate 55,000 acres.
  The damages from even a 100-year flood would be comparable to the 
1989 Loma Prieta earthquake which caused 63 deaths, almost 4,000 
injuries and $8 billion in direct property damage. Sacramento has one 
of the highest levels of risk and one of the lowest levels of 
protection.
  There was a year-long effort to pressure this Congress to link 
extraneous water supply projects to this flood control measure, despite 
the fact that by unanimous vote in the Senate and a 418-to-6 vote in 
the House, WRDA bills were approved with no special set aside for water 
supply projects in California that would override the water agreements 
and planning processes that have taken years of sweat, blood and tears 
to put into place. We were able in this conference to stop inclusion of 
those water supply projects, and we achieved an increase in the level 
of protection for Sacramento from 90-year to 140-year level of 
protection. However, this level is unacceptable. It still puts 400,000 
people at too high a risk of disaster.
  I would like to ask the leadership of the Environment and Public 
Works Committee Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure if 
they believe as I do that this conference report reflects only an 
incremental step in our efforts to increase protection for Sacramento 
and that more needs to be done to remove this risk.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I look forward to working with the Senator on more 
improvements for flood protection for Sacramento in subsequent WRDA 
bills.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. The Senator from California is correct. We have 
provided important improvements for the flood protection for 
Sacramento. However, we can do better, and I think we should consider 
increased protection in the future.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank my colleagues. I do note that, while I am 
disappointed at the outcome on the American River, this bill does 
provide numerous benefits for my state of California. The new dredging 
project for the Port of Oakland will enhance international trade and 
the regional economy and enable new efficiencies at the port to be 
undertaken with the new intermodal terminal. In addition, the dredge 
spoil will help restore wetlands in Marin County where a portion of the 
former Hamilton Army Airfield is being used for environmental 
restoration. We have new flood protection plans authorized in Santa 
Clara, the Yuba River Basin, Sacramento area, the City of Santa Cruz, 
and Fresno County. We have priority designations throughout the state 
for the new riverine ecosystem restoration program to encourage natural 
flood control systems and we have assistance for important new water 
reclamation projects in the San Ramon Valley and the South Bay area of 
Los Angeles.
  But more work needs to be done to protect Sacramento, and we will 
address those needs in the next WRDA bill. I yield the floor.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference 
agreement on the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 which provides 
for the development and improvement of our Nation's water resources 
infrastructure. This legislation authorizes water resource projects of 
vital importance to our nation's and our states' economy and maritime 
industry as well as our environment.
  I am particularly pleased that the measure includes a number of 
provisions for which I have fought to ensure the future health of the 
Port of Baltimore and of Maryland's environment.
  First the bill authorizes nearly $28 million for needed improvements 
to Baltimore Harbor Anchorages and Channels. Many of the existing 
anchorages and branch channels within Baltimore Harbor were built in 
the first half of this century and are no longer deep enough, wide 
enough or long enough to accommodate the vessels now calling on the 
Port of Baltimore. Many of the larger ships must now anchor some 25 
miles south of Baltimore in naturally deep water, resulting in delays 
and increased costs to the shipping industry. Also, the narrow widths 
of some of the branch channels result in additional time for the pilots 
to maneuver safely to and from their docking berths. In June 1998 the 
Chief of Engineers approved a report which recommended a number of 
improvements including: (1) widening and deepening Federal anchorages 3 
and 4; (2) widening and providing flared corners for state-owned East 
Dundalk, Seagirt, Connecting and West Dundalk branch Channels; (3) 
dredging a new branch channel at South Locust Point; and (4) dredging a 
turning basin at the head of the Fort McHenry Channel. The report 
identified the project as ``technically sound, economically justified 
and environmentally and socially acceptable.'' This project has been a 
top priority of mine, of the Maryland Port Administration and of the 
shipping community for many years and I am delighted that this 
legislation will enable us to move forward with this important project.
  Second, the legislation directs the Corps of Engineers to make 
critically needed safety improvements to the Tolchester Channel in the 
Chesapeake Bay. The Tolchester Channel is a vital link in the Baltimore 
Port system. It was authorized in the River and Harbor Act of 1958 and 
aligned to take advantage of the naturally deep water in the Chesapeake 
Bay, along Maryland's Eastern Shore. This alignment, which is shaped 
like an ``S,'' has posed a serious navigation problem and safety risks 
for vessels. Ships must change course five times within three miles, 
often beginning a new turn, sometimes in the opposite direction, before 
completing a first turn. With vessels nearly 1,000 feet in length, it 
is difficult to safely navigate the channel, particularly in poor 
weather conditions. The U.S. Coast Guard and the Maryland Pilots 
Association have expressed serious concerns over the safety of the area 
and have long recommended straightening of the channel due to the 
grounding and ``near misses'' which have occurred in the area. The cost 
for straightening the Tolchester ``S-turn'' is estimated at $12.6 
million with $1.3 million coming from non-federal sources. This 
authorization enables the Corps to proceed expeditiously with these 
improvements and address the serious concerns of those who must 
navigate the treacherous channel. With $5.8

[[Page 19776]]

million already included in the fiscal 2000 Energy and Water 
Appropriations bill, this provision will ensure that these improvements 
will be undertaken in the near future.
  Mr. President, the Port of Baltimore is one of the great ports of the 
world and one of Maryland's most important economic assets. The Port 
generates $2 billion in annual economic activity, provides for an 
estimated 62,000 jobs, and more than $500 million a year in State and 
local tax revenues and customs receipts. These two projects will help 
assure the continued vitality of the Port of Baltimore into the 21st 
Century.
  In addition to port development and improvement projects, the measure 
contains a provision which will help significantly to enhance 
Maryland's environment and quality of life and help achieve the goals 
and vision of the Potomac American Heritage River designation.
  It authorizes $15 million for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to 
modify the existing flood protection project at Cumberland, Maryland to 
restore features of the historic Chesapeake and Ohio Canal adversely 
affected by construction and operation of the project. Mr. President, 
the C&O Canal is widely regarded as the Nation's finest relic of 
America's canal building era. It was begun in 1828 as a transportation 
route between commercial centers in the East and frontier resources of 
the West. It reached Cumberland in 1850 and continued operating until 
1924 when it succumbed to floods and financial failure. In the early 
1950's, a section of the Canal and turning basin at its Cumberland 
terminus was filled in by the Corps of Engineers during construction of 
a local flood protection project. Portions of the Canal were proclaimed 
a national monument in 1961 and it was officially established as a 
national historical park in 1971. Justice Douglas described the park 
``* * * not yet marred by the roar of wheels and the sound of horns. * 
* * The stretch of 185 miles of country from Washington to Cumberland, 
Maryland, is one of the most fascinating and picturesque in the 
Nation.''
  The National Park Service, as part of its General Management Plan for 
the Park, has long sought to rebuild and re-water the Canal at its 
Cumberland terminus. The NPS entered into a Memorandum of Agreement, 
MOA, with the Corps to undertake a study of the feasibility of 
reconstructing the last 2200 feet of the canal to the terminus, through 
and adjacent to the Corps' flood protection project. The Corps 
completed this study in July 1995 and determined that ``it is feasible 
to re-water the canal successfully; the canal and flood protection 
levee can co-exist on the site without compromising the flood 
protection for the City of Cumberland; re-construction and partial 
operation of the locks is feasible; and, based on the as-built 
information available, underground utility impacts can be mitigated at 
reasonable cost to allow construction of the canal and turning basin in 
basically the same alignment and configuration as the original canal.'' 
A subsequent Rewatering Design Analysis estimated the total project 
cost at $15 million. This authorization will enable the Corps to 
proceed with restoring a 1.1 mile stretch of the C&O Canal and 
revitalize the area as a major hub for tourism and economic 
development.
  The conference agreement also authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers to undertake a study for control and management of waterborne 
debris on the Susquehanna River. The Susquehanna River is the largest 
tributary of the Chesapeake Bay, draining an area of about 27,500 
square miles. It is also one of the most flood prone river basins in 
the nation. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers operates several 
reservoirs for flood control and other purposes and there are three 
large hydroelectric dams on the lower Susquehanna. During high flow 
events, enormous amounts of debris, including trees, branches and 
manmade materials, are carried downstream and ultimately into the 
Chesapeake Bay. Most recently, the flood waters of January 1999 
deposited tremendous amounts of debris as far as Anne Arundel County, 
Maryland, creating hazards to navigation, damaging boats and bulkheads, 
aggravating flooding and clogging beaches and shorelines. This 
legislation will enable the Corps of Engineers to evaluate the 
economic, engineering and environmental feasibility of potential 
measures to control and manage the amount of waterborne debris as well 
as determine if new and improved debris removal technologies can be 
utilized in the Susquehanna.
  Finally, the conference agreement includes several other provisions 
which will help address important water resource needs in Maryland and 
nearby communities including the flood protection project for the 
District of Columbia, and the studies for the West View Shores 
Community of Cecil County, Welch Point and Chesapeake City, MD.
  I want to compliment the distinguished chairmen of the Committee and 
the Subcommittee, Senators Chafee and Warner, and the ranking member, 
Senator Baucus, for their leadership in crafting this legislation, and 
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure.

                          ____________________