[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 18861-18910]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2000

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2796) to provide for the conservation and 
     development of water and 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.

  The Senate proceeded to the bill which had been reported from the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works, with an amendment; as 
follows:

       (Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     part printed in italic.)

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Water 
     Resources Development Act of 2000''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

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

                   TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS

Sec. 101. Project authorizations.
Sec. 102. Small shore protection projects.
Sec. 103. Small navigation projects.
Sec. 104. Removal of snags and clearing and straightening of channels 
              in navigable waters.
Sec. 105. Small bank stabilization projects.
Sec. 106. Small flood control projects.
Sec. 107. Small projects for improvement of the quality of the 
              environment.
Sec. 108. Beneficial uses of dredged material.
Sec. 109. Small aquatic ecosystem restoration projects.
Sec. 110. Flood mitigation and riverine restoration.
Sec. 111. Disposal of dredged material on beaches.

                      TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 201. Cooperation agreements with counties.
Sec. 202. Watershed and river basin assessments.
Sec. 203. Tribal partnership program.
Sec. 204. Ability to pay.
Sec. 205. Property protection program.
Sec. 206. National Recreation Reservation Service.
Sec. 207. Operation and maintenance of hydroelectric facilities.
Sec. 208. Interagency and international support.
Sec. 209. Reburial and conveyance authority.
Sec. 210. Approval of construction of dams and dikes.
Sec. 211. Project deauthorization authority.
Sec. 212. Floodplain management requirements.
Sec. 213. Environmental dredging.
Sec. 214. Regulatory analysis and management systems data.
Sec. 215. Performance of specialized or technical services.

                 TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS

Sec. 301. Boydsville, Arkansas.
Sec. 302. White River Basin, Arkansas and Missouri.
Sec. 303. Gasparilla and Estero Islands, Florida.
Sec. 304. Fort Hall Indian Reservation, Idaho.
Sec. 305. Upper Des Plaines River and tributaries, Illinois.
Sec. 306. Red River Waterway, Louisiana.
Sec. 307. William Jennings Randolph Lake, Maryland.
Sec. 308. Missouri River Valley, Missouri.
Sec. 309. New Madrid County, Missouri.
Sec. 310. Pemiscot County Harbor, Missouri.
Sec. 311. Pike County, Missouri.
Sec. 312. Fort Peck fish hatchery, Montana.
Sec. 313. Sagamore Creek, New Hampshire.
Sec. 314. Passaic River Basin flood management, New Jersey.
Sec. 315. Rockaway Inlet to Norton Point, New York.
Sec. 316. John Day Pool, Oregon and Washington.
Sec. 317. Fox Point hurricane barrier, Providence, Rhode Island.
Sec. 318. Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels, Texas.
Sec. 319. Joe Pool Lake, Trinity River Basin, Texas.
Sec. 320. Lake Champlain watershed, Vermont and New York.
Sec. 321. Mount St. Helens, Washington.
Sec. 322. Puget Sound and adjacent waters restoration, Washington.
Sec. 323. Fox River System, Wisconsin.
Sec. 324. Chesapeake Bay oyster restoration.
Sec. 325. Great Lakes dredging levels adjustment.
Sec. 326. Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 327. Great Lakes remedial action plans and sediment remediation.
Sec. 328. Great Lakes tributary model.
Sec. 329. Treatment of dredged material from Long Island Sound.
Sec. 330. New England water resources and ecosystem restoration.
Sec. 331. Project deauthorizations.

                           TITLE IV--STUDIES

Sec. 401. Baldwin County, Alabama.
Sec. 402. Bono, Arkansas.
Sec. 403. Cache Creek Basin, California.
Sec. 404. Estudillo Canal watershed, California.
Sec. 405. Laguna Creek watershed, California.
Sec. 406. Oceanside, California.
Sec. 407. San Jacinto watershed, California.
Sec. 408. Choctawhatchee River, Florida.
Sec. 409. Egmont Key, Florida.
Sec. 410. Upper Ocklawaha River and Apopka/Palatlakaha River basins, 
              Florida.
Sec. 411. Boise River, Idaho.
Sec. 412. Wood River, Idaho.
Sec. 413. Chicago, Illinois.
Sec. 414. Boeuf and Black, Louisiana.
Sec. 415. Port of Iberia, Louisiana.
Sec. 416. South Louisiana.
Sec. 417. St. John the Baptist Parish, Louisiana.
Sec. 418. Narraguagus River, Milbridge, Maine.
Sec. 419. Portsmouth Harbor and Piscataqua River, Maine and New 
              Hampshire.
Sec. 420. Merrimack River Basin, Massachusetts and New Hampshire.
Sec. 421. Port of Gulfport, Mississippi.
Sec. 422. Upland disposal sites in New Hampshire.
Sec. 423. Missouri River basin, North Dakota, South Dakota, and 
              Nebraska.
Sec. 424. Cuyahoga River, Ohio.
Sec. 425. Fremont, Ohio.
Sec. 426. Grand Lake, Oklahoma.
Sec. 427. Dredged material disposal site, Rhode Island.
Sec. 428. Chickamauga Lock and Dam, Tennessee.
Sec. 429. Germantown, Tennessee.
Sec. 430. Horn Lake Creek and Tributaries, Tennessee and Mississippi.
Sec. 431. Cedar Bayou, Texas.
Sec. 432. Houston Ship Channel, Texas.
Sec. 433. San Antonio Channel, Texas.
Sec. 434. White River watershed below Mud Mountain Dam, Washington.
Sec. 435. Willapa Bay, Washington.
Sec. 436. Upper Mississippi River basin sediment and nutrient study.

                   TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 501. Visitors centers.
Sec. 502. CALFED Bay-Delta Program assistance, California.
Sec. 503. Conveyance of lighthouse, Ontonagon, Michigan.
Sec. 504. Land conveyance, Candy Lake, Oklahoma.

          TITLE VI--COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN

Sec. 601. Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF SECRETARY.

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

                   TITLE I--WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS

     SEC. 101. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

       (a) Projects With Chief's Reports.--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 designated report: The 
     project for navigation, New York-New Jersey Harbor: Report of 
     the Chief of Engineers dated May 2, 2000, at a total cost of 
     $1,781,235,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $738,631,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
     $1,042,604,000.
       (b) Projects Subject to a 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, 2000:
       (1) False pass harbor, alaska.--The project for navigation, 
     False Pass Harbor, Alaska, at a total cost of $15,000,000, 
     with an estimated Federal cost of $10,000,000 and an 
     estimated non-Federal cost of $5,000,000.
       (2) Unalaska harbor, alaska.--The project for navigation, 
     Unalaska Harbor, Alaska, at a total cost of $20,000,000, with 
     an estimated Federal cost of $12,000,000 and an estimated 
     non-Federal cost of $8,000,000.

[[Page 18862]]

       (3) Rio de flag, arizona.--The project for flood damage 
     reduction, Rio de Flag, Arizona, at a total cost of 
     $26,400,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $17,100,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $9,300,000.
       (4) Tres rios, arizona.--The project for environmental 
     restoration, Tres Rios, Arizona, at a total cost of 
     $90,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $58,000,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $32,000,000.
       (5) Los angeles harbor, california.--The project for 
     navigation, Los Angeles Harbor, California, at a total cost 
     of $168,900,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $44,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
     $124,900,000.
       (6) Murrieta creek, california.--The project for flood 
     control, Murrieta Creek, California, at a total cost of 
     $43,100,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $27,800,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $15,300,000.
       (7) Pine flat dam, california.--The project for fish and 
     wildlife restoration, Pine Flat Dam, California, at a total 
     cost of $34,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $22,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $12,000,000.
       (8) Ranchos palos verdes, california.--The project for 
     environmental restoration, Ranchos Palos Verdes, California, 
     at a total cost of $18,100,000, with an estimated Federal 
     cost of $11,800,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
     $6,300,000.
       (9) Santa barbara streams, california.--The project for 
     flood damage reduction, Santa Barbara Streams, Lower Mission 
     Creek, California, at a total cost of $17,100,000, with an 
     estimated Federal cost of $8,600,000 and an estimated non-
     Federal cost of $8,500,000.
       (10) Upper newport bay harbor, california.--The project for 
     environmental restoration, Upper Newport Bay Harbor, 
     California, at a total cost of $28,280,000, with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $18,390,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
     of $9,890,000.
       (11) Whitewater river basin, california.--The project for 
     flood damage reduction, Whitewater River basin, California, 
     at a total cost of $26,000,000, with an estimated Federal 
     cost of $16,900,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
     $9,100,000.
       (12) Tampa harbor, florida.--Modification of the project 
     for navigation, Tampa Harbor, Florida, authorized by section 
     4 of the Act of September 22, 1922 (42 Stat. 1042, chapter 
     427), to deepen the Port Sutton Channel, at a total cost of 
     $7,245,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $4,709,000 and 
     an estimated non-Federal cost of $2,536,000.
       (13) Barbers point harbor, oahu, hawaii.--The project for 
     navigation, Barbers Point Harbor, Oahu, Hawaii, at a total 
     cost of $51,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $21,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $30,000,000.
       (14) John t. myers lock and dam, indiana and kentucky.--The 
     project for navigation, John T. Myers Lock and Dam, Ohio 
     River, Indiana and Kentucky, at a total cost of $182,000,000. 
     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) Greenup lock and dam, kentucky.--The project for 
     navigation, Greenup Lock and Dam, Ohio River, Kentucky, at a 
     total cost of $183,000,000. 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.
       (16) Morganza, louisiana, to gulf of mexico.--
       (A) In general.--The project for hurricane protection, 
     Morganza, Louisiana, to the Gulf of Mexico, at a total cost 
     of $550,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $358,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
     $192,000,000.
       (B) Credit.--The non-Federal interests shall receive credit 
     toward the non-Federal share of project costs for the costs 
     of any work carried out by the non-Federal interests for 
     interim flood protection after March 31, 1989, if the 
     Secretary finds that the work is compatible with, and 
     integral to, the project.
       (17) Chesterfield, missouri.--The project to implement 
     structural and nonstructural measures to prevent flood damage 
     to Chesterfield, Missouri, and the surrounding area, at a 
     total cost of $63,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $40,950,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $22,050,000.
       (18) Barnegat inlet to little egg inlet, new jersey.--The 
     project for shore protection, Barnegat Inlet to Little Egg 
     Inlet, New Jersey, at a total cost of $51,203,000, with an 
     estimated Federal cost of $33,282,000 and an estimated non-
     Federal cost of $17,921,000, and at an estimated average 
     annual cost of $1,751,000 for periodic nourishment over the 
     50-year life of the project, with an estimated annual Federal 
     cost of $1,138,000 and an estimated annual non-Federal cost 
     of $613,000.
       (19) Raritan bay and sandy hook bay, cliffwood beach, new 
     jersey.--The project for shore protection, Raritan Bay and 
     Sandy Hook Bay, Cliffwood Beach, New Jersey, at a total cost 
     of $5,219,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $3,392,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $1,827,000, and at an 
     estimated average annual cost of $110,000 for periodic 
     nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an 
     estimated annual Federal cost of $55,000 and an estimated 
     annual non-Federal cost of $55,000.
       (20) Raritan bay and sandy hook bay, port monmouth, new 
     jersey.--The project for shore protection, Raritan Bay and 
     Sandy Hook Bay, Port Monmouth, New Jersey, at a total cost of 
     $30,081,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $19,553,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $10,528,000, and at an 
     estimated average annual cost of $2,468,000 for periodic 
     nourishment over the 50-year life of the project, with an 
     estimated annual Federal cost of $1,234,000 and an estimated 
     annual non-Federal cost of $1,234,000.
       (21) Memphis, tennessee.--The project for ecosystem 
     restoration, Wolf River, Memphis, Tennessee, at a total cost 
     of $10,933,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $7,106,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,827,000.
       (22) Jackson hole, wyoming.--
       (A) In general.--The project for environmental restoration, 
     Jackson Hole, Wyoming, at a total cost of $66,500,000, with 
     an estimated Federal cost of $43,225,000 and an estimated 
     non-Federal cost of $23,275,000.
       (B) Non-federal share.--
       (i) In general.--The non-Federal share of the costs of the 
     project may be provided in cash or in the form of in-kind 
     services or materials.
       (ii) Credit.--The non-Federal interest shall receive credit 
     toward the non-Federal share of project costs for design and 
     construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest 
     before the date of execution of a project cooperation 
     agreement for the project, if the Secretary finds that the 
     work is integral to the project.
       (23) Ohio river.--
       (A) In general.--The program for protection and restoration 
     of fish and wildlife habitat in and along the main stem of 
     the Ohio River, consisting of projects described in a 
     comprehensive plan, at a total cost of $200,000,000, with an 
     estimated Federal cost of $130,000,000 and an estimated non-
     Federal cost of $70,000,000.
       (B) Non-federal share.--
       (i) In general.--The non-Federal share of the costs of any 
     project under the program may be provided in cash or in the 
     form of in-kind services or materials.
       (ii) Credit.--The non-Federal interest shall receive credit 
     toward the non-Federal share of project costs for design and 
     construction work carried out by the non-Federal interest 
     before the date of execution of a project cooperation 
     agreement for the project, if the Secretary finds that the 
     work is integral to the project.

     SEC. 102. SMALL SHORE PROTECTION PROJECTS.

       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 of August 13, 1946 (33 U.S.C. 426g):
       (1) Lake palourde, louisiana.--Project for beach 
     restoration and protection, Highway 70, Lake Palourde, St. 
     Mary and St. Martin Parishes, Louisiana.
       (2) St. bernard, louisiana.--Project for beach restoration 
     and protection, Bayou Road, St. Bernard, Louisiana.

     SEC. 103. SMALL NAVIGATION PROJECTS.

       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) Houma navigation canal, louisiana.--Project for 
     navigation, Houma Navigation Canal, Terrebonne Parish, 
     Louisiana.
       (2) Vidalia port, louisiana.--Project for navigation, 
     Vidalia Port, Louisiana.

     SEC. 104. REMOVAL OF SNAGS AND CLEARING AND STRAIGHTENING OF 
                   CHANNELS IN NAVIGABLE WATERS.

       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 3 of the Act of March 2, 1945 (33 U.S.C. 604):
       (1) Bayou manchac, louisiana.--Project for removal of snags 
     and clearing and straightening of channels for flood control, 
     Bayou Manchac, Ascension Parish, Louisiana.
       (2) Black bayou and hippolyte coulee, louisiana.--Project 
     for removal of snags and clearing and straightening of 
     channels for flood control, Black Bayou and Hippolyte Coulee, 
     Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana.

     SEC. 105. SMALL BANK STABILIZATION PROJECTS.

       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) Bayou des glaises, louisiana.--Project for emergency 
     streambank protection, Bayou des Glaises (Lee Chatelain 
     Road), Avoyelles Parish, Louisiana.
       (2) Bayou plaquemine, louisiana.--Project for emergency 
     streambank protection, Highway 77, Bayou Plaquemine, 
     Iberville Parish, Louisiana.
       (3) Hammond, louisiana.--Project for emergency streambank 
     protection, Fagan Drive Bridge, Hammond, Louisiana.
       (4) Iberville parish, louisiana.--Project for emergency 
     streambank protection, Iberville Parish, Louisiana.
       (5) Lake arthur, louisiana.--Project for emergency 
     streambank protection, Parish Road 120 at Lake Arthur, 
     Louisiana.
       (6) Lake charles, louisiana.--Project for emergency 
     streambank protection, Pithon Coulee, Lake Charles, Calcasieu 
     Parish, Louisiana.
       (7) Loggy bayou, louisiana.--Project for emergency 
     streambank protection, Loggy Bayou, Bienville Parish, 
     Louisiana.
       (8) Scotlandville bluff, louisiana.--Project for emergency 
     streambank protection, Scotlandville Bluff, East Baton Rouge 
     Parish, Louisiana.

     SEC. 106. SMALL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study for each of the 
     following projects and, if the Secretary

[[Page 18863]]

     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) Weiser river, idaho.--Project for flood damage 
     reduction, Weiser River, Idaho.
       (2) Bayou tete l'ours, louisiana.--Project for flood 
     control, Bayou Tete L'Ours, Louisiana.
       (3) Bossier city, louisiana.--Project for flood control, 
     Red Chute Bayou levee, Bossier City, Louisiana.
       (4) Braithwaite park, louisiana.--Project for flood 
     control, Braithwaite Park, Louisiana.
       (5) Cane bend subdivision, louisiana.--Project for flood 
     control, Cane Bend Subdivision, Bossier Parish, Louisiana.
       (6) Crown point, louisiana.--Project for flood control, 
     Crown Point, Louisiana.
       (7) Donaldsonville canals, louisiana.--Project for flood 
     control, Donaldsonville Canals, Louisiana.
       (8) Goose bayou, louisiana.--Project for flood control, 
     Goose Bayou, Louisiana.
       (9) Gumby dam, louisiana.--Project for flood control, Gumby 
     Dam, Richland Parish, Louisiana.
       (10) Hope canal, louisiana.--Project for flood control, 
     Hope Canal, Louisiana.
       (11) Jean lafitte, louisiana.--Project for flood control, 
     Jean Lafitte, Louisiana.
       (12) Lockport to larose, louisiana.--Project for flood 
     control, Lockport to Larose, Louisiana.
       (13) Lower lafitte basin, louisiana.--Project for flood 
     control, Lower Lafitte Basin, Louisiana.
       (14) Oakville to lareussite, louisiana.--Project for flood 
     control, Oakville to LaReussite, Louisiana.
       (15) Pailet basin, louisiana.--Project for flood control, 
     Pailet Basin, Louisiana.
       (16) Pochitolawa creek, louisiana.--Project for flood 
     control, Pochitolawa Creek, Louisiana.
       (17) Rosethorn basin, louisiana.--Project for flood 
     control, Rosethorn Basin, Louisiana.
       (18) Shreveport, louisiana.--Project for flood control, 
     Twelve Mile Bayou, Shreveport, Louisiana.
       (19) Stephensville, louisiana.--Project for flood control, 
     Stephensville, Louisiana.
       (20) St. john the baptist parish, louisiana.--Project for 
     flood control, St. John the Baptist Parish, Louisiana.
       (21) Magby creek and vernon branch, mississippi.--Project 
     for flood control, Magby Creek and Vernon Branch, Lowndes 
     County, Mississippi.
       (22) Fritz landing, tennessee.--Project for flood control, 
     Fritz Landing, Tennessee.

     SEC. 107. 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(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1986 (33 U.S.C. 2309a(a)):
       (1) Bayou sauvage national wildlife refuge, louisiana.--
     Project for improvement of the quality of the environment, 
     Bayou Sauvage National Wildlife Refuge, Orleans Parish, 
     Louisiana.
       (2) Gulf intracoastal waterway, bayou plaquemine, 
     louisiana.--Project for improvement of the quality of the 
     environment, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Bayou Plaquemine, 
     Iberville Parish, Louisiana.
       (3) Gulf intracoastal waterway, miles 220 to 222.5, 
     louisiana.--Project for improvement of the quality of the 
     environment, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, miles 220 to 222.5, 
     Vermilion Parish, Louisiana.
       (4) Gulf intracoastal waterway, weeks bay, louisiana.--
     Project for improvement of the quality of the environment, 
     Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Weeks Bay, Iberia Parish, 
     Louisiana.
       (5) Lake fausse point, louisiana.--Project for improvement 
     of the quality of the environment, Lake Fausse Point, 
     Louisiana.
       (6) Lake providence, louisiana.--Project for improvement of 
     the quality of the environment, Old River, Lake Providence, 
     Louisiana.
       (7) New river, louisiana.--Project for improvement of the 
     quality of the environment, New River, Ascension Parish, 
     Louisiana.
       (8) Erie county, ohio.--Project for improvement of the 
     quality of the environment, Sheldon's Marsh State Nature 
     Preserve, Erie County, Ohio.
       (9) Mushingum county, ohio.--Project for improvement of the 
     quality of the environment, Dillon Reservoir watershed, 
     Licking River, Mushingum County, Ohio.

     SEC. 108. BENEFICIAL USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL.

       The Secretary may carry out the following projects under 
     section 204 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 
     (33 U.S.C. 2326):
       (1) Houma navigation canal, louisiana.--Project to make 
     beneficial use of dredged material from a Federal navigation 
     project that includes barrier island restoration at the Houma 
     Navigation Canal, Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana.
       (2) Mississippi river gulf outlet, mile -3 to mile -9, 
     louisiana.--Project to make beneficial use of dredged 
     material from a Federal navigation project that includes 
     dredging of the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, mile -3 to 
     mile -9, St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana.
       (3) Mississippi river gulf outlet, mile 11 to mile 4, 
     louisiana.--Project to make beneficial use of dredged 
     material from a Federal navigation project that includes 
     dredging of the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, mile 11 to 
     mile 4, St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana.
       (4) Plaquemines parish, louisiana.--Project to make 
     beneficial use of dredged material from a Federal navigation 
     project that includes marsh creation at the contained 
     submarine maintenance dredge sediment trap, Plaquemines 
     Parish, Louisiana.
       (5) Ottawa county, ohio.--Project to protect, restore, and 
     create aquatic and related habitat using dredged material, 
     East Harbor State Park, Ottawa County, Ohio.

     SEC. 109. SMALL AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECTS.

       The Secretary may carry out the following projects under 
     section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
     (33 U.S.C. 2330):
       (1) Braud bayou, louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem 
     restoration, Braud Bayou, Spanish Lake, Ascension Parish, 
     Louisiana.
       (2) Buras marina, louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem 
     restoration, Buras Marina, Buras, Plaquemines Parish, 
     Louisiana.
       (3) Comite river, louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem 
     restoration, Comite River at Hooper Road, Louisiana.
       (4) Department of energy 21-inch pipeline canal, 
     louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem restoration, 
     Department of Energy 21-inch Pipeline Canal, St. Martin 
     Parish, Louisiana.
       (5) Lake borgne, louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem 
     restoration, southern shores of Lake Borgne, Louisiana.
       (6) Lake martin, louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem 
     restoration, Lake Martin, Louisiana.
       (7) Luling, louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem 
     restoration, Luling Oxidation Pond, St. Charles Parish, 
     Louisiana.
       (8) Mandeville, louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem 
     restoration, Mandeville, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana.
       (9) St. james, louisiana.--Project for aquatic ecosystem 
     restoration, St. James, Louisiana.
       (10) Mines falls park, new hampshire.--Project for aquatic 
     ecosystem restoration, Mines Falls Park, New Hampshire.
       (11) North hampton, new hampshire.--Project for aquatic 
     ecosystem restoration, Little River Salt Marsh, North 
     Hampton, New Hampshire.
       (12) Highland county, ohio.--Project for aquatic ecosystem 
     restoration, Rocky Fork Lake, Clear Creek floodplain, 
     Highland County, Ohio.
       (13) Hocking county, ohio.--Project for aquatic ecosystem 
     restoration, Long Hollow Mine, Hocking County, Ohio.
       (14) Tuscarawas county, ohio.--Project for aquatic 
     ecosystem restoration, Huff Run, Tuscarawas County, Ohio.
       (15) Central amazon creek, oregon.--Project for aquatic 
     ecosystem restoration, Central Amazon Creek, Oregon.
       (16) Delta ponds, oregon.--Project for aquatic ecosystem 
     restoration, Delta Ponds, Oregon.
       (17) Eugene millrace, oregon.--Project for aquatic 
     ecosystem restoration, Eugene Millrace, Oregon.
       (18) Medford, oregon.--Project for aquatic ecosystem 
     restoration, Bear Creek watershed, Medford, Oregon.
       (19) Roslyn lake, oregon.--Project for aquatic ecosystem 
     restoration, Roslyn Lake, Oregon.

     SEC. 110. FLOOD MITIGATION AND RIVERINE RESTORATION.

       Section 212(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1999 (33 U.S.C. 2332(e)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (22), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (23), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(24) Perry Creek, Iowa.''.

     SEC. 111. DISPOSAL OF DREDGED MATERIAL ON BEACHES.

       Section 217 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 
     (113 Stat. 294) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(f) Fort Canby State Park, Benson Beach, Washington.--The 
     Secretary may design and construct a shore protection project 
     at Fort Canby State Park, Benson Beach, Washington, including 
     beneficial use of dredged material from Federal navigation 
     projects as provided under section 145 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1976 (33 U.S.C. 426j).''.

                      TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS

     SEC. 201. COOPERATION AGREEMENTS WITH COUNTIES.

       Section 221(a) of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 
     1962d-5b(a)) is amended in the second sentence--
       (1) by striking ``State legislative''; and
       (2) by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``of the State or a body politic of the State''.

     SEC. 202. WATERSHED AND RIVER BASIN ASSESSMENTS.

       Section 729 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
     (100 Stat. 4164) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 729. WATERSHED AND RIVER BASIN ASSESSMENTS.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary may assess the water 
     resources needs of river basins and watersheds of the United 
     States, including needs relating to--
       ``(1) ecosystem protection and restoration;
       ``(2) flood damage reduction;
       ``(3) navigation and ports;
       ``(4) watershed protection;

[[Page 18864]]

       ``(5) water supply; and
       ``(6) drought preparedness.
       ``(b) Cooperation.--An assessment under subsection (a) 
     shall be carried out in cooperation and coordination with--
       ``(1) the Secretary of the Interior;
       ``(2) the Secretary of Agriculture;
       ``(3) the Secretary of Commerce;
       ``(4) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency; and
       ``(5) the heads of other appropriate agencies.
       ``(c) Consultation.--In carrying out an assessment under 
     subsection (a), the Secretary shall consult with Federal, 
     tribal, State, interstate, and local governmental entities.
       ``(d) Priority River Basins and Watersheds.--In selecting 
     river basins and watersheds for assessment under this 
     section, the Secretary shall give priority to--
       ``(1) the Delaware River basin; and
       ``(2) the Willamette River basin, Oregon.
       ``(e) Acceptance of Contributions.--In carrying out an 
     assessment under subsection (a), the Secretary may accept 
     contributions, in cash or in kind, from Federal, tribal, 
     State, interstate, and local governmental entities to the 
     extent that the Secretary determines that the contributions 
     will facilitate completion of the assessment.
       ``(f) Cost-Sharing Requirements.--
       ``(1) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of the 
     costs of an assessment carried out under this section shall 
     be 50 percent.
       ``(2) Credit.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the non-
     Federal interests may receive credit toward the non-Federal 
     share required under paragraph (1) for the provision of 
     services, materials, supplies, or other in-kind 
     contributions.
       ``(B) Maximum amount of credit.--Credit under subparagraph 
     (A) shall not exceed an amount equal to 25 percent of the 
     costs of the assessment.
       ``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $15,000,000.''.

     SEC. 203. TRIBAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM.

       (a) Definition of Indian Tribe.--In this section, the term 
     ``Indian tribe'' has the meaning given the term in section 4 
     of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act 
     (25 U.S.C. 450b).
       (b) Program.--
       (1) In general.--In cooperation with Indian tribes and the 
     heads of other Federal agencies, the Secretary may study and 
     determine the feasibility of carrying out water resources 
     development projects that--
       (A) will substantially benefit Indian tribes; and
       (B) are located primarily within Indian country (as defined 
     in section 1151 of title 18, United States Code) or in 
     proximity to Alaska Native villages.
       (2) Matters to be studied.--A study conducted under 
     paragraph (1) may address--
       (A) projects for flood damage reduction, environmental 
     restoration and protection, and preservation of cultural and 
     natural resources; and
       (B) such other projects as the Secretary, in cooperation 
     with Indian tribes and the heads of other Federal agencies, 
     determines to be appropriate.
       (c) Consultation and Coordination With Secretary of the 
     Interior.--
       (1) In general.--In recognition of the unique role of the 
     Secretary of the Interior concerning trust responsibilities 
     with Indian tribes, and in recognition of mutual trust 
     responsibilities, the Secretary shall consult with the 
     Secretary of the Interior concerning studies conducted under 
     subsection (b).
       (2) Integration of activities.--The Secretary shall--
       (A) integrate civil works activities of the Department of 
     the Army with activities of the Department of the Interior to 
     avoid conflicts, duplications of effort, or unanticipated 
     adverse effects on Indian tribes; and
       (B) consider the authorities and programs of the Department 
     of the Interior and other Federal agencies in any 
     recommendations concerning carrying out projects studied 
     under subsection (b).
       (d) Priority Projects.--In selecting water resources 
     development projects for study under this section, the 
     Secretary shall give priority to--
       (1) the project along the upper Snake River within and 
     adjacent to the Fort Hall Indian Reservation, Idaho, 
     authorized by section 304; and
       (2) the project for the Tribal Reservation of the 
     Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe on Willapa Bay, Washington, 
     authorized by section 435(b).
       (e) Cost Sharing.--
       (1) Ability to pay.--
       (A) In general.--Any cost-sharing agreement for a study 
     under subsection (b) shall be subject to the ability of the 
     non-Federal interest to pay.
       (B) Use of procedures.--The ability of a non-Federal 
     interest to pay shall be determined by the Secretary in 
     accordance with procedures established by the Secretary.
       (2) Credit.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), in conducting 
     studies of projects under subsection (b), the Secretary may 
     provide credit to the non-Federal interest for the provision 
     of services, studies, supplies, or other in-kind 
     contributions to the extent that the Secretary determines 
     that the services, studies, supplies, and other in-kind 
     contributions will facilitate completion of the project.
       (B) Maximum amount of credit.--Credit under subparagraph 
     (A) shall not exceed an amount equal to the non-Federal share 
     of the costs of the study.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out subsection (b) $5,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2002 through 2006, of which not more 
     than $1,000,000 may be used with respect to any 1 Indian 
     tribe.

     SEC. 204. ABILITY TO PAY.

       Section 103(m) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1986 (33 U.S.C. 2213(m)) is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraphs (1) and (2) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) In general.--Any cost-sharing agreement under this 
     section for a feasibility study, or for construction of an 
     environmental protection and restoration project, a flood 
     control project, a project for navigation, storm damage 
     protection, shoreline erosion, hurricane protection, or 
     recreation, or an agricultural water supply project, shall be 
     subject to the ability of the non-Federal interest to pay.
       ``(2) Criteria and procedures.--
       ``(A) In general.--The ability of a non-Federal interest to 
     pay shall be determined by the Secretary in accordance with--
       ``(i) during the period ending on the date on which revised 
     criteria and procedures are promulgated under subparagraph 
     (B), criteria and procedures in effect on the day before the 
     date of enactment of this subparagraph; and
       ``(ii) after the date on which revised criteria and 
     procedures are promulgated under subparagraph (B), the 
     revised criteria and procedures promulgated under 
     subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) Revised criteria and procedures.--Not later than 18 
     months after the date of enactment of this subparagraph, in 
     accordance with paragraph (3), the Secretary shall promulgate 
     revised criteria and procedures governing the ability of a 
     non-Federal interest to pay.''; and
       (2) in paragraph (3)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A)(ii), by adding ``and'' at the end; 
     and
       (B) by striking subparagraphs (B) and (C) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(B) may consider additional criteria relating to--
       ``(i) the financial ability of the non-Federal interest to 
     carry out its cost-sharing responsibilities; or
       ``(ii) additional assistance that may be available from 
     other Federal or State sources.''.

     SEC. 205. PROPERTY PROTECTION PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may carry out a program to 
     reduce vandalism and destruction of property at water 
     resources development projects under the jurisdiction of the 
     Department of the Army.
       (b) Provision of Rewards.--In carrying out the program, the 
     Secretary may provide rewards (including cash rewards) to 
     individuals who provide information or evidence leading to 
     the arrest and prosecution of individuals causing damage to 
     Federal property.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $500,000 for 
     each fiscal year.

     SEC. 206. NATIONAL RECREATION RESERVATION SERVICE.

       Notwithstanding section 611 of the Treasury and General 
     Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-277; 112 
     Stat. 2681-515), the Secretary may--
       (1) participate in the National Recreation Reservation 
     Service on an interagency basis; and
       (2) pay the Department of the Army's share of the 
     activities required to implement, operate, and maintain the 
     Service.

     SEC. 207. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF HYDROELECTRIC 
                   FACILITIES.

       Section 314 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 
     (33 U.S.C. 2321) is amended in the first sentence by 
     inserting before the period at the end the following: ``in 
     cases in which the activities require specialized training 
     relating to hydroelectric power generation''.

     SEC. 208. INTERAGENCY AND INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT.

       Section 234(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1996 (33 U.S.C. 2323a(d)) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence, by striking ``$1,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$2,000,000''; and
       (2) in the second sentence, by inserting ``out'' after 
     ``carry''.

     SEC. 209. REBURIAL AND CONVEYANCE AUTHORITY.

       (a) Definition of Indian Tribe.--In this section, the term 
     ``Indian tribe'' has the meaning given the term in section 4 
     of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act 
     (25 U.S.C. 450b).
       (b) Reburial.--
       (1) Reburial areas.--In consultation with affected Indian 
     tribes, the Secretary may identify and set aside areas at 
     civil works projects of the Department of the Army that may 
     be used to rebury Native American remains that--
       (A) have been discovered on project land; and
       (B) have been rightfully claimed by a lineal descendant or 
     Indian tribe in accordance with applicable Federal law.
       (2) Reburial.--In consultation with and with the consent of 
     the lineal descendant or the affected Indian tribe, the 
     Secretary may recover and rebury, at full Federal expense, 
     the remains at the areas identified and set aside under 
     subsection (b)(1).
       (c) Conveyance Authority.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, the Secretary may convey to an 
     Indian tribe for use as a cemetery an area at a civil works 
     project that is identified and set aside by the Secretary 
     under subsection (b)(1).

[[Page 18865]]

       (2) Retention of necessary property interests.--In carrying 
     out paragraph (1), the Secretary shall retain any necessary 
     right-of-way, easement, or other property interest that the 
     Secretary determines to be necessary to carry out the 
     authorized purposes of the project.

     SEC. 210. APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION OF DAMS AND DIKES.

       Section 9 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401), is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``It shall'';
       (2) by striking ``However, such structures'' and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(b) Waterways Within a Single State.--Notwithstanding 
     subsection (a), structures described in subsection (a)'';
       (3) by striking ``When plans'' and inserting the following:
       ``(c) Modification of Plans.--When plans'';
       (4) by striking ``The approval'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(d) Applicability.--
       ``(1) Bridges and causeways.--The approval''; and
       (5) in subsection (d) (as designated by paragraph (4)), by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Dams and dikes.--
       ``(A) In general.--The approval required by this section of 
     the location and plans, or any modification of plans, of any 
     dam or dike, applies only to a dam or dike that, if 
     constructed, would completely span a waterway used to 
     transport interstate or foreign commerce, in such a manner 
     that actual, existing interstate or foreign commerce could be 
     adversely affected.
       ``(B) Other dams and dikes.--Any dam or dike (other than a 
     dam or dike described in subparagraph (A)) that is proposed 
     to be built in any other navigable water of the United 
     States--
       ``(i) shall be subject to section 10; and
       ``(ii) shall not be subject to the approval requirements of 
     this section.''.

     SEC. 211. PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATION AUTHORITY.

       Section 1001 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 
     (33 U.S.C. 579a) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 1001. PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONS.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Construction.--The term `construction', with respect 
     to a project or separable element, means--
       ``(A) in the case of--
       ``(i) a nonstructural flood control project, the 
     acquisition of land, an easement, or a right-of-way primarily 
     to relocate a structure; and
       ``(ii) in the case of any other nonstructural measure, the 
     performance of physical work under a construction contract;
       ``(B) in the case of an environmental protection and 
     restoration project--
       ``(i) the acquisition of land, an easement, or a right-of-
     way primarily to facilitate the restoration of wetland or a 
     similar habitat; or
       ``(ii) the performance of physical work under a 
     construction contract to modify an existing project facility 
     or to construct a new environmental protection and 
     restoration measure; and
       ``(C) in the case of any other water resources project, the 
     performance of physical work under a construction contract.
       ``(2) Physical work under a construction contract.--The 
     term `physical work under a construction contract' does not 
     include any activity related to project planning, engineering 
     and design, relocation, or the acquisition of land, an 
     easement, or a right-of-way.
       ``(b) Projects Never Under Construction.--
       ``(1) List of projects.--The Secretary shall annually 
     submit to Congress a list of projects and separable elements 
     of projects that--
       ``(A) are authorized for construction; and
       ``(B) for which no Federal funds were obligated for 
     construction during the 4 full fiscal years preceding the 
     date of submission of the list.
       ``(2) Deauthorization.--Any water resources project, or 
     separable element of a water resources project, authorized 
     for construction shall be deauthorized effective at the end 
     of the 7-year period beginning on the date of the most recent 
     authorization or reauthorization of the project or separable 
     element unless Federal funds have been obligated for 
     construction of the project or separable element by the end 
     of that period.
       ``(c) Projects for Which Construction Has Been Suspended.--
       ``(1) List of projects.--The Secretary shall annually 
     submit to Congress a list of projects and separable elements 
     of projects--
       ``(A) that are authorized for construction;
       ``(B) for which Federal funds have been obligated for 
     construction of the project or separable element; and
       ``(C) for which no Federal funds have been obligated for 
     construction of the project or separable element during the 2 
     full fiscal years preceding the date of submission of the 
     list.
       ``(2) Deauthorization.--Any water resources project, or 
     separable element of a water resources project, for which 
     Federal funds have been obligated for construction shall be 
     deauthorized effective at the end of any 5-fiscal year period 
     during which Federal funds specifically identified for 
     construction of the project or separable element (in an Act 
     of Congress or in the accompanying legislative report 
     language) have not been obligated for construction.
       ``(d) Congressional Notifications.--Upon submission of the 
     lists under subsections (b)(1) and (c)(1), the Secretary 
     shall notify each Senator in whose State, and each Member of 
     the House of Representatives in whose district, the affected 
     project or separable element is or would be located.
       ``(e) Final Deauthorization List.--The Secretary shall 
     publish annually in the Federal Register a list of all 
     projects and separable elements deauthorized under subsection 
     (b)(2) or (c)(2).
       ``(f) Effective Date.--Subsections (b)(2) and (c)(2) take 
     effect 3 years after the date of enactment of this 
     subsection.''.

     SEC. 212. FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 402(c) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 701b-12(c)) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence of paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``Within 6 months after the date of the enactment of this 
     subsection, the'' and inserting ``The'';
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3);
       (3) by striking ``Such guidelines shall address'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(2) Required elements.--The guidelines developed under 
     paragraph (1) shall--
       ``(A) address''; and
       (4) in paragraph (2) (as designated by paragraph (3))--
       (A) by inserting ``that non-Federal interests shall adopt 
     and enforce'' after ``policies'';
       (B) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; 
     and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) require non-Federal interests to take measures to 
     preserve the level of flood protection provided by a project 
     to which subsection (a) applies.''.
       (b) Applicability.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to any project or separable element of a project 
     with respect to which the Secretary and the non-Federal 
     interest have not entered a project cooperation agreement on 
     or before the date of enactment of this Act.
       (c) Technical Amendments.--Section 402(b) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 701b-12(b)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Flood Plain'' 
     and inserting ``Floodplain''; and
       (2) in the first sentence, by striking ``flood plain'' and 
     inserting ``floodplain''.

     SEC. 213. ENVIRONMENTAL DREDGING.

       Section 312 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 
     (33 U.S.C. 1272) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(g) 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 sponsor 
     may include a nonprofit entity, with the consent of the 
     affected local government.''.

     SEC. 214. REGULATORY ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS DATA.

       (a) In General.--Beginning October 1, 2000, the Secretary, 
     acting through the Chief of Engineers, shall publish, on the 
     Army Corps of Engineers' Regulatory Program website, 
     quarterly reports that include all Regulatory Analysis and 
     Management Systems (RAMS) data.
       (b) Data.--Such RAMS data shall include--
       (1) the date on which an individual or nationwide permit 
     application under section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) is first received by the Corps;
       (2) the date on which the application is considered 
     complete;
       (3) the date on which the Corps either grants (with or 
     without conditions) or denies the permit; and
       (4) if the application is not considered complete when 
     first received by the Corps, a description of the reason the 
     application was not considered complete.

     SEC. 215. PERFORMANCE OF SPECIALIZED OR TECHNICAL SERVICES.

       (a) Definition of State.--In this section, the term 
     ``State'' has the meaning given the term in section 6501 of 
     title 31, United States Code.
       (b) Authority.--The Corps of Engineers may provide 
     specialized or technical services to a Federal agency (other 
     than a Department of Defense agency), State, or local 
     government of the United States under section 6505 of title 
     31, United States Code, only if the chief executive of the 
     requesting entity submits to the Secretary--
       (1) a written request describing the scope of the services 
     to be performed and agreeing to reimburse the Corps for all 
     costs associated with the performance of the services; and
       (2) a certification that includes adequate facts to 
     establish that the services requested are not reasonably and 
     quickly available through ordinary business channels.
       (c) Corps Agreement To Perform Services.--The Secretary, 
     after receiving a request described in subsection (b) to 
     provide specialized or technical services, shall, before 
     entering into an agreement to perform the services--
       (1) ensure that the requirements of subsection (b) are met 
     with regard to the request for services; and
       (2) execute a certification that includes adequate facts to 
     establish that the Corps is uniquely equipped to perform such 
     services.
       (d) Annual Report to Congress.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than the end of each calendar 
     year, the Secretary shall provide 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 identifying any request 
     submitted by a Federal agency (other than a Department of 
     Defense agency), State, or local government of the United 
     States to the Corps to provide specialized or technical 
     services.

[[Page 18866]]

       (2) Contents of report.--The report shall include, with 
     respect to each request described in paragraph (1)--
       (A) a description of the scope of services requested;
       (B) the certifications required under subsection (b) and 
     (c);
       (C) the status of the request;
       (D) the estimated and final cost of the services;
       (E) the status of reimbursement;
       (F) a description of the scope of services performed; and
       (G) copies of all certifications in support of the request.

                 TITLE III--PROJECT-RELATED PROVISIONS

     SEC. 301. BOYDSVILLE, ARKANSAS.

       The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of 
     the costs of the study to determine the feasibility of the 
     reservoir and associated improvements in the vicinity of 
     Boydsville, Arkansas, authorized by section 402 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 322), not more 
     than $250,000 of the costs of the relevant planning and 
     engineering investigations carried out by State and local 
     agencies, if the Secretary finds that the investigations are 
     integral to the scope of the feasibility study.

     SEC. 302. WHITE RIVER BASIN, ARKANSAS AND MISSOURI.

       Section 374 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 
     (113 Stat. 321) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``the following'' and 
     all that follows and inserting ``the amounts of project 
     storage that are recommended by the report required under 
     subsection (b).''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting before the period at the 
     end the following: ``and does not significantly impact other 
     authorized project purposes'';
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``2000'' and inserting 
     ``2002''; and
       (C) in paragraph (3)--
       (i) by inserting ``and to what extent'' after ``whether'';
       (ii) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (iii) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the 
     end and inserting ``; and''; and
       (iv) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) project storage should be reallocated to sustain the 
     tail water trout fisheries.''.

     SEC. 303. 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, is modified to authorize 
     the Secretary to enter into an agreement with the non-Federal 
     interest to carry out the project in accordance with section 
     206 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (33 U.S.C. 
     426i-1), if the Secretary determines that the project is 
     technically sound, environmentally acceptable, and 
     economically justified.

     SEC. 304. FORT HALL INDIAN RESERVATION, IDAHO.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall carry out planning, 
     engineering, and design of an adaptive ecosystem restoration, 
     flood damage reduction, and erosion protection project along 
     the upper Snake River within and adjacent to the Fort Hall 
     Indian Reservation, Idaho.
       (b) Project Justification.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law or requirement for economic justification, 
     the Secretary may construct and adaptively manage for 10 
     years a project under this section if the Secretary 
     determines that the project--
       (1) is a cost-effective means of providing ecosystem 
     restoration, flood damage reduction, and erosion protection;
       (2) is environmentally acceptable and technically feasible; 
     and
       (3) will improve the economic and social conditions of the 
     Shoshone-Bannok Indian Tribe.
       (c) Land, Easements, and Rights-of-Way.--As a condition of 
     the project described in subsection (a), the Shoshone-Bannock 
     Indian Tribe shall provide land, easements, and rights-of-way 
     necessary for implementation of the project.

     SEC. 305. UPPER DES PLAINES RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, ILLINOIS.

       The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of 
     the costs of the study to determine the feasibility of 
     improvements to the upper Des Plaines River and tributaries, 
     phase 2, Illinois and Wisconsin, authorized by section 419 of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 324), 
     the costs of work carried out by the non-Federal interests in 
     Lake County, Illinois, before the date of execution of the 
     feasibility study cost-sharing agreement, if--
       (1) the Secretary and the non-Federal interests enter into 
     a feasibility study cost-sharing agreement; and
       (2) the Secretary finds that the work is integral to the 
     scope of the feasibility study.

     SEC. 306. RED RIVER WATERWAY, LOUISIANA.

       The project for mitigation of fish and wildlife losses, Red 
     River Waterway, 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), 
     and section 301(b)(7) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1996 (110 Stat. 3710), is further modified to authorize 
     the purchase of mitigation land from willing sellers in any 
     of the parishes that comprise the Red River Waterway 
     District, consisting of Avoyelles, Bossier, Caddo, Grant, 
     Natchitoches, Rapides, and Red River Parishes.

     SEC. 307. WILLIAM JENNINGS RANDOLPH LAKE, MARYLAND.

       The Secretary--
       (1) may provide design and construction assistance for 
     recreational facilities in the State of Maryland at the 
     William Jennings Randolph Lake (Bloomington Dam), Maryland 
     and West Virginia, project authorized by section 203 of the 
     Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1182); and
       (2) shall require the non-Federal interest to provide 50 
     percent of the costs of designing and constructing the 
     recreational facilities.

     SEC. 308. MISSOURI RIVER VALLEY, MISSOURI.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the 
     ``Missouri River Valley Improvement Act''.
       (b) Findings and Purposes.--
       (1) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (A) Lewis and Clark were pioneering naturalists that 
     recorded dozens of species previously unknown to science 
     while ascending the Missouri River in 1804;
       (B) the Missouri River, which is 2,321 miles long, drains 
     \1/6\ of the United States, is home to approximately 
     10,000,000 people in 10 States and 28 Native American tribes, 
     and is a resource of incalculable value to the United States;
       (C) the construction of dams, levees, and river training 
     structures in the past 150 years has aided navigation, flood 
     control, and water supply along the Missouri River, but has 
     reduced habitat for native river fish and wildlife;
       (D) river organizations, including the Missouri River Basin 
     Association, support habitat restoration, riverfront 
     revitalization, and improved operational flexibility so long 
     as those efforts do not significantly interfere with uses of 
     the Missouri River; and
       (E) restoring a string of natural places by the year 2004 
     would aid native river fish and wildlife, reduce flood 
     losses, enhance recreation and tourism, and celebrate the 
     bicentennial of Lewis and Clark's voyage.
       (2) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are--
       (A) to protect, restore, and enhance the fish, wildlife, 
     and plants, and the associated habitats on which they depend, 
     of the Missouri River;
       (B) to restore a string of natural places that aid native 
     river fish and wildlife, reduce flood losses, and enhance 
     recreation and tourism;
       (C) to revitalize historic riverfronts to improve quality 
     of life in riverside communities and attract recreation and 
     tourism;
       (D) to monitor the health of the Missouri River and measure 
     biological, chemical, geological, and hydrological responses 
     to changes in Missouri River management;
       (E) to allow the Corps of Engineers increased authority to 
     restore and protect fish and wildlife habitat on the Missouri 
     River;
       (F) to protect and replenish cottonwoods, and their 
     associated riparian woodland communities, along the upper 
     Missouri River; and
       (G) to educate the public about the economic, 
     environmental, and cultural importance of the Missouri River 
     and the scientific and cultural discoveries of Lewis and 
     Clark.
       (c) Definition of Missouri River.--In this section, the 
     term ``Missouri River'' means the Missouri River and the 
     adjacent floodplain that extends from the mouth of the 
     Missouri River (RM 0) to the confluence of the Jefferson, 
     Madison, and Gallatin Rivers (RM 2341) in the State of 
     Montana.
       (d) Authority To Protect, Enhance, and Restore Fish and 
     Wildlife Habitat.--Section 9(b) of the Act of December 22, 
     1944 (58 Stat. 891, chapter 665), is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(b) The general'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(b) Comprehensive Plan.--
       ``(1) In general.--The general'';
       (2) by striking ``paragraph'' and inserting ``subsection''; 
     and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Fish and wildlife habitat.--In addition to carrying 
     out the duties under the comprehensive plan described in 
     paragraph (1), the Chief of Engineers shall protect, enhance, 
     and restore fish and wildlife habitat on the Missouri River 
     to the extent consistent with other authorized project 
     purposes.''.
       (e) Integration of Activities.--
       (1) In general.--In carrying out this section and in 
     accordance with paragraph (2), the Secretary shall provide 
     for such activities as are necessary to protect and enhance 
     fish and wildlife habitat without adversely affecting--
       (A) the water-related needs of the Missouri River basin, 
     including flood control, navigation, hydropower, water 
     supply, and recreation; and
       (B) private property rights.
       (2) New authority.--Nothing in this section confers any new 
     regulatory authority on any Federal or non-Federal entity 
     that carries out any activity under this section.
       (f) Missouri River Mitigation Project.--The matter under 
     the heading ``missouri river mitigation, missouri, kansas, 
     iowa, and nebraska'' of section 601(a) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4143) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following: ``There is authorized to be 
     appropriated to carry out this paragraph $20,000,000 for each 
     of fiscal years 2001 through 2010, contingent on the 
     completion by December 31, 2000, of the study under this 
     heading.''.
       (g) Upper Missouri River Aquatic and Riparian Habitat 
     Mitigation Program.--

[[Page 18867]]

       (1) In general.--
       (A) Study.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary, through an interagency 
     agreement with the Director of the United States Fish and 
     Wildlife Service and in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife 
     Conservation Act of 1980 (16 U.S.C. 2901 et seq.), shall 
     complete a study that--
       (i) analyzes any adverse effects on aquatic and riparian-
     dependent fish and wildlife resulting from the operation of 
     the Missouri River Mainstem Reservoir Project in the States 
     of Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, and Montana;
       (ii) recommends measures appropriate to mitigate the 
     adverse effects described in clause (i); and
       (iii) develops baseline geologic and hydrologic data 
     relating to aquatic and riparian habitat.
       (B) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress 
     a report describing the results of the study under 
     subparagraph (A).
       (2) Pilot program.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and 
     the affected State fish and wildlife agencies, shall develop 
     and administer a pilot mitigation program that--
       (A) involves the experimental releases of warm water from 
     the spillways at Fort Peck Dam during the appropriate 
     spawning periods for native fish;
       (B) involves the monitoring of the response of fish to and 
     the effectiveness of the preservation of native fish and 
     wildlife habitat of the releases described in subparagraph 
     (A); and
       (C) shall not adversely impact a use of the reservoir 
     existing on the date on which the pilot program is 
     implemented.
       (3) Reservoir fish loss study.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation with 
     the North Dakota Game and Fish Department and the South 
     Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, shall complete a 
     study to analyze and recommend measures to avoid or reduce 
     the loss of fish, including rainbow smelt, through Garrison 
     Dam in North Dakota and Oahe Dam in South Dakota.
       (B) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress 
     a report describing the results of the study under 
     subparagraph (A).
       (4) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary--
       (A) to complete the study required under paragraph (3), 
     $200,000; and
       (B) to carry out the other provisions of this subsection, 
     $1,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2010.
       (h) Missouri and Middle Mississippi Rivers Enhancement 
     Project.--Section 514 of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1999 (113 Stat. 342) is amended by striking subsection (g) 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to pay the Federal share of the cost of 
     carrying out activities under this section $5,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2001 through 2004.''.

     SEC. 309. NEW MADRID COUNTY, MISSOURI.

       (a) In General.--The project for navigation, New Madrid 
     County Harbor, New Madrid County, Missouri, authorized under 
     section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 
     577), is authorized as described in the feasibility report 
     for the project, including both phase 1 and phase 2 of the 
     project.
       (b) Credit.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall provide credit to the 
     non-Federal interests for the costs incurred by the non-
     Federal interests in carrying out construction work for phase 
     1 of the project, if the Secretary finds that the 
     construction work is integral to phase 2 of the project.
       (2) Maximum amount of credit.--The amount of the credit 
     under paragraph (1) shall not exceed the required non-Federal 
     share for the project.

     SEC. 310. PEMISCOT COUNTY HARBOR, MISSOURI.

       (a) Credit.--With respect to the project for navigation, 
     Pemiscot County Harbor, Missouri, authorized under section 
     107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 577), the 
     Secretary shall provide credit to the Pemiscot County Port 
     Authority, or an agent of the authority, for the costs 
     incurred by the Authority or agent in carrying out 
     construction work for the project after December 31, 1997, if 
     the Secretary finds that the construction work is integral to 
     the project.
       (b) Maximum Amount of Credit.--The amount of the credit 
     under subsection (a) shall not exceed the required non-
     Federal share for the project, estimated as of the date of 
     enactment of this Act to be $222,000.

     SEC. 311. PIKE COUNTY, MISSOURI.

       (a) In General.--Subject to subsections (c) and (d), at 
     such time as S.S.S., Inc. conveys all right, title, and 
     interest in and to the parcel of land described in subsection 
     (b)(1) to the United States, the Secretary shall convey all 
     right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the 
     parcel of land described in subsection (b)(2) to S.S.S., Inc.
       (b) Land Description.--The parcels of land referred to in 
     subsection (a) are the following:
       (1) Non-federal land.--8.99 acres with existing flowage 
     easements, located in Pike County, Missouri, adjacent to land 
     being acquired from Holnam, Inc. by the Corps of Engineers.
       (2) Federal land.--8.99 acres located in Pike County, 
     Missouri, known as ``Government Tract Numbers FM-46 and FM-
     47'', administered by the Corps of Engineers.
       (c) Conditions.--The land exchange under subsection (a) 
     shall be subject to the following conditions:
       (1) Deeds.--
       (A) Non-federal land.--The conveyance of the parcel of land 
     described in subsection (b)(1) to the Secretary shall be by a 
     warranty deed acceptable to the Secretary.
       (B) Federal land.--The instrument of conveyance used to 
     convey the parcel of land described in subsection (b)(2) to 
     S.S.S., Inc. shall 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.
       (2) Removal of improvements.--
       (A) In general.--S.S.S., Inc. may remove, and the Secretary 
     may require S.S.S., Inc. to remove, any improvements on the 
     parcel of land described in subsection (b)(1).
       (B) No liability.--If S.S.S., Inc., voluntarily or under 
     direction from the Secretary, removes an improvement on the 
     parcel of land described in subsection (b)(1)--
       (i) S.S.S., Inc. shall have no claim against the United 
     States for liability; and
       (ii) the United States shall not incur or be liable for any 
     cost associated with the removal or relocation of the 
     improvement.
       (3) Time limit for land exchange.--Not later than 2 years 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, the land exchange 
     under subsection (a) shall be completed.
       (4) Legal description.--The Secretary shall provide legal 
     descriptions of the parcels of land described in subsection 
     (b), which shall be used in the instruments of conveyance of 
     the parcels.
       (5) Administrative costs.--The Secretary shall require 
     S.S.S., Inc. to pay reasonable administrative costs 
     associated with the land exchange under subsection (a).
       (d) Value of Properties.--If the appraised fair market 
     value, as determined by the Secretary, of the parcel of land 
     conveyed to S.S.S., Inc. by the Secretary under subsection 
     (a) exceeds the appraised fair market value, as determined by 
     the Secretary, of the parcel of land conveyed to the United 
     States by S.S.S., Inc. under that subsection, S.S.S., Inc. 
     shall pay to the United States, in cash or a cash equivalent, 
     an amount equal to the difference between the 2 values.

     SEC. 312. FORT PECK FISH HATCHERY, MONTANA.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) Fort Peck Lake, Montana, is in need of a multispecies 
     fish hatchery;
       (2) the burden of carrying out efforts to raise and stock 
     fish species in Fort Peck Lake has been disproportionately 
     borne by the State of Montana despite the existence of a 
     Federal project at Fort Peck Lake;
       (3)(A) as of the date of enactment of this Act, eastern 
     Montana has only 1 warm water fish hatchery, which is 
     inadequate to meet the demands of the region; and
       (B) a disease or infrastructure failure at that hatchery 
     could imperil fish populations throughout the region;
       (4) although the multipurpose project at Fort Peck, 
     Montana, authorized by the first section of the Act of August 
     30, 1935 (49 Stat. 1034, chapter 831), was intended to 
     include irrigation projects and other activities designed to 
     promote economic growth, many of those projects were never 
     completed, to the detriment of the local communities flooded 
     by the Fort Peck Dam;
       (5) the process of developing an environmental impact 
     statement for the update of the Corps of Engineers Master 
     Manual for the operation of the Missouri River recognized the 
     need for greater support of recreation activities and other 
     authorized purposes of the Fort Peck project;
       (6)(A) although fish stocking is included among the 
     authorized purposes of the Fort Peck project, the State of 
     Montana has funded the stocking of Fort Peck Lake since 1947; 
     and
       (B) the obligation to fund the stocking constitutes an 
     undue burden on the State; and
       (7) a viable multispecies fishery would spur economic 
     development in the region.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are--
       (1) to authorize and provide funding for the design and 
     construction of a multispecies fish hatchery at Fort Peck 
     Lake, Montana; and
       (2) to ensure stable operation and maintenance of the fish 
     hatchery.
       (c) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Fort peck lake.--The term ``Fort Peck Lake'' means the 
     reservoir created by the damming of the upper Missouri River 
     in northeastern Montana.
       (2) Hatchery project.--The term ``hatchery project'' means 
     the project authorized by subsection (d).
       (d) Authorization.--The Secretary shall carry out a project 
     at Fort Peck Lake, Montana, for the design and construction 
     of a fish hatchery and such associated facilities as are 
     necessary to sustain a multispecies fishery.
       (e) Cost Sharing.--
       (1) Design and construction.--
       (A) Federal share.--The Federal share of the costs of 
     design and construction of the hatchery project shall be 75 
     percent.
       (B) Form of non-federal share.--
       (i) In general.--The non-Federal share of the costs of the 
     hatchery project may be provided in the form of cash or in 
     the form of land, easements, rights-of-way, services, roads, 
     or any other form of in-kind contribution determined by the 
     Secretary to be appropriate.
       (ii) Required crediting.--The Secretary shall credit toward 
     the non-Federal share of the costs of the hatchery project--

       (I) the costs to the State of Montana of stocking Fort Peck 
     Lake during the period beginning January 1, 1947; and

[[Page 18868]]

       (II) the costs to the State of Montana and the counties 
     having jurisdiction over land surrounding Fort Peck Lake of 
     construction of local access roads to the lake.

       (2) Operation, maintenance, repair, and replacement.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraphs (B) 
     and (C), the operation, maintenance, repair, and replacement 
     of the hatchery project shall be a non-Federal 
     responsibility.
       (B) Costs associated with threatened and endangered 
     species.--The costs of operation and maintenance associated 
     with raising threatened or endangered species shall be a 
     Federal responsibility.
       (C) Power.--The Secretary shall offer to the hatchery 
     project low-cost project power for all hatchery operations.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out this section--
       (A) $20,000,000; and
       (B) such sums as are necessary to carry out subsection 
     (e)(2)(B).
       (2) Availability of funds.--Sums made available under 
     paragraph (1) shall remain available until expended.

     SEC. 313. SAGAMORE CREEK, NEW HAMPSHIRE.

       The Secretary shall carry out maintenance dredging of the 
     Sagamore Creek Channel, New Hampshire.

     SEC. 314. PASSAIC RIVER BASIN FLOOD MANAGEMENT, NEW JERSEY.

       (a) In General.--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), is modified to emphasize nonstructural 
     approaches for flood control as alternatives to the 
     construction of the Passaic River tunnel element, while 
     maintaining the integrity of other separable mainstream 
     project elements, wetland banks, and other independent 
     projects that were authorized to be carried out in the 
     Passaic River Basin before the date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Reevaluation of Floodway Study.--The Secretary shall 
     review the Passaic River Floodway Buyout Study, dated October 
     1995, to calculate the benefits of a buyout and environmental 
     restoration using the method used to calculate the benefits 
     of structural projects under section 308(b) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2318(b)).
       (c) Reevaluation of 10-Year Floodplain Study.--The 
     Secretary shall review the Passaic River Buyout Study of the 
     10-year floodplain beyond the floodway of the Central Passaic 
     River Basin, dated September 1995, to calculate the benefits 
     of a buyout and environmental restoration using the method 
     used to calculate the benefits of structural projects under 
     section 308(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 
     (33 U.S.C. 2318(b)).
       (d) Preservation of Natural Storage Areas.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall reevaluate the 
     acquisition, from willing sellers, for flood protection 
     purposes, of wetlands in the Central Passaic River Basin to 
     supplement the wetland acquisition authorized by section 
     101(a)(18)(C)(vi) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1990 (104 Stat. 4609).
       (2) Purchase.--If the Secretary determines that the 
     acquisition of wetlands evaluated under paragraph (1) is 
     economically justified, the Secretary shall purchase the 
     wetlands, with the goal of purchasing not more than 8,200 
     acres.
       (e) Streambank Erosion Control Study.--The Secretary shall 
     review relevant reports and conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out a project for environmental 
     restoration, erosion control, and streambank restoration 
     along the Passaic River, from Dundee Dam to Kearny Point, New 
     Jersey.
       (f) Passaic River Flood Management Task Force.--
       (1) Establishment.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the 
     non-Federal interest, shall establish a task force, to be 
     known as the ``Passaic River Flood Management Task Force'', 
     to provide advice to the Secretary concerning all aspects of 
     the Passaic River flood management project.
       (2) Membership.--The task force shall be composed of 20 
     members, appointed as follows:
       (A) Appointment by secretary.--The Secretary shall appoint 
     1 member to represent the Corps of Engineers and to provide 
     technical advice to the task force.
       (B) Appointments by governor of new jersey.--The Governor 
     of New Jersey shall appoint 18 members to the task force, as 
     follows:
       (i) 2 representatives of the New Jersey legislature who are 
     members of different political parties.
       (ii) 1 representative of the State of New Jersey.
       (iii) 1 representative of each of Bergen, Essex, Morris, 
     and Passaic Counties, New Jersey.
       (iv) 6 representatives of governments of municipalities 
     affected by flooding within the Passaic River Basin.
       (v) 1 representative of the Palisades Interstate Park 
     Commission.
       (vi) 1 representative of the North Jersey District Water 
     Supply Commission.
       (vii) 1 representative of each of--

       (I) the Association of New Jersey Environmental 
     Commissions;
       (II) the Passaic River Coalition; and
       (III) the Sierra Club.

       (C) Appointment by governor of new york.--The Governor of 
     New York shall appoint 1 representative of the State of New 
     York to the task force.
       (3) Meetings.--
       (A) Regular meetings.--The task force shall hold regular 
     meetings.
       (B) Open meetings.--The meetings of the task force shall be 
     open to the public.
       (4) Annual report.--The task force shall submit annually to 
     the Secretary and to the non-Federal interest a report 
     describing the achievements of the Passaic River flood 
     management project in preventing flooding and any impediments 
     to completion of the project.
       (5) Expenditure of funds.--The Secretary may use funds made 
     available to carry out the Passaic River Basin flood 
     management project to pay the administrative expenses of the 
     task force.
       (6) Termination.--The task force shall terminate on the 
     date on which the Passaic River flood management project is 
     completed.
       (g) Acquisition of Lands in the Floodway.--Section 1148 of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4254; 
     110 Stat. 3718), is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(e) Consistency With New Jersey Blue Acres Program.--The 
     Secretary shall carry out this section in a manner that is 
     consistent with the Blue Acres Program of the State of New 
     Jersey.''.
       (h) Study of Highlands Land Conservation.--The Secretary, 
     in cooperation with the Secretary of Agriculture and the 
     State of New Jersey, may study the feasibility of conserving 
     land in the Highlands region of New Jersey and New York to 
     provide additional flood protection for residents of the 
     Passaic River Basin in accordance with section 212 of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (33 U.S.C. 2332).
       (i) Restriction on Use of Funds.--The Secretary shall not 
     obligate any funds to carry out design or construction of the 
     tunnel element of the Passaic River flood control project, as 
     authorized by section 101(a)(18)(A) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4607).
       (j) Conforming Amendment.--Section 101(a)(18) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 4607) is amended 
     in the paragraph heading by striking ``main stem,'' and 
     inserting ``flood management project,''.

     SEC. 315. ROCKAWAY INLET TO NORTON POINT, NEW YORK.

       (a) In General.--The project for shoreline protection, 
     Atlantic Coast of New York City from Rockaway Inlet to Norton 
     Point (Coney Island Area), New York, authorized by section 
     501(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 
     Stat. 4135) is modified to authorize the Secretary to 
     construct T-groins to improve sand retention down drift of 
     the West 37th Street groin, in the Sea Gate area of Coney 
     Island, New York, as identified in the March 1998 report 
     prepared for the Corps of Engineers, entitled ``Field Data 
     Gathering Project Performance Analysis and Design Alternative 
     Solutions to Improve Sandfill Retention'', at a total cost of 
     $9,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $5,850,000 and 
     an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,150,000.
       (b) Cost Sharing.--The non-Federal share of the costs of 
     constructing the T-groins under subsection (a) shall be 35 
     percent.

     SEC. 316. JOHN DAY POOL, OREGON AND WASHINGTON.

       (a) Extinguishment of Reversionary Interests and Use 
     Restrictions.--With respect to the land described in each 
     deed specified in subsection (b)--
       (1) the reversionary interests and the use restrictions 
     relating to port or industrial purposes are extinguished;
       (2) the human habitation or other building structure use 
     restriction is extinguished in each area where the elevation 
     is above the standard project flood elevation; and
       (3) the use of fill material to raise low areas above the 
     standard project flood elevation is authorized, except in any 
     low area constituting wetland for which a permit under 
     section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
     U.S.C. 1344) would be required.
       (b) Affected Deeds.--Subsection (a) applies to deeds with 
     the following county auditors' numbers:
       (1) Auditor's Microfilm Numbers 229 and 16226 of Morrow 
     County, Oregon, executed by the United States.
       (2) The portion of the land conveyed in a deed executed by 
     the United States and bearing Benton County, Washington, 
     Auditor's File Number 601766, described as a tract of land 
     lying in sec. 7, T. 5 N., R. 28 E., Willamette meridian, 
     Benton County, Washington, being more particularly described 
     by the following boundaries:
       (A) Commencing at the point of intersection of the 
     centerlines of Plymouth Street and Third Avenue in the First 
     Addition to the Town of Plymouth (according to the duly 
     recorded plat thereof).
       (B) Thence west along the centerline of Third Avenue, a 
     distance of 565 feet.
       (C) Thence south 54 deg. 10' west, to a point on the west 
     line of Tract 18 of that Addition and the true point of 
     beginning.
       (D) Thence north, parallel with the west line of that sec. 
     7, to a point on the north line of that sec. 7.
       (E) Thence west along the north line thereof to the 
     northwest corner of that sec. 7.
       (F) Thence south along the west line of that sec. 7 to a 
     point on the ordinary high water line of the Columbia River.
       (G) Thence northeast along that high water line to a point 
     on the north and south coordinate line of the Oregon 
     Coordinate System, North Zone, that coordinate line being 
     east 2,291,000 feet.

[[Page 18869]]

       (H) Thence north along that line to a point on the south 
     line of First Avenue of that Addition.
       (I) Thence west along First Avenue to a point on the 
     southerly extension of the west line of T. 18.
       (J) Thence north along that west line of T. 18 to the point 
     of beginning.

     SEC. 317. FOX POINT HURRICANE BARRIER, PROVIDENCE, RHODE 
                   ISLAND.

       Section 352 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 
     (113 Stat. 310) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``The''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Credit Toward Non-Federal Share.--The non-Federal 
     interest shall receive credit toward the non-Federal share of 
     project costs, or reimbursement, for the Federal share of the 
     costs of repairs authorized under subsection (a) that are 
     incurred by the non-Federal interest before the date of 
     execution of the project cooperation agreement.''.

     SEC. 318. HOUSTON-GALVESTON NAVIGATION CHANNELS, TEXAS.

       (a) In General.--Subject to the completion, not later than 
     December 31, 2000, of a favorable report by the Chief of 
     Engineers, 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), is modified to 
     authorize the Secretary to design and construct barge lanes 
     adjacent to both sides of the Houston Ship Channel from 
     Redfish Reef to Morgan Point, a distance of approximately 15 
     miles, to a depth of 12 feet, at a total cost of $34,000,000, 
     with an estimated Federal cost of $30,600,000 and an 
     estimated non-Federal cost of $3,400,000.
       (b) Cost Sharing.--The non-Federal interest shall pay a 
     portion of the costs of construction of the barge lanes under 
     subsection (a) in accordance with section 101 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2211).
       (c) Federal Interest.--If the modification under subsection 
     (a) is in compliance with all applicable environmental 
     requirements, the modification shall be considered to be in 
     the Federal interest.
       (d) No Authorization of Maintenance.--No maintenance is 
     authorized to be carried out for the modification under 
     subsection (a).

     SEC. 319. JOE POOL LAKE, TRINITY RIVER BASIN, TEXAS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall enter into an 
     agreement with the city of Grand Prairie, Texas, under which 
     the city agrees to assume all responsibilities of the Trinity 
     River Authority of the State of Texas under Contract No. 
     DACW63-76-C-0166, other than financial responsibilities, 
     except the responsibility described in subsection (d).
       (b) Responsibilities of Trinity River Authority.--The 
     Trinity River Authority shall be relieved of all financial 
     responsibilities under the contract described in subsection 
     (a) as of the date on which the Secretary enters into the 
     agreement with the city under that subsection.
       (c) Payments by City.--In consideration of the agreement 
     entered into under subsection (a), the city shall pay the 
     Federal Government $4,290,000 in 2 installments--
       (1) 1 installment in the amount of $2,150,000, which shall 
     be due and payable not later than December 1, 2000; and
       (2) 1 installment in the amount of $2,140,000, which shall 
     be due and payable not later than December 1, 2003.
       (d) Operation and Maintenance Costs.--The agreement entered 
     into under subsection (a) shall include a provision requiring 
     the city to assume responsibility for all costs associated 
     with operation and maintenance of the recreation facilities 
     included in the contract described in that subsection.

     SEC. 320. LAKE CHAMPLAIN WATERSHED, VERMONT AND NEW YORK.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Critical restoration project.--The term ``critical 
     restoration project'' means a project that will produce, 
     consistent with Federal programs, projects, and activities, 
     immediate and substantial ecosystem restoration, 
     preservation, and protection benefits.
       (2) Lake champlain watershed.--The term ``Lake Champlain 
     watershed'' means--
       (A) the land areas within Addison, Bennington, Caledonia, 
     Chittenden, Franklin, Grand Isle, Lamoille, Orange, Orleans, 
     Rutland, and Washington Counties in the State of Vermont; and
       (B)(i) the land areas that drain into Lake Champlain and 
     that are located within Essex, Clinton, Franklin, Warren, and 
     Washington Counties in the State of New York; and
       (ii) the near-shore areas of Lake Champlain within the 
     counties referred to in clause (i).
       (b) Critical Restoration Projects.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may participate in critical 
     restoration projects in the Lake Champlain watershed.
       (2) Types of projects.--A critical restoration project 
     shall be eligible for assistance under this section if the 
     critical restoration project consists of--
       (A) implementation of an intergovernmental agreement for 
     coordinating regulatory and management responsibilities with 
     respect to the Lake Champlain watershed;
       (B) acceleration of whole farm planning to implement best 
     management practices to maintain or enhance water quality and 
     to promote agricultural land use in the Lake Champlain 
     watershed;
       (C) acceleration of whole community planning to promote 
     intergovernmental cooperation in the regulation and 
     management of activities consistent with the goal of 
     maintaining or enhancing water quality in the Lake Champlain 
     watershed;
       (D) natural resource stewardship activities on public or 
     private land to promote land uses that--
       (i) preserve and enhance the economic and social character 
     of the communities in the Lake Champlain watershed; and
       (ii) protect and enhance water quality; or
       (E) any other activity determined by the Secretary to be 
     appropriate.
       (c) Public Ownership Requirement.--The Secretary may 
     provide assistance for a critical restoration project under 
     this section only if--
       (1) the critical restoration project is publicly owned; or
       (2) the non-Federal interest with respect to the critical 
     restoration project demonstrates that the critical 
     restoration project will provide a substantial public benefit 
     in the form of water quality improvement.
       (d) Project Selection.--
       (1) In general.--In consultation with the heads of other 
     appropriate Federal, State, tribal, and local agencies, the 
     Secretary may--
       (A) identify critical restoration projects in the Lake 
     Champlain watershed; and
       (B) carry out the critical restoration projects after 
     entering into an agreement with an appropriate non-Federal 
     interest in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control 
     Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b) and this section.
       (2) Certification.--
       (A) In general.--A critical restoration project shall be 
     eligible for financial assistance under this section only if 
     the State director for the critical restoration project 
     certifies to the Secretary that the critical restoration 
     project will contribute to the protection and enhancement of 
     the quality or quantity of the water resources of the Lake 
     Champlain watershed.
       (B) Special consideration.--In certifying critical 
     restoration projects to the Secretary, State directors shall 
     give special consideration to projects that implement plans, 
     agreements, and measures that preserve and enhance the 
     economic and social character of the communities in the Lake 
     Champlain watershed.
       (e) Cost Sharing.--
       (1) In general.--Before providing assistance under this 
     section with respect to a critical restoration project, the 
     Secretary shall enter into a project cooperation agreement 
     that shall require the non-Federal interest--
       (A) to pay 35 percent of the total costs of the critical 
     restoration project;
       (B) to acquire any land, easements, rights-of-way, 
     relocations, and dredged material disposal areas necessary to 
     carry out the critical restoration project;
       (C) to pay 100 percent of the operation, maintenance, 
     repair, replacement, and rehabilitation costs associated with 
     the critical restoration project; and
       (D) to hold the United States harmless from any claim or 
     damage that may arise from carrying out the critical 
     restoration project, except any claim or damage that may 
     arise from the negligence of the Federal Government or a 
     contractor of the Federal Government.
       (2) Non-federal share.--
       (A) Credit for design work.--The non-Federal interest shall 
     receive credit for the reasonable costs of design work 
     carried out by the non-Federal interest before the date of 
     execution of a project cooperation agreement for the critical 
     restoration project, if the Secretary finds that the design 
     work is integral to the critical restoration project.
       (B) Credit for land, easements, and rights-of-way.--The 
     non-Federal interest shall receive credit for the value of 
     any land, easement, right-of-way, relocation, or dredged 
     material disposal area provided for carrying out the critical 
     restoration project.
       (C) Form.--The non-Federal interest may provide up to 50 
     percent of the non-Federal share in the form of services, 
     materials, supplies, or other in-kind contributions.
       (f) Applicability of Other Federal and State Laws.--Nothing 
     in this section waives, limits, or otherwise affects the 
     applicability of Federal or State law with respect to a 
     critical restoration project carried out with assistance 
     provided under this section.
       (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended.

     SEC. 321. MOUNT ST. HELENS, WASHINGTON.

       The project for sediment control, Mount St. Helens, 
     Washington, authorized by the matter under the heading 
     ``transfer of federal townsites'' in chapter IV of title I of 
     the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1985 (99 Stat. 318), is 
     modified to authorize the Secretary to maintain, for 
     Longview, Kelso, Lexington, and Castle Rock on the Cowlitz 
     River, Washington, the flood protection levels specified in 
     the October 1985 report entitled ``Mount St. Helens, 
     Washington, Decision Document (Toutle, Cowlitz, and Columbia 
     Rivers)'', published as House Document No. 135, 99th 
     Congress, signed by the Chief of Engineers, and endorsed and 
     submitted to Congress by the Acting Assistant Secretary of 
     the Army.

     SEC. 322. PUGET SOUND AND ADJACENT WATERS RESTORATION, 
                   WASHINGTON.

       (a) Definition of Critical Restoration Project.--In this 
     section, the term ``critical restoration project'' means a 
     project that will produce, consistent with Federal programs, 
     projects, and activities, immediate and substantial ecosystem 
     restoration, preservation, and protection benefits.

[[Page 18870]]

       (b) Critical Restoration Projects.--The Secretary may 
     participate in critical restoration projects in the area of 
     Puget Sound, Washington, and adjacent waters, including--
       (1) the watersheds that drain directly into Puget Sound;
       (2) Admiralty Inlet;
       (3) Hood Canal;
       (4) Rosario Strait; and
       (5) the eastern portion of the Strait of Juan de Fuca.
       (c) Project Selection.--In consultation with the Secretary 
     of the Interior, the Secretary of Commerce, and the heads of 
     other appropriate Federal, tribal, State, and local agencies, 
     the Secretary may--
       (1) identify critical restoration projects in the area 
     described in subsection (b); and
       (2) carry out the critical restoration projects after 
     entering into an agreement with an appropriate non-Federal 
     interest in accordance with section 221 of the Flood Control 
     Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b) and this section.
       (d) Prioritization of Projects.--In prioritizing projects 
     for implementation under this section, the Secretary shall 
     consult with, and give full consideration to the priorities 
     of, public and private entities that are active in watershed 
     planning and ecosystem restoration in Puget Sound watersheds, 
     including--
       (1) the Salmon Recovery Funding Board;
       (2) the Northwest Straits Commission;
       (3) the Hood Canal Coordinating Council;
       (4) county watershed planning councils; and
       (5) salmon enhancement groups.
       (e) Cost Sharing.--
       (1) In general.--Before carrying out any critical 
     restoration project under this section, the Secretary shall 
     enter into a binding agreement with the non-Federal interest 
     that shall require the non-Federal interest--
       (A) to pay 35 percent of the total costs of the critical 
     restoration project;
       (B) to acquire any land, easements, rights-of-way, 
     relocations, and dredged material disposal areas necessary to 
     carry out the critical restoration project;
       (C) to pay 100 percent of the operation, maintenance, 
     repair, replacement, and rehabilitation costs associated with 
     the critical restoration project; and
       (D) to hold the United States harmless from any claim or 
     damage that may arise from carrying out the critical 
     restoration project, except any claim or damage that may 
     arise from the negligence of the Federal Government or a 
     contractor of the Federal Government.
       (2) Credit.--
       (A) In general.--The non-Federal interest shall receive 
     credit for the value of any land, easement, right-of-way, 
     relocation, or dredged material disposal area provided for 
     carrying out the critical restoration project.
       (B) Form.--The non-Federal interest may provide up to 50 
     percent of the non-Federal share in the form of services, 
     materials, supplies, or other in-kind contributions.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000, of 
     which not more than $5,000,000 may be used to carry out any 1 
     critical restoration project.

     SEC. 323. FOX RIVER SYSTEM, WISCONSIN.

       Section 332(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1992 (106 Stat. 4852) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Payments to state.--The terms and conditions may 
     include 1 or more payments to the State of Wisconsin to 
     assist the State in paying the costs of repair and 
     rehabilitation of the transferred locks and appurtenant 
     features.''.

     SEC. 324. CHESAPEAKE BAY OYSTER RESTORATION.

       Section 704(b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1986 (33 U.S.C. 2263(b)) is amended--
       (1) in the second sentence, by striking ``$7,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$20,000,000''; and
       (2) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:
       ``(4) the construction of reefs and related clean shell 
     substrate for fish habitat, including manmade 3-dimensional 
     oyster reefs, in the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries in 
     Maryland and Virginia--
       ``(A) which reefs shall be preserved as permanent 
     sanctuaries by the non-Federal interests, consistent with the 
     recommendations of the scientific consensus document on 
     Chesapeake Bay oyster restoration dated June 1999; and
       ``(B) for assistance in the construction of which reefs the 
     Chief of Engineers shall solicit participation by and the 
     services of commercial watermen.''.

     SEC. 325. GREAT LAKES DREDGING LEVELS ADJUSTMENT.

       (a) Definition of Great Lake.--In this section, the term 
     ``Great Lake'' means Lake Superior, Lake Michigan, Lake Huron 
     (including Lake St. Clair), Lake Erie, and Lake Ontario 
     (including the St. Lawrence River to the 45th parallel of 
     latitude).
       (b) Dredging Levels.--In operating and maintaining Federal 
     channels and harbors of, and the connecting channels between, 
     the Great Lakes, the Secretary shall conduct such dredging as 
     is necessary to ensure minimal operation depths consistent 
     with the original authorized depths of the channels and 
     harbors when water levels in the Great Lakes are, or are 
     forecast to be, below the International Great Lakes Datum of 
     1985.

     SEC. 326. GREAT LAKES FISHERY AND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the Great Lakes comprise a nationally and 
     internationally significant fishery and ecosystem;
       (2) the Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem should be 
     developed and enhanced in a coordinated manner; and
       (3) the Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem provides a 
     diversity of opportunities, experiences, and beneficial uses.
       (b) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Great lake.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``Great Lake'' means Lake 
     Superior, Lake Michigan, Lake Huron (including Lake St. 
     Clair), Lake Erie, and Lake Ontario (including the St. 
     Lawrence River to the 45th parallel of latitude).
       (B) Inclusions.--The term ``Great Lake'' includes any 
     connecting channel, historically connected tributary, and 
     basin of a lake specified in subparagraph (A).
       (2) Great lakes commission.--The term ``Great Lakes 
     Commission'' means The Great Lakes Commission established by 
     the Great Lakes Basin Compact (82 Stat. 414).
       (3) Great lakes fishery commission.--The term ``Great Lakes 
     Fishery Commission'' has the meaning given the term 
     ``Commission'' in section 2 of the Great Lakes Fishery Act of 
     1956 (16 U.S.C. 931).
       (4) Great lakes state.--The term ``Great Lakes State'' 
     means each of the States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, 
     Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, and Wisconsin.
       (5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Army.
       (c) Great Lakes Fishery and Ecosystem Restoration.--
       (1) Support plan.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall develop a plan for 
     activities of the Corps of Engineers that support the 
     management of Great Lakes fisheries.
       (B) Use of existing documents.--To the maximum extent 
     practicable, the plan shall make use of and incorporate 
     documents that relate to the Great Lakes and are in existence 
     on the date of enactment of this Act, such as lakewide 
     management plans and remedial action plans.
       (C) Cooperation.--The Secretary shall develop the plan in 
     cooperation with--
       (i) the signatories to the Joint Strategic Plan for 
     Management of the Great Lakes Fisheries; and
       (ii) other affected interests.
       (2) Projects.--The Secretary shall plan, design, and 
     construct projects to support the restoration of the fishery, 
     ecosystem, and beneficial uses of the Great Lakes.
       (3) Evaluation program.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall develop a program to 
     evaluate the success of the projects carried out under 
     paragraph (2) in meeting fishery and ecosystem restoration 
     goals.
       (B) Studies.--Evaluations under subparagraph (A) shall be 
     conducted in consultation with the Great Lakes Fishery 
     Commission and appropriate Federal, State, and local 
     agencies.
       (d) Cooperative Agreements.--In carrying out this section, 
     the Secretary may enter into a cooperative agreement with the 
     Great Lakes Commission or any other agency established to 
     facilitate active State participation in management of the 
     Great Lakes.
       (e) Relationship to Other Great Lakes Activities.--No 
     activity under this section shall affect the date of 
     completion of any other activity relating to the Great Lakes 
     that is authorized under other law.
       (f) Cost Sharing.--
       (1) Development of plan.--The Federal share of the cost of 
     development of the plan under subsection (c)(1) shall be 65 
     percent.
       (2) Project planning, design, construction, and 
     evaluation.--The Federal share of the cost of planning, 
     design, construction, and evaluation of a project under 
     paragraph (2) or (3) of subsection (c) shall be 65 percent.
       (3) Non-federal share.--
       (A) Credit for land, easements, and rights-of-way.--The 
     non-Federal interest shall receive credit for the value of 
     any land, easement, right-of-way, relocation, or dredged 
     material disposal area provided for carrying out a project 
     under subsection (c)(2).
       (B) Form.--The non-Federal interest may provide up to 50 
     percent of the non-Federal share required under paragraphs 
     (1) and (2) in the form of services, materials, supplies, or 
     other in-kind contributions.
       (4) Operation and maintenance.--The operation, maintenance, 
     repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of projects carried 
     out under this section shall be a non-Federal responsibility.
       (5) Non-federal interests.--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 private interest and a nonprofit 
     entity.
       (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) Development of plan.--There is authorized to be 
     appropriated for development of the plan under subsection 
     (c)(1) $300,000.
       (2) Other activities.--There is authorized to be 
     appropriated to carry out paragraphs (2) and (3) of 
     subsection (c) $8,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2002 
     through 2006.

     SEC. 327. GREAT LAKES REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS AND SEDIMENT 
                   REMEDIATION.

       Section 401 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 
     (33 U.S.C. 1268 note; 104 Stat. 4644; 110 Stat. 3763; 113 
     Stat. 338) is amended--

[[Page 18871]]

       (1) in subsection (a)(2)(A), by striking ``50 percent'' and 
     inserting ``35 percent'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking paragraph (3);
       (B) in the first sentence of paragraph (4), by striking 
     ``50 percent'' and inserting ``35 percent''; and
       (C) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (3); and
       (3) in subsection (c), by striking ``$5,000,000 for each of 
     fiscal years 1998 through 2000.'' and inserting ``$10,000,000 
     for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2010.''.

     SEC. 328. GREAT LAKES TRIBUTARY MODEL.

       Section 516 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
     (33 U.S.C. 2326b) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (e), by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Cost sharing.--The non-Federal share of the costs of 
     developing a tributary sediment transport model under this 
     subsection shall be 50 percent.''; and
       (2) in subsection (g)--
       (A) by striking ``There is authorized'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) In general.--There is authorized''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Great lakes tributary model.--In addition to amounts 
     made available under paragraph (1), there is authorized to be 
     appropriated to carry out subsection (e) $5,000,000 for each 
     of fiscal years 2001 through 2008.''.

     SEC. 329. TREATMENT OF DREDGED MATERIAL FROM LONG ISLAND 
                   SOUND.

       (a) In General.--Not later than December 31, 2002, the 
     Secretary shall carry out a demonstration project for the use 
     of innovative sediment treatment technologies for the 
     treatment of dredged material from Long Island Sound.
       (b) Project Considerations.--In carrying out subsection 
     (a), the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable--
       (1) encourage partnerships between the public and private 
     sectors;
       (2) build on treatment technologies that have been used 
     successfully in demonstration or full-scale projects (such as 
     projects carried out in the State of New York, New Jersey, or 
     Illinois), such as technologies described in--
       (A) section 405 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1992 (33 U.S.C. 2239 note; 106 Stat. 4863); or
       (B) section 503 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1999 (33 U.S.C. 2314 note; 113 Stat. 337);
       (3) ensure that dredged material from Long Island Sound 
     that is treated under the demonstration project is disposed 
     of by beneficial reuse, by open water disposal, or at a 
     licensed waste facility, as appropriate; and
       (4) ensure that the demonstration project is consistent 
     with the findings and requirements of any draft environmental 
     impact statement on the designation of 1 or more dredged 
     material disposal sites in Long Island Sound that is 
     scheduled for completion in 2001.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $20,000,000.

     SEC. 330. NEW ENGLAND WATER RESOURCES AND ECOSYSTEM 
                   RESTORATION.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Critical restoration project.--The term ``critical 
     restoration project'' means a project that will produce, 
     consistent with Federal programs, projects, and activities, 
     immediate and substantial ecosystem restoration, 
     preservation, and protection benefits.
       (2) New england.--The term ``New England'' means all 
     watersheds, estuaries, and related coastal areas in the 
     States of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, 
     Rhode Island, and Vermont.
       (b) Assessment.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary, in coordination with 
     appropriate Federal, State, tribal, regional, and local 
     agencies, shall perform an assessment of the condition of 
     water resources and related ecosystems in New England to 
     identify problems and needs for restoring, preserving, and 
     protecting water resources, ecosystems, wildlife, and 
     fisheries.
       (2) Matters to be addressed.--The assessment shall 
     include--
       (A) development of criteria for identifying and 
     prioritizing the most critical problems and needs; and
       (B) a framework for development of watershed or regional 
     restoration plans.
       (3) Use of existing information.--In performing the 
     assessment, the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, use--
       (A) information that is available on the date of enactment 
     of this Act; and
       (B) ongoing efforts of all participating agencies.
       (4) Criteria; framework.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall develop and make 
     available for public review and comment--
       (i) criteria for identifying and prioritizing critical 
     problems and needs; and
       (ii) a framework for development of watershed or regional 
     restoration plans.
       (B) Use of resources.--In developing the criteria and 
     framework, the Secretary shall make full use of all available 
     Federal, State, tribal, regional, and local resources.
       (5) Report.--Not later than October l, 2002, the Secretary 
     shall submit to Congress a report on the assessment.
       (c) Restoration Plans.--
       (1) In general.--After the report is submitted under 
     subsection (b)(5), the Secretary, in coordination with 
     appropriate Federal, State, tribal, regional, and local 
     agencies, shall--
       (A) develop a comprehensive plan for restoring, preserving, 
     and protecting the water resources and ecosystem in each 
     watershed and region in New England; and
       (B) submit the plan to Congress.
       (2) Contents.--Each restoration plan shall include--
       (A) a feasibility report; and
       (B) a programmatic environmental impact statement covering 
     the proposed Federal action.
       (d) Critical Restoration Projects.--
       (1) In general.--After the restoration plans are submitted 
     under subsection (c)(1)(B), the Secretary, in coordination 
     with appropriate Federal, State, tribal, regional, and local 
     agencies, shall identify critical restoration projects that 
     will produce independent, immediate, and substantial 
     restoration, preservation, and protection benefits.
       (2) Agreements.--The Secretary may carry out a critical 
     restoration project after entering into an agreement with an 
     appropriate non-Federal interest in accordance with section 
     221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b) and 
     this section.
       (3) Project justification.--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 a critical restoration 
     project under this subsection, the Secretary may determine 
     that the project--
       (A) is justified by the environmental benefits derived from 
     the ecosystem; and
       (B) shall not need further economic justification if the 
     Secretary determines that the project is cost effective.
       (4) Time limitation.--No critical restoration project may 
     be initiated under this subsection after September 30, 2005.
       (5) Cost limitation.--Not more than $5,000,000 in Federal 
     funds may be used to carry out a critical restoration project 
     under this subsection.
       (e) Cost Sharing.--
       (1) Assessment.--
       (A) In general.--The non-Federal share of the cost of the 
     assessment under subsection (b) shall be 25 percent.
       (B) In-kind contributions.--The non-Federal share may be 
     provided in the form of services, materials, or other in-kind 
     contributions.
       (2) Restoration plans.--
       (A) In general.--The non-Federal share of the cost of 
     developing the restoration plans under subsection (c) shall 
     be determined in accordance with section 105 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2215).
       (B) In-kind contributions.--Up to 50 percent of the non-
     Federal share may be provided in the form of services, 
     materials, or other in-kind contributions.
       (3) Critical restoration projects.--
       (A) In general.--The non-Federal share of the cost of 
     carrying out a critical restoration project under subsection 
     (d) shall be 35 percent.
       (B) In-kind contributions.--Up to 50 percent of the non-
     Federal share may be provided in the form of services, 
     materials, or other in-kind contributions.
       (C) Required non-federal contribution.--For any critical 
     restoration project, the non-Federal interest shall--
       (i) provide all land, easements, rights-of-way, dredged 
     material disposal areas, and relocations;
       (ii) pay all operation, maintenance, replacement, repair, 
     and rehabilitation costs; and
       (iii) hold the United States harmless from all claims 
     arising from the construction, operation, and maintenance of 
     the project.
       (D) Credit.--The non-Federal interest shall receive credit 
     for the value of the land, easements, rights-of-way, dredged 
     material disposal areas, and relocations provided under 
     subparagraph (C).
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) Assessment and restoration plans.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out subsections (b) and (c) 
     $2,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2005.
       (2) Critical restoration projects.--There is authorized to 
     be appropriated to carry out subsection (d) $30,000,000.

     SEC. 331. PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONS.

       The following projects or portions of projects are not 
     authorized after the date of enactment of this Act:
       (1) Kennebunk river, kennebunk and kennebunkport, maine.--
     The following portion of the project for navigation, 
     Kennebunk River, Maine, authorized by section 101 of the 
     River and Harbor Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1173), is not 
     authorized after the date of enactment of this Act: the 
     portion of the northernmost 6-foot deep anchorage the 
     boundaries of which begin at a point with coordinates 
     N1904693.6500, E418084.2700, thence running south 01 degree 
     04 minutes 50.3 seconds 35 feet to a point with coordinates 
     N190434.6562, E418084.9301, thence running south 15 degrees 
     53 minutes 45.5 seconds 416.962 feet to a point with 
     coordinates N190033.6386, E418199.1325, thence running north 
     03 degrees 11 minutes 30.4 seconds 70 feet to a point with 
     coordinates N190103.5300, E418203.0300, thence running north 
     17 degrees 58 minutes 18.3 seconds west 384.900 feet to the 
     point of origin.
       (2) Wallabout channel, brooklyn, new york.--
       (A) In general.--The northeastern portion of the project 
     for navigation, Wallabout Channel, Brooklyn, New York, 
     authorized by the Act of March 3, 1899 (30 Stat. 1124, 
     chapter 425), beginning at a point N682,307.40, E638,918.10, 
     thence

[[Page 18872]]

     running along the courses and distances described in 
     subparagraph (B).
       (B) Courses and distances.--The courses and distances 
     referred to in subparagraph (A) are the following:
       (i) South 85 degrees, 44 minutes, 13 seconds East 87.94 
     feet (coordinate: N682,300.86, E639,005.80).
       (ii) North 74 degrees, 41 minutes, 30 seconds East 271.54 
     feet (coordinate: N682,372.55, E639,267.71).
       (iii) South 4 degrees, 46 minutes, 02 seconds West 170.95 
     feet (coordinate: N682,202.20, E639,253.50).
       (iv) South 4 degrees, 46 minutes, 02 seconds West 239.97 
     feet (coordinate: N681,963.06, E639,233.56).
       (v) North 50 degrees, 48 minutes, 26 seconds West 305.48 
     feet (coordinate: N682,156.10, E638,996.80).
       (vi) North 3 degrees, 33 minutes, 25 seconds East 145.04 
     feet (coordinate: N682.300.86, E639,005.80).
       (3) New york and new jersey channels, new york and new 
     jersey.--The portion of the project for navigation, New York 
     and New Jersey Channels, New York and New Jersey, authorized 
     by the first section of the Act of August 30, 1935 (49 Stat. 
     1030, chapter 831), and modified by section 101 of the River 
     and Harbor Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 164), consisting of a 35-
     foot-deep channel beginning at a point along the western 
     limit of the authorized project, N644100.411, E2129256.91, 
     thence running southeast about 38.25 feet to a point 
     N644068.885, E2129278.565, thence running south about 1163.86 
     feet to a point N642912.127, E2129150.209, thence running 
     southwest about 56.9 feet to a point N642864.09, 
     E2129119.725, thence running north along the western limit of 
     the project to the point of origin.

                           TITLE IV--STUDIES

     SEC. 401. BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out beach erosion control, storm 
     damage reduction, and other measures along the shores of 
     Baldwin County, Alabama.

     SEC. 402. BONO, ARKANSAS.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of, and need for, a reservoir and associated 
     improvements to provide for flood control, recreation, water 
     quality, and fish and wildlife in the vicinity of Bono, 
     Arkansas.

     SEC. 403. CACHE CREEK BASIN, CALIFORNIA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to 
     determine the feasibility of modifying the project for flood 
     control, Cache Creek Basin, California, authorized by section 
     401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 
     Stat. 4112), to authorize construction of features to 
     mitigate impacts of the project on the storm drainage system 
     of the city of Woodland, California, that have been caused by 
     construction of a new south levee of the Cache Creek Settling 
     Basin.
       (b) Required Elements.--The study shall include 
     consideration of--
       (1) an outlet works through the Yolo Bypass capable of 
     receiving up to 1,600 cubic feet per second of storm drainage 
     from the city of Woodland and Yolo County;
       (2) a low-flow cross-channel across the Yolo Bypass, 
     including all appurtenant features, that is sufficient to 
     route storm flows of 1,600 cubic feet per second between the 
     old and new south levees of the Cache Creek Settling Basin, 
     across the Yolo Bypass, and into the Tule Canal; and
       (3) such other features as the Secretary determines to be 
     appropriate.

     SEC. 404. ESTUDILLO CANAL WATERSHED, CALIFORNIA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of constructing flood control measures in the 
     Estudillo Canal watershed, San Leandro, Calfornia.

     SEC. 405. LAGUNA CREEK WATERSHED, CALIFORNIA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of constructing flood control measures in the 
     Laguna Creek watershed, Fremont, California, to provide a 
     100-year level of flood protection.

     SEC. 406. OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA.

       Not later than 32 months after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary shall conduct a special study, at 
     full Federal expense, of plans--
       (1) to mitigate for the erosion and other impacts resulting 
     from the construction of Camp Pendleton Harbor, Oceanside, 
     California, as a wartime measure; and
       (2) to restore beach conditions along the affected public 
     and private shores to the conditions that existed before the 
     construction of Camp Pendleton Harbor.

     SEC. 407. SAN JACINTO WATERSHED, CALIFORNIA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a watershed 
     study for the San Jacinto watershed, California.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $250,000.

     SEC. 408. CHOCTAWHATCHEE RIVER, FLORIDA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a reconnaissance study to 
     determine the Federal interest in dredging the mouth of the 
     Choctawhatchee River, Florida, to remove the sand plug.

     SEC. 409. EGMONT KEY, FLORIDA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of stabilizing the historic fortifications and 
     beach areas of Egmont Key, Florida, that are threatened by 
     erosion.

     SEC. 410. UPPER OCKLAWAHA RIVER AND APOPKA/PALATLAKAHA RIVER 
                   BASINS, FLORIDA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a restudy of 
     flooding and water quality issues in--
       (1) the upper Ocklawaha River basin, south of the Silver 
     River; and
       (2) the Apopka River and Palatlakaha River basins.
       (b) Required Elements.--In carrying out subsection (a), the 
     Secretary shall review the report of the Chief of Engineers 
     on the Four River Basins, Florida, project, published as 
     House Document No. 585, 87th Congress, and other pertinent 
     reports to determine the feasibility of measures relating to 
     comprehensive watershed planning for water conservation, 
     flood control, environmental restoration and protection, and 
     other issues relating to water resources in the river basins 
     described in subsection (a).

     SEC. 411. BOISE RIVER, IDAHO.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out multi-objective flood control 
     activities along the Boise River, Idaho.

     SEC. 412. WOOD RIVER, IDAHO.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of carrying out multi-objective flood control and 
     flood mitigation planning projects along the Wood River in 
     Blaine County, Idaho.

     SEC. 413. CHICAGO, ILLINOIS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to 
     determine the feasibility of carrying out projects for water-
     related urban improvements, including infrastructure 
     development and improvements, in Chicago, Illinois.
       (b) Sites.--Under subsection (a), the Secretary shall 
     study--
       (1) the USX/Southworks site;
       (2) Calumet Lake and River;
       (3) the Canal Origins Heritage Corridor; and
       (4) Ping Tom Park.
       (c) Use of Information; Consultation.--In carrying out this 
     section, the Secretary shall use available information from, 
     and consult with, appropriate Federal, State, and local 
     agencies.

     SEC. 414. BOEUF AND BLACK, LOUISIANA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of deepening the navigation channel of the 
     Atchafalaya River and Bayous Chene, Boeuf and Black, 
     Louisiana, from 20 feet to 35 feet.

     SEC. 415. PORT OF IBERIA, LOUISIANA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of constructing navigation improvements for 
     ingress and egress between the Port of Iberia, Louisiana, and 
     the Gulf of Mexico, including channel widening and deepening.

     SEC. 416. SOUTH LOUISIANA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of constructing projects for hurricane protection 
     in the coastal area of the State of Louisiana between Morgan 
     City and the Pearl River.

     SEC. 417. ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST PARISH, LOUISIANA.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of constructing urban flood control measures on 
     the east bank of the Mississippi River in St. John the 
     Baptist Parish, Louisiana.

     SEC. 418. NARRAGUAGUS RIVER, MILBRIDGE, MAINE.

       (a) Study of Redesignation as Anchorage.--The Secretary 
     shall conduct a study to determine the feasibility of 
     redesignating as anchorage a portion of the 11-foot channel 
     of the project for navigation, Narraguagus River, Milbridge, 
     Maine, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor Act 
     of 1962 (76 Stat. 1173).
       (b) Study of Reauthorization.--The Secretary shall conduct 
     a study to determine the feasibility of reauthorizing for the 
     purpose of maintenance as anchorage a portion of the project 
     for navigation, Narraguagus River, Milbridge, Maine, 
     authorized by section 2 of the Act of June 14, 1880 (21 Stat. 
     195, chapter 211), lying adjacent to and outside the limits 
     of the 11-foot channel and the 9-foot channel.

     SEC. 419. PORTSMOUTH HARBOR AND PISCATAQUA RIVER, MAINE AND 
                   NEW HAMPSHIRE.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of modifying the project for navigation, 
     Portsmouth Harbor and Piscataqua River, Maine and New 
     Hampshire, authorized by section 101 of the River and Harbor 
     Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1173) and modified by section 202(a) of 
     the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4095), 
     to increase the authorized width of turning basins in the 
     Piscataqua River to 1000 feet.

     SEC. 420. MERRIMACK RIVER BASIN, MASSACHUSETTS AND NEW 
                   HAMPSHIRE.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a 
     comprehensive study of the water resources needs of the 
     Merrimack River basin, Massachusetts and New Hampshire, in 
     the manner described in section 729 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4164).
       (b) Consideration of Other Studies.--In carrying out this 
     section, the Secretary may take into consideration any 
     studies conducted by the University of New Hampshire on 
     environmental restoration of the Merrimack River System.

     SEC. 421. PORT OF GULFPORT, MISSISSIPPI.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of modifying the project for navigation, Gulfport 
     Harbor, Mississippi, authorized by section 202(a) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4094) and 
     modified by section 4(n) of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 4017)--

[[Page 18873]]

       (1) to widen the channel from 300 feet to 450 feet; and
       (2) to deepen the South Harbor channel from 36 feet to 42 
     feet and the North Harbor channel from 32 feet to 36 feet.

     SEC. 422. UPLAND DISPOSAL SITES IN NEW HAMPSHIRE.

       In conjunction with the State of New Hampshire, the 
     Secretary shall conduct a study to identify and evaluate 
     potential upland disposal sites for dredged material 
     originating from harbor areas located within the State.

     SEC. 423. MISSOURI RIVER BASIN, NORTH DAKOTA, SOUTH DAKOTA, 
                   AND NEBRASKA.

       (a) Definition of Indian Tribe.--In this section, the term 
     ``Indian tribe'' has the meaning given the term in section 4 
     of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act 
     (25 U.S.C. 450b).
       (b) Study.--In cooperation with the Secretary of the 
     Interior, the State of South Dakota, the State of North 
     Dakota, the State of Nebraska, county officials, ranchers, 
     sportsmen, other affected parties, and the Indian tribes 
     referred to in subsection (c)(2), the Secretary shall conduct 
     a study to determine the feasibility of the conveyance to the 
     Secretary of the Interior of the land described in subsection 
     (c), to be held in trust for the benefit of the Indian tribes 
     referred to in subsection (c)(2).
       (c) Land To Be Studied.--The land authorized to be studied 
     for conveyance is the land that--
       (1) was acquired by the Secretary to carry out the Pick-
     Sloan Missouri River Basin Program, authorized by section 9 
     of the Act of December 22, 1944 (58 Stat. 891, chapter 665); 
     and
       (2) is located within the external boundaries of the 
     reservations of--
       (A) the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold 
     Reservation, North Dakota;
       (B) the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North Dakota and South 
     Dakota;
       (C) the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the Crow Creek 
     Reservation, South Dakota;
       (D) the Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota; and
       (E) the Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska.

     SEC. 424. CUYAHOGA RIVER, OHIO.

       Section 438 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 
     (110 Stat. 3746) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 438. CUYAHOGA RIVER, OHIO.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall--
       ``(1) conduct a study to evaluate the structural integrity 
     of the bulkhead system located on the Federal navigation 
     channel along the Cuyahoga River near Cleveland, Ohio; and
       ``(2) provide to the non-Federal interest design analysis, 
     plans and specifications, and cost estimates for repair or 
     replacement of the bulkhead system.
       ``(b) Cost Sharing.--The non-Federal share of the cost of 
     the study shall be 35 percent.
       ``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $500,000.''.

     SEC. 425. FREMONT, OHIO.

       In consultation with appropriate Federal, State, and local 
     agencies, the Secretary shall conduct a study to determine 
     the feasibility of carrying out projects for water supply and 
     environmental restoration at the Ballville Dam, on the 
     Sandusky River at Fremont, Ohio.

     SEC. 426. GRAND LAKE, OKLAHOMA.

       (a) Evaluation.--The Secretary shall--
       (1) evaluate the backwater effects specifically due to 
     flood control operations on land around Grand Lake, Oklahoma; 
     and
       (2) not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, submit to Congress a report on whether Federal 
     actions have been a significant cause of the backwater 
     effects.
       (b) Feasibility Study.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to 
     determine the feasibility of--
       (A) addressing the backwater effects of the operation of 
     the Pensacola Dam, Grand/Neosho River basin; and
       (B) purchasing easements for any land that has been 
     adversely affected by backwater flooding in the Grand/Neosho 
     River basin.
       (2) Cost sharing.--If the Secretary determines under 
     subsection (a)(2) that Federal actions have been a 
     significant cause of the backwater effects, the Federal share 
     of the costs of the feasibility study under paragraph (1) 
     shall be 100 percent.

     SEC. 427. DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE, RHODE ISLAND.

       In consultation with the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency, the Secretary shall conduct a study to 
     determine the feasibility of designating a permanent site in 
     the State of Rhode Island for the disposal of dredged 
     material.

     SEC. 428. CHICKAMAUGA LOCK AND DAM, TENNESSEE.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall use $200,000, from 
     funds transferred from the Tennessee Valley Authority, to 
     prepare a report of the Chief of Engineers for a replacement 
     lock at Chickamauga Lock and Dam, Tennessee.
       (b) Funding.--As soon as practicable after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Tennessee Valley Authority shall 
     transfer the funds described in subsection (a) to the 
     Secretary.

     SEC. 429. GERMANTOWN, TENNESSEE.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to 
     determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood 
     control and related purposes along Miller Farms Ditch, Howard 
     Road Drainage, and Wolf River Lateral D, Germantown, 
     Tennessee.
       (b) Justification Analysis.--The Secretary shall include 
     environmental and water quality benefits in the justification 
     analysis for the project.
       (c) Cost Sharing.--
       (1) Federal share.--The Federal share of the costs of the 
     feasibility study under subsection (a) shall not exceed 25 
     percent.
       (2) Non-federal share.--The Secretary--
       (A) shall credit toward the non-Federal share of the costs 
     of the feasibility study the value of the in-kind services 
     provided by the non-Federal interests relating to the 
     planning, engineering, and design of the project, whether 
     carried out before or after execution of the feasibility 
     study cost-sharing agreement; and
       (B) for the purposes of subparagraph (A), shall consider 
     the feasibility study to be conducted as part of the Memphis 
     Metro Tennessee and Mississippi study authorized by 
     resolution of the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure, dated March 7, 1996.

     SEC. 430. HORN LAKE CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, TENNESSEE AND 
                   MISSISSIPPI.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to 
     determine the feasibility of modifying the project for flood 
     control, Horn Lake Creek and Tributaries, Tennessee and 
     Mississippi, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4124), to 
     provide a high level of urban flood protection to development 
     along Horn Lake Creek.
       (b) Required Element.--The study shall include a limited 
     reevaluation of the project to determine the appropriate 
     design, as desired by the non-Federal interests.

     SEC. 431. CEDAR BAYOU, TEXAS.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of constructing a 12-foot-deep and 125-foot-wide 
     channel from the Houston Ship Channel to Cedar Bayou, mile 
     marker 11, Texas.

     SEC. 432. HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL, TEXAS.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of constructing barge lanes adjacent to both 
     sides of the Houston Ship Channel from Bolivar Roads to 
     Morgan Point, Texas, to a depth of 12 feet.

     SEC. 433. SAN ANTONIO CHANNEL, TEXAS.

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     feasibility of modifying the project for San Antonio Channel 
     improvement, Texas, authorized by section 203 of the Flood 
     Control Act of 1954 (68 Stat. 1259), and modified by section 
     103 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 
     2921), to add environmental restoration and recreation as 
     project purposes.

     SEC. 434. WHITE RIVER WATERSHED BELOW MUD MOUNTAIN DAM, 
                   WASHINGTON.

       (a) Review.--The Secretary shall review the report of the 
     Chief of Engineers on the Upper Puyallup River, Washington, 
     dated 1936, authorized by section 5 of the Act of June 22, 
     1936 (49 Stat. 1591, chapter 688), the Puget Sound and 
     adjacent waters report authorized by section 209 of the Flood 
     Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1197), and other pertinent 
     reports, to determine whether modifications to the 
     recommendations contained in the reports are advisable to 
     provide improvements to the water resources and watershed of 
     the White River watershed downstream of Mud Mountain Dam, 
     Washington.
       (b) Issues.--In conducting the review under subsection (a), 
     the Secretary shall review, with respect to the Lake Tapps 
     community and other parts of the watershed--
       (1) constructed and natural environs;
       (2) capital improvements;
       (3) water resource infrastructure;
       (4) ecosystem restoration;
       (5) flood control;
       (6) fish passage;
       (7) collaboration by, and the interests of, regional 
     stakeholders;
       (8) recreational and socioeconomic interests; and
       (9) other issues determined by the Secretary.

     SEC. 435. WILLAPA BAY, WASHINGTON.

       (a) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to 
     determine the feasibility of providing coastal erosion 
     protection for the Tribal Reservation of the Shoalwater Bay 
     Indian Tribe on Willapa Bay, Washington.
       (b) Project.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law 
     (including any requirement for economic justification), the 
     Secretary may construct and maintain a project to provide 
     coastal erosion protection for the Tribal Reservation of the 
     Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe on Willapa Bay, Washington, at 
     full Federal expense, if the Secretary determines that the 
     project--
       (A) is a cost-effective means of providing erosion 
     protection;
       (B) is environmentally acceptable and technically feasible; 
     and
       (C) will improve the economic and social conditions of the 
     Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe.
       (2) Land, easements, and rights-of-way.--As a condition of 
     the project described in paragraph (1), the Shoalwater Bay 
     Indian Tribe shall provide land, easements, rights-of-way, 
     and dredged material disposal areas necessary for the 
     implementation of the project.

     SEC. 436. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN SEDIMENT AND NUTRIENT 
                   STUDY.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary, in conjunction with the 
     Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior, 
     shall conduct a study to--
       (1) identify and evaluate significant sources of sediment 
     and nutrients in the upper Mississippi River basin;
       (2) quantify the processes affecting mobilization, 
     transport, and fate of those sediments and nutrients on land 
     and in water; and
       (3) quantify the transport of those sediments and nutrients 
     to the upper Mississippi River and the tributaries of the 
     upper Mississippi River.

[[Page 18874]]

       (b) Study Components.--
       (1) Computer modeling.--In carrying out the study under 
     this section, the Secretary shall develop computer models of 
     the upper Mississippi River basin, at the subwatershed and 
     basin scales, to--
       (A) identify and quantify sources of sediment and 
     nutrients; and
       (B) examine the effectiveness of alternative management 
     measures.
       (2) Research.--In carrying out the study under this 
     section, the Secretary shall conduct research to improve the 
     understanding of--
       (A) fate processes and processes affecting sediment and 
     nutrient transport, with emphasis on nitrogen and phosphorus 
     cycling and dynamics;
       (B) the influences on sediment and nutrient losses of soil 
     type, slope, climate, vegetation cover, and modifications to 
     the stream drainage network; and
       (C) river hydrodynamics, in relation to sediment and 
     nutrient transformations, retention, and transport.
       (c) Use of Information.--On request of a relevant Federal 
     agency, the Secretary may provide information for use in 
     applying sediment and nutrient reduction programs associated 
     with land-use improvements and land management practices.
       (d) Reports.--
       (1) Preliminary report.--Not later than 2 years after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to 
     Congress a preliminary report that outlines work being 
     conducted on the study components described in subsection 
     (b).
       (2) Final report.--Not later than 5 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress 
     a report describing the results of the study under this 
     section, including any findings and recommendations of the 
     study.
       (e) Funding.--
       (1) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2001 through 2005.
       (2) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of 
     carrying out this section shall be 50 percent.

                   TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 501. VISITORS CENTERS.

       (a) John Paul Hammerschmidt Visitors Center, Arkansas.--
     Section 103(e) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 
     (106 Stat. 4813) is amended by striking ``Arkansas River, 
     Arkansas.'' and inserting ``at Fort Smith, Arkansas, on land 
     provided by the city of Fort Smith.''.
       (b) Lower Mississippi River Museum and Riverfront 
     Interpretive Site, Mississippi.--Section 103(c)(2) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4811) is 
     amended in the first sentence by striking ``in the vicinity 
     of the Mississippi River Bridge in Vicksburg, Mississippi.'' 
     and inserting ``between the Mississippi River Bridge and the 
     waterfront in downtown Vicksburg, Mississippi.''.

     SEC. 502. CALFED BAY-DELTA PROGRAM ASSISTANCE, CALIFORNIA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary--
       (1) may participate with the appropriate Federal and State 
     agencies in the planning and management activities associated 
     with the CALFED Bay-Delta Program referred to in the 
     California Bay-Delta Environmental Enhancement and Water 
     Security Act (division E of Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 
     3009-748); and
       (2) shall, to the maximum extent practicable and in 
     accordance with applicable law, integrate the activities of 
     the Corps of Engineers in the San Joaquin and Sacramento 
     River basins with the long-term goals of the CALFED Bay-Delta 
     Program.
       (b) Cooperative Activities.--In participating in the CALFED 
     Bay-Delta Program under subsection (a), the Secretary may--
       (1) accept and expend funds from other Federal agencies and 
     from non-Federal public, private, and nonprofit entities to 
     carry out ecosystem restoration projects and activities 
     associated with the CALFED Bay-Delta Program; and
       (2) in carrying out the projects and activities, enter into 
     contracts, cooperative research and development agreements, 
     and cooperative agreements with Federal and non-Federal 
     private, public, and nonprofit entities.
       (c) Area Covered by Program.--For the purposes of this 
     section, the area covered by the CALFED Bay-Delta Program 
     shall be the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta 
     Estuary and its watershed (known as the ``Bay-Delta 
     Estuary''), as identified in the Framework Agreement Between 
     the Governor's Water Policy Council of the State of 
     California and the Federal Ecosystem Directorate.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2002 through 2005.

     SEC. 503. CONVEYANCE OF LIGHTHOUSE, ONTONAGON, MICHIGAN.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may convey to the Ontonagon 
     County Historical Society, at full Federal expense--
       (1) the lighthouse at Ontonagon, Michigan; and
       (2) the land underlying and adjacent to the lighthouse 
     (including any improvements on the land) that is under the 
     jurisdiction of the Secretary.
       (b) Map.--The Secretary shall--
       (1) determine--
       (A) the extent of the land conveyance under this section; 
     and
       (B) the exact acreage and legal description of the land to 
     be conveyed under this section; and
       (2) prepare a map that clearly identifies any land to be 
     conveyed.
       (c) Conditions.--The Secretary may--
       (1) obtain all necessary easements and rights-of-way; and
       (2) impose such terms, conditions, reservations, and 
     restrictions on the conveyance;
     as the Secretary determines to be necessary to protect the 
     public interest.
       (d) Environmental Response.--To the extent required under 
     any applicable law, the Secretary shall be responsible for 
     any necessary environmental response required as a result of 
     the prior Federal use or ownership of the land and 
     improvements conveyed under this section.
       (e) Responsibilities After Conveyance.--After the 
     conveyance of land under this section, the Ontonagon County 
     Historical Society shall be responsible for any additional 
     operation, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, or 
     replacement costs associated with--
       (1) the lighthouse; or
       (2) the conveyed land and improvements.
       (f) Applicability of Environmental Law.--Nothing in this 
     section affects the potential liability of any person under 
     any applicable environmental law.

     SEC. 504. LAND CONVEYANCE, CANDY LAKE, OKLAHOMA.

       Section 563(c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1999 (113 Stat. 357) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``a deceased'' and 
     inserting ``an''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Costs of nepa compliance.--The Federal Government 
     shall assume the costs of any Federal action under this 
     subsection that is carried out for the purpose of section 102 
     of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 
     4332).
       ``(5) Authorization of appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to 
     carry out this subsection.''.

          TITLE VI--COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN

     SEC. 601. COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Central and southern florida project.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``Central and Southern Florida 
     Project'' means the project for Central and Southern Florida 
     authorized under the heading ``central and southern florida'' 
     in section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1948 (62 Stat. 
     1176).
       (B) Inclusion.--The term ``Central and Southern Florida 
     Project'' includes any modification to the project authorized 
     by this Act or any other provision of law.
       (2) Governor.--The term ``Governor'' means the Governor of 
     the State.
       (3) Natural system.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``natural system'' means all land 
     and water managed by the Federal Government or the State 
     within the South Florida ecosystem.
       (B) Inclusions.--The term ``natural system'' includes--
       (i) water conservation areas;
       (ii) sovereign submerged land;
       (iii) Everglades National Park;
       (iv) Biscayne National Park;
       (v) Big Cypress National Preserve;
       (vi) other Federal or State (including a political 
     subdivision of a State) land that is designated and managed 
     for conservation purposes; and
       (vii) any tribal land that is designated and managed for 
     conservation purposes, as approved by the tribe.
       (4) Plan.--The term ``Plan'' means the Comprehensive 
     Everglades Restoration Plan contained in the ``Final 
     Integrated Feasibility Report and Programmatic Environmental 
     Impact Statement'', dated April 1, 1999, as modified by this 
     Act.
       (5) South florida ecosystem.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``South Florida ecosystem'' means 
     the area consisting of the land and water within the boundary 
     of the South Florida Water Management District in effect on 
     July 1, 1999.
       (B) Inclusions.--The term ``South Florida ecosystem'' 
     includes--
       (i) the Everglades;
       (ii) the Florida Keys; and
       (iii) the contiguous near-shore coastal water of South 
     Florida.
       (6) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of Florida.
       (b) Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan.--
       (1) Approval.--
       (A) In general.--Except as modified by this Act, the Plan 
     is approved as a framework for modifications and operational 
     changes to the Central and Southern Florida Project that are 
     needed to--
       (i) restore, preserve and protect the South Florida 
     ecosystem;
       (ii) provide for the protection of water quality in, and 
     the reduction of the loss of fresh water from, the 
     Everglades; and
       (iii) provide for the water-related needs of the region, 
     including--

       (I) flood control;
       (II) the enhancement of water supplies; and
       (III) other objectives served by the Central and Southern 
     Florida Project.

       (B) Integration.--In carrying out the Plan, the Secretary 
     shall integrate the activities described in subparagraph (A) 
     with ongoing Federal and State projects and activities in 
     accordance with section 528(c) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3769).

[[Page 18875]]

       (2) Specific authorizations.--
       (A) In general.--
       (i) Projects.--The Secretary shall carry out the projects 
     included in the Plan in accordance with subparagraphs (B), 
     (C), (D) and (E).
       (ii) Considerations.--In carrying out activities described 
     in the Plan, the Secretary shall--

       (I) take into account the protection of water quality by 
     considering applicable State water quality standards; and
       (II) include such features as the Secretary determines are 
     necessary to ensure that all ground water and surface water 
     discharges from any project feature authorized by this 
     subsection will meet all applicable water quality standards 
     and applicable water quality permitting requirements.

       (iii) Review and comment.--In developing the projects 
     authorized under subparagraph (B), the Secretary shall 
     provide for public review and comment in accordance with 
     applicable Federal law.
       (B) Pilot projects.--The following pilot projects are 
     authorized for implementation, after review and approval by 
     the Secretary, subject to the conditions in subparagraph (D), 
     at a total cost of $69,000,000, with an estimated Federal 
     cost of $34,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
     $34,500,000:
       (i) Caloosahatchee River (C-43) Basin ASR, at a total cost 
     of $6,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $3,000,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $3,000,000.
       (ii) Lake Belt In-Ground Reservoir Technology, at a total 
     cost of $23,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $11,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $11,500,000.
       (iii) L-31N Seepage Management, at a total cost of 
     $10,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $5,000,000 and 
     an estimated non-Federal cost of $5,000,000.
       (iv) Wastewater Reuse Technology, at a total cost of 
     $30,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $15,000,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $15,000,000.
       (C) Initial projects.--The following projects are 
     authorized for implementation, after review and approval by 
     the Secretary, subject to the conditions stated in 
     subparagraph (D), at a total cost of $1,100,918,000, with an 
     estimated Federal cost of $550,459,000 and an estimated non-
     Federal cost of $550,459,000:
       (i) C-44 Basin Storage Reservoir, at a total cost of 
     $112,562,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $56,281,000 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $56,281,000.
       (ii) Everglades Agricultural Area Storage Reservoirs--Phase 
     I, at a total cost of $233,408,000, with an estimated Federal 
     cost of $116,704,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of 
     $116,704,000.
       (iii) Site 1 Impoundment, at a total cost of $38,535,000, 
     with an estimated Federal cost of $19,267,500 and an 
     estimated non-Federal cost of $19,267,500.
       (iv) Water Conservation Areas 3A/3B Levee Seepage 
     Management, at a total cost of $100,335,000, with an 
     estimated Federal cost of $50,167,500 and an estimated non-
     Federal cost of $50,167,500.
       (v) C-11 Impoundment and Stormwater Treatment Area, at a 
     total cost of $124,837,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $62,418,500 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $62,418,500.
       (vi) C-9 Impoundment and Stormwater Treatment Area, at a 
     total cost of $89,146,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $44,573,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $44,573,000.
       (vii) Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough Storage and Treatment 
     Area, at a total cost of $104,027,000, with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $52,013,500 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
     of $52,013,500.
       (viii) Raise and Bridge East Portion of Tamiami Trail and 
     Fill Miami Canal within Water Conservation Area 3, at a total 
     cost of $26,946,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $13,473,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $13,473,000.
       (ix) North New River Improvements, at a total cost of 
     $77,087,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $38,543,500 
     and an estimated non-Federal cost of $38,543,500.
       (x) C-111 Spreader Canal, at a total cost of $94,035,000, 
     with an estimated Federal cost of $47,017,500 and an 
     estimated non-Federal cost of $47,017,500.
       (xi) Adaptive Assessment and Monitoring Program, at a total 
     cost of $100,000,000, with an estimated Federal cost of 
     $50,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $50,000,000.
       (D) Conditions.--
       (i) Project implementation reports.--Before implementation 
     of a project described in any of clauses (i) through (x) of 
     subparagraph (C), the Secretary shall review and approve for 
     the project a project implementation report prepared in 
     accordance with subsections (f) and (h).
       (ii) Submission of report.--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 the project implementation report 
     required by subsections (f) and (h) for each project under 
     this paragraph (including all relevant data and information 
     on all costs).
       (iii) Funding contingent on approval.--No appropriation 
     shall be made to construct any project under this paragraph 
     if the project implementation report for the project has not 
     been approved by resolutions adopted by the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public 
     Works of the Senate.
       (iv) Modified water delivery.--No appropriation shall be 
     made to construct the Water Conservation Area 3 
     Decompartmentalization and Sheetflow Enhancement Project or 
     the Central Lakebelt Storage Project until the completion of 
     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).
       (E) Maximum cost of projects.--Section 902 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2280) shall 
     apply to each project feature authorized under this 
     subsection.
       (c) Additional Program Authority.--
       (1) In general.--To expedite implementation of the Plan, 
     the Secretary may implement modifications to the Central and 
     Southern Florida Project that--
       (A) are described in the Plan; and
       (B) will produce a substantial benefit to the restoration, 
     preservation and protection of the South Florida ecosystem.
       (2) Project implementation reports.--Before implementation 
     of any project feature authorized under this subsection, the 
     Secretary shall review and approve for the project feature a 
     project implementation report prepared in accordance with 
     subsections (f) and (h).
       (3) Funding.--
       (A) Individual project funding.--
       (i) Federal cost.--The total Federal cost of each project 
     carried out under this subsection shall not exceed 
     $12,500,000.
       (ii) Overall cost.--The total cost of each project carried 
     out under this subsection shall not exceed $25,000,000.
       (B) Aggregate federal cost.--The total Federal cost of all 
     projects carried out under this subsection shall not exceed 
     $206,000,000
       (d) Authorization of Future Projects.--
       (1) In general.--Except for a project authorized by 
     subsection (b) or (c), any project included in the Plan shall 
     require a specific authorization by Congress.
       (2) Submission of report.--Before seeking congressional 
     authorization for a project under paragraph (1), the 
     Secretary shall submit to Congress--
       (A) a description of the project; and
       (B) a project implementation report for the project 
     prepared in accordance with subsections (f) and (h).
       (e) Cost Sharing.--
       (1) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of 
     carrying out a project authorized by subsection (b), (c), or 
     (d) shall be 50 percent.
       (2) Non-federal responsibilities.--The non-Federal sponsor 
     with respect to a project described in subsection (b), (c), 
     or (d), shall be--
       (A) responsible for all land, easements, rights-of-way, and 
     relocations necessary to implement the Plan; and
       (B) afforded credit toward the non-Federal share of the 
     cost of carrying out the project in accordance with paragraph 
     (5)(A).
       (3) Federal assistance.--
       (A) In general.--The non-Federal sponsor with respect to a 
     project authorized by subsection (b), (c), or (d) may use 
     Federal funds for the purchase of any land, easement, rights-
     of-way, or relocation that is necessary to carry out the 
     project if any funds so used are credited toward the Federal 
     share of the cost of the project.
       (B) Agriculture funds.--Funds provided to the non-Federal 
     sponsor under any programs such as the Conservation 
     Restoration and Enhancement Program (CREP) and the Wetlands 
     Reserve Program (WRP) for projects in the Plan shall be 
     credited toward the non-Federal share of the cost of the Plan 
     if the Secretary of Agriculture certifies that the funds 
     provided may be used for that purpose.
       (4) Operation and maintenance.--Notwithstanding section 
     528(e)(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 
     Stat. 3770), the non-Federal sponsor shall be responsible for 
     50 percent of the cost of operation, maintenance, repair, 
     replacement, and rehabilitation activities authorized under 
     this section.
       (5) Credit.--
       (A) In general.--Notwithstanding section 528(e)(4) of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3770), and 
     regardless of the date of acquisition, the value of lands or 
     interests in lands and incidental costs for land acquired by 
     a non-Federal sponsor in accordance with a project 
     implementation report for any project included in the Plan 
     and authorized by Congress shall be--
       (i) included in the total cost of the project; and
       (ii) credited toward the non-Federal share of the cost of 
     the project.
       (B) Work.--The Secretary may provide credit, including in-
     kind credit, toward the non-Federal share for the reasonable 
     cost of any work performed in connection with a study, 
     preconstruction engineering and design, or construction that 
     is necessary for the implementation of the Plan, if--
       (i)(I) the credit is provided for work completed during the 
     period of design, as defined in a design agreement between 
     the Secretary and the non-Federal sponsor; or
       (II) the credit is provided for work completed during the 
     period of construction, as defined in a project cooperation 
     agreement for an authorized project between the Secretary and 
     the non-Federal sponsor;
       (ii) the design agreement or the project cooperation 
     agreement prescribes the terms and conditions of the credit; 
     and
       (iii) the Secretary determines that the work performed by 
     the non-Federal sponsor is integral to the project.

[[Page 18876]]

       (C) Treatment of credit between projects.--Any credit 
     provided under this paragraph may be carried over between 
     authorized projects in accordance with subparagraph (D).
       (D) Periodic monitoring.--
       (i) In general.--To ensure that the contributions of the 
     non-Federal sponsor equal 50 percent proportionate share for 
     projects in the Plan, during each 5-year period, beginning 
     with commencement of design of the Plan, the Secretary shall, 
     for each project--

       (I) monitor the non-Federal provision of cash, in-kind 
     services, and land; and
       (II) manage, to the maximum extent practicable, the 
     requirement of the non-Federal sponsor to provide cash, in-
     kind services, and land.

       (ii) Other monitoring.--The Secretary shall conduct 
     monitoring under clause (i) separately for--

       (I) the preconstruction engineering and design phase; and
       (II) the construction phase.

       (E) Audits.--Credit for land (including land value and 
     incidental costs) or work provided under this subsection 
     shall be subject to audit by the Secretary.
       (f) Evaluation of Projects.--
       (1) In general.--Before implementation of a project 
     authorized by subsection (c) or (d) or any of clauses (i) 
     through (x) of subsection (b)(2)(C), the Secretary, in 
     cooperation with the non-Federal sponsor, shall, after notice 
     and opportunity for public comment and in accordance with 
     subsection (h), complete a project implementation report for 
     the project.
       (2) 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 activity authorized under this 
     section or any other provision of law to restore, preserve, 
     or protect the South Florida ecosystem, the Secretary may 
     determine that--
       (i) the activity is justified by the environmental benefits 
     derived by the South Florida ecosystem; and
       (ii) no further economic justification for the activity is 
     required, if the Secretary determines that the activity is 
     cost-effective.
       (B) Applicability.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any 
     separable element intended to produce benefits that are 
     predominantly unrelated to the restoration, preservation, and 
     protection of the natural system.
       (g) Exclusions and Limitations.--The following Plan 
     components are not approved for implementation:
       (1) Water included in the plan.--
       (A) In general.--Any project that is designed to implement 
     the capture and use of the approximately 245,000 acre-feet of 
     water described in section 7.7.2 of the Plan shall not be 
     implemented until such time as--
       (i) the project-specific feasibility study described in 
     subparagraph (B) on the need for and physical delivery of the 
     approximately 245,000 acre-feet of water, conducted by the 
     Secretary, in cooperation with the non-Federal sponsor, is 
     completed;
       (ii) the project is favorably recommended in a final report 
     of the Chief of Engineers; and
       (iii) the project is authorized by Act of Congress.
       (B) Project-specific feasibility study.--The project-
     specific feasibility study referred to in subparagraph (A) 
     shall include--
       (i) a comprehensive analysis of the structural facilities 
     proposed to deliver the approximately 245,000 acre-feet of 
     water to the natural system;
       (ii) an assessment of the requirements to divert and treat 
     the water;
       (iii) an assessment of delivery alternatives;
       (iv) an assessment of the feasibility of delivering the 
     water downstream while maintaining current levels of flood 
     protection to affected property; and
       (v) any other assessments that are determined by the 
     Secretary to be necessary to complete the study.
       (2) Wastewater reuse.--
       (A) In general.--On completion and evaluation of the 
     wastewater reuse pilot project described in subsection 
     (b)(2)(B)(iv), the Secretary, in an appropriately timed 5-
     year report, shall describe the results of the evaluation of 
     advanced wastewater reuse in meeting, in a cost-effective 
     manner, the requirements of restoration of the natural 
     system.
       (B) Submission.--The Secretary shall submit to Congress the 
     report described in subparagraph (A) before congressional 
     authorization for advanced wastewater reuse is sought.
       (3) Projects approved with limitations.--The following 
     projects in the Plan are approved for implementation with 
     limitations:
       (A) Loxahatchee national wildlife refuge.--The Federal 
     share for land acquisition in the project to enhance existing 
     wetland systems along the Loxahatchee National Wildlife 
     Refuge, including the Stazzulla tract, should be funded 
     through the budget of the Department of the Interior.
       (B) Southern corkscrew regional ecosystem.--The Southern 
     Corkscrew regional ecosystem watershed addition should be 
     accomplished outside the scope of the Plan.
       (h) Assurance of Project Benefits.--
       (1) In general.--The overarching objective of the Plan is 
     the restoration, preservation, and protection of the South 
     Florida Ecosystem while providing for other water-related 
     needs of the region, including water supply and flood 
     protection. The Plan shall be implemented to ensure the 
     protection of water quality in, the reduction of the loss of 
     fresh water from, the improvement of the environment of the 
     South Florida Ecosystem and to achieve and maintain the 
     benefits to the natural system and human environment 
     described in the Plan, and required pursuant to this Act, for 
     as long as the project is authorized.
       (2) Agreement.--
       (A) In general.--No appropriation shall be made for the 
     construction of a project contained in the Plan until the 
     President and the Governor enter into a binding agreement 
     under which the State, shall ensure, by regulation or other 
     appropriate means, that water made available under the Plan 
     for the restoration of the natural system is available as 
     specified in the Plan.
       (B) Enforcement.--
       (i) In general.--Any person or entity that is aggrieved by 
     a failure of the President or the Governor to comply with any 
     provision of the agreement entered into under subparagraph 
     (A) may bring a civil action in United States district court 
     for an injunction directing the President or the Governor, as 
     the case may be, to comply with the agreement, or for other 
     appropriate relief.
       (ii) Limitations on commencement of civil action.--No civil 
     action may be commenced under clause (i)--

       (I) before the date that is 60 days after the Secretary 
     receives written notice of a failure to comply with the 
     agreement; or
       (II) if the United States has commenced and is diligently 
     prosecuting an action in a court of the United States or a 
     State to redress a failure to comply with the agreement.

       (3) Programmatic regulations.--
       (A) Issuance.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall, after notice and 
     opportunity for public comment--
       (i) with the concurrence of--

       (I) the Governor; and
       (II) the Secretary of the Interior; and

       (ii) in consultation with--

       (I) the Seminole Tribe of Florida;
       (II) the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida;
       (III) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency;
       (IV) the Secretary of Commerce; and
       (V) other Federal, State, and local agencies;

     promulgate programmatic regulations to ensure that the goals 
     and purposes of the Plan are achieved.
       (B) Content of regulations.--Programmatic regulations 
     promulgated under this paragraph shall establish a process 
     to--
       (i) provide guidance for the development of project 
     implementation reports, project cooperation agreements, and 
     operating manuals that ensure that the goals and objectives 
     of the Plan are achieved;
       (ii) ensure that new information resulting from changed or 
     unforeseen circumstances, new scientific or technical 
     information or information that is developed through the 
     principles of adaptive management contained in the Plan, or 
     future authorized changes to the Plan are integrated into the 
     implementation of the Plan; and
       (iii) ensure the protection of the natural system 
     consistent with the goals and purposes of the Plan.
       (C) Schedule and transition rule.--
       (i) In general.--All project implementation reports 
     approved before the date of promulgation of the programmatic 
     regulations shall be consistent with the Plan.
       (ii) Preamble.--The preamble of the programmatic 
     regulations shall include a statement concerning the 
     consistency with the programmatic regulations of any project 
     implementation reports that were approved before the date of 
     promulgation of the regulations.
       (D) Review of programmatic regulations.--Whenever necessary 
     to attain Plan goals and purposes, but not less often than 
     every 5 years, the Secretary, in accordance with subparagraph 
     (A), shall review the programmatic regulations promulgated 
     under this paragraph.
       (4) Project-specific assurances.--
       (A) Project implementation reports.--
       (i) In general.--The Secretary and the non-Federal sponsor 
     shall develop project implementation reports in accordance 
     with section 10.3.1 of the Plan.
       (ii) Coordination.--In developing a project implementation 
     report, the Secretary and the non-Federal sponsor shall 
     coordinate with appropriate Federal, State, tribal, and local 
     governments.
       (iii) Requirements.--A project implementation report 
     shall--

       (I) be consistent with the Plan and the programmatic 
     regulations promulgated under paragraph (3);
       (II) describe how each of the requirements stated in 
     paragraph (3)(B) is satisfied;
       (III) comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 
     1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.);
       (IV) identify the appropriate quantity, timing, and 
     distribution of water dedicated and managed for the natural 
     system;
       (V) identify the amount of water to be reserved or 
     allocated for the natural system necessary to implement, 
     under State law, subclauses (IV) and (VI);
       (VI) comply with applicable water quality standards and 
     applicable water quality permitting requirements under 
     subsection (b)(2)(A)(ii);
       (VII) be based on the best available science; and
       (VIII) include an analysis concerning the cost-
     effectiveness and engineering feasibility of the project.

[[Page 18877]]

       (B) Project cooperation agreements.--
       (i) In general.--The Secretary and the non-Federal sponsor 
     shall execute project cooperation agreements in accordance 
     with section 10 of the Plan.
       (ii) Condition.--The Secretary shall not execute a project 
     cooperation agreement until any reservation or allocation of 
     water for the natural system identified in the project 
     implementation report is executed under State law.
       (C) Operating manuals.--
       (i) In general.--The Secretary and the non-Federal sponsor 
     shall develop and issue, for each project or group of 
     projects, an operating manual that is consistent with the 
     water reservation or allocation for the natural system 
     described in the project implementation report and the 
     project cooperation agreement for the project or group of 
     projects.
       (ii) Modifications.--Any significant modification by the 
     Secretary and the non-Federal sponsor to an operating manual 
     after the operating manual is issued shall only be carried 
     out subject to notice and opportunity for public comment.
       (5) Savings clause.--
       (A) Existing water users.--The Secretary shall ensure that 
     the implementation of the Plan, including physical or 
     operational modifications to the Central and Southern Florida 
     Project, does not cause significant adverse impact on 
     existing legal water users, including--
       (i) water legally allocated or provided through 
     entitlements to the Seminole Tribe of Florida under section 7 
     of the Seminole Indian Land Claims Settlement Act of 1987 (25 
     U.S.C. 1772e);
       (ii) the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida;
       (iii) annual water deliveries to Everglades National Park;
       (iv) water for the preservation of fish and wildlife in the 
     natural system; and
       (v) any other legal user, as provided under Federal or 
     State law in existence on the date of enactment of this Act.
       (B) No elimination.--Until a new source of water supply of 
     comparable quantity and quality is available to replace the 
     water to be lost as a result of implementation of the Plan, 
     the Secretary shall not eliminate existing legal sources of 
     water, including those for--
       (i) an agricultural or urban water supply;
       (ii) allocation or entitlement to the Seminole Indian Tribe 
     of Florida under section 7 of the Seminole Indian Land Claims 
     Settlement Act of 1987 (25 U.S.C. 1772e);
       (iii) the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida;
       (iv) Everglades National Park; or
       (v) the preservation of fish and wildlife.
       (C) Maintenance of flood protection.--The Secretary shall 
     maintain authorized levels of flood protection in existence 
     on the date of enactment of this Act, in accordance with 
     applicable law.
       (D) No effect on state law.--Nothing in this Act prevents 
     the State from allocating or reserving water, as provided 
     under State law, to the extent consistent with this Act.
       (E) No effect on tribal compact.--Nothing in this Act 
     amends, alters, prevents, or otherwise abrogates rights of 
     the Seminole Indian Tribe of Florida under the compact among 
     the Seminole Tribe of Florida, the State, and the South 
     Florida Water Management District, defining the scope and use 
     of water rights of the Seminole Tribe of Florida, as codified 
     by section 7 of the Seminole Indian Land Claims Settlement 
     Act of 1987 (25 U.S.C. 1772e).
       (i) Dispute Resolution.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary and the Governor shall 
     within 180 days from the date of enactment of this Act 
     develop an agreement for resolving disputes between the Corps 
     of Engineers and the State associated with the implementation 
     of the Plan. Such agreement shall establish a mechanism for 
     the timely and efficient resolution of disputes, including--
       (A) a preference for the resolution of disputes between the 
     Jacksonville District of the Corps of Engineers and the South 
     Florida Water Management District;
       (B) a mechanism for the Jacksonville District of the Corps 
     of Engineers or the South Florida Water Management District 
     to initiate the dispute resolution process for unresolved 
     issues;
       (C) the establishment of appropriate timeframes and 
     intermediate steps for the elevation of disputes to the 
     Governor and the Secretary; and
       (D) a mechanism for the final resolution of disputes, 
     within 180 days from the date that the dispute resolution 
     process is initiated under subparagraph (B).
       (2) Condition for report approval.--The Secretary shall not 
     approve a project implementation report under this Act until 
     the agreement established under this subsection has been 
     executed.
       (3) No effect on law.--Nothing in the agreement established 
     under this subsection shall alter or amend any existing 
     Federal or State law.
       (j) Independent Scientific Review.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary, the Secretary of the 
     Interior, and the State, in consultation with the South 
     Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, shall establish an 
     independent scientific review panel convened by a body, such 
     as the National Academy of Sciences, to review the Plan's 
     progress toward achieving the natural system restoration 
     goals of the Plan.
       (2) Report.--The panel described in paragraph (1) shall 
     produce a biennial report to Congress, the Secretary, the 
     Secretary of the Interior, and the State of Florida that 
     includes an assessment of ecological indicators and other 
     measures of progress in restoring the ecology of the natural 
     system, based on the Plan.
       (k) Outreach and Assistance.--
       (1) Small business concerns owned and operated by socially 
     and economically disadvantaged individuals.--In executing the 
     Plan, the Secretary shall ensure that small business concerns 
     owned and controlled by socially and economically 
     disadvantaged individuals are provided opportunities to 
     participate under section 15(g) of the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 644(g)).
       (2) Community outreach and education.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall ensure that impacts on 
     socially and economically disadvantaged individuals, 
     including individuals with limited English proficiency, and 
     communities are considered during implementation of the Plan, 
     and that such individuals have opportunities to review and 
     comment on its implementation.
       (B) Provision of opportunities.--The Secretary shall 
     ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that public 
     outreach and educational opportunities are provided to the 
     individuals of South Florida, including individuals with 
     limited English proficiency, and in particular for socially 
     and economically disadvantaged communities.
       (l) Report to Congress.--Beginning on October 1, 2005, and 
     periodically thereafter until October 1, 2036, the Secretary 
     and the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the 
     Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Commerce, 
     and the State of Florida, shall jointly submit to Congress a 
     report on the implementation of the Plan. Such reports shall 
     be completed not less often than every 5 years. Such reports 
     shall include a description of planning, design, and 
     construction work completed, the amount of funds expended 
     during the period covered by the report (including a detailed 
     analysis of the funds expended for adaptive assessment under 
     subsection (b)(2)(C)(xi)), and the work anticipated over the 
     next 5-year period. In addition, each report shall include--
       (1) the determination of each Secretary, and the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, 
     concerning the benefits to the natural system and the human 
     environment achieved as of the date of the report and whether 
     the completed projects of the Plan are being operated in a 
     manner that is consistent with the requirements of subsection 
     (h); and
       (2) a review of the activities performed by the Secretary 
     under subsection (k) as they relate to socially and 
     economically disadvantaged individuals and individuals with 
     limited English proficiency.

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I say to my colleagues 
that there are amendments under the unanimous-consent agreement by 
Senators Torricelli, Warner, Voinovich, and Feingold.
  I say to my colleagues who have those amendments, if they could 
proceed to the floor, the intention would be to try to get these 
amendments offered as soon as possible, knowing that Members do have 
airplanes to catch. We are hoping to yield back some of the debate time 
in order to get out a bit earlier. That will take the cooperation of 
all Members, especially those Members who are offering amendments or 
who have asked for time to debate other matters within this timeframe.
  With the cooperation of Members, we could wrap it up hopefully by 6 
o'clock or 7 o'clock. Without the cooperation of Members, it will go 
longer. It will be up to the leader as to how he will proceed with any 
votes.
  I am very pleased to bring before the Senate the Water Resources 
Development Act of 2000.


                           Amendment No. 4164

              (Purpose: To provide a complete substitute)

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I ask unanimous consent we move to the 
managers' amendment, accept it, and it be considered original text for 
the purpose of further amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Smith] for himself and 
     Mr. Baucus, proposes an amendment numbered 4164.

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I ask unanimous consent reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. The committee has worked very diligently 
to reach this point. It was quite a challenge: 99 Senators and me. We 
had a lot of projects. We had a lot of differences of opinion and a lot 
of things to work through. We worked very hard personally, wherever 
possible, wherever I

[[Page 18878]]

needed to, with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, to try to get 
accommodation for this bill. As it has been done since the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1986, the committee used a strict set of 
criteria to determine whether or not these projects would be included. 
Only those projects that met those criteria were included in this bill. 
As we know from many of the hearings we had over the last year or so, 
there is a backlog of Corps projects which, with the help of Senator 
Voinovich, Senator Baucus, and others, we are trying to clear. We stuck 
to our criteria.
  We received over 300 requests on harbor dredging, environmental 
restoration, flood control, a number of items in which the Army Corps 
would be involved. My colleagues and I drafted a bill that authorizes 
22 new projects, containing 65 project-related provisions or 
modifications, and authorizes 40 feasibility studies--very complex, 
time consuming, a lot of detail, a lot of work at the staff and Member 
level to get there.
  I appreciate the cooperation of Senator Baucus and his staff 
throughout this process, as well as Senator Voinovich on our side. Not 
even one-third of those 300 projects made the cut. I am proud of that. 
It is a reflection of the strength of the criteria that we worked so 
hard to keep in the bill and include in the bill, to stick to those 
criteria, trying not to make exceptions, because once you make 
exceptions, it opens the door to more and more projects which are not 
significant or important.
  Our bill does not contain cost share waivers, environmental 
infrastructure projects, or authorized projects that are not 
technically sound, environmentally acceptable, or economically 
justified. Those are the criteria. I am very proud of that. We stuck to 
those criteria. We took some heat from some Members, but we thought we 
were fair to everyone by sticking to the criteria.
  I commend Senators Voinovich and Baucus for their hard work, and 
their staffs, and, in addition to Senators Voinovich and Baucus, 
Senator Mack and Senator Graham. Senator Graham, of course, is a member 
of our committee. Senator Mack is not. But we treated Senator Mack as 
if he were a member of the committee. They had full input because of 
the Everglades issue which is such an important part of this bill. It 
was a pleasure to work with all of them in putting this bill together. 
It was very, very difficult.
  This was a freestanding bill, the water 2000 provision, to restore 
America's Everglades. I introduced it with my colleagues, Senators 
Baucus, Voinovich, Graham, and Mack, on June 27, 2000. The committee 
favorably reported out our Everglades bill by a bipartisan vote of 17-
1, with an amendment to include the Everglades. It was an 
overwhelmingly bipartisan vote. I think we worked through this process 
in a bipartisan manner both at the staff level and at the Member level.
  In January of this year in south Florida at the Everglades, I made a 
promise to the people of that State and to the Nation, with Senator 
Graham by my side, as well as Senator Voinovich, that Everglades 
restoration would be the top priority of this committee. Speaking for 
myself, it would be my top priority as the chairman. It certainly has 
been Senator Baucus' top priority as he has worked with me throughout 
this process.
  Since that markup, the committee, the State of Florida, the 
administration, industry groups, environmental groups, and two Indian 
tribes impacted by the Everglades restoration have all worked 
diligently on the managers' amendment that we all can support. I am 
pleased to report that S. 2796 with the managers' amendment is strongly 
supported by all vital interests. It is truly bipartisan. It is truly 
historic.
  A few moments ago, Senator Byrd spoke on the floor about some of the 
partisanship. It is out there. We all do it. There is a time and place 
for it. But we didn't have it in this bill. Whatever differences we had 
with individual Members, they had nothing to do with what somebody had 
next to their name.
  I will briefly comment on the Everglades issue and then turn it over 
to my ranking member, Senator Baucus.
  We might ask, Why is Everglades restoration necessary? The Everglades 
is the biggest part of this water resources development bill, and that 
has been controversial because other Members did not get as much as 
Florida. But Florida has a special issue. The Everglades are very 
special. It is a very environmentally sensitive region of the country. 
It clearly is a treasure. I want my colleagues to understand why we 
believe time is of the essence.
  This is a national treasure. It is a vast freshwater marsh which once 
was connected by the flow of water, a sheet of water, a river of water, 
flowing south from Lake Okeechobee all the way into the Gulf of Mexico, 
and once covered 18,000 square miles. It is the heart of a unique 
biologically productive ecosystem.
  But now the Everglades is in peril. It is half the size it used to 
be. What happened? In 1948, we had a Federal flood control project, and 
1.7 billion gallons of water a day as a result of that project are now 
flowing into the sea, totally lost. We asked the Army Corps to do this 
because we had flooding. We basically created a dam. On one side of 
that dam is the dammed-up water; on the other side essentially is a 
desert. That is not what the Everglades ecosystem was designed to be. 
So we needed to correct it. The Federal Government, the Congress, and 
the administration's direction at the time, in 1948, urged us to do it. 
They spent the money to do it. Now I think it is the Federal 
Government's responsibility, in conjunction with Florida, to correct 
it. That is exactly what this bill does. The original Central and 
Southern Florida Project was done with the best of intentions--the 
Federal Government simply had to act when devastating floods took 
thousand of lives prior to the project's construction. Unfortunately, 
the very success of the Central and Southern Florida Project disrupted 
the natural sheet flow of water through the so-called ``River of 
Grass,'' altering or destroying the habitat for many species of native 
plants, mammals, reptiles, fish, and wading birds.
  We are going to recapture that wasted water, store it, and redirect 
it, when needed, to the natural system in the South Florida ecosystem. 
On July 1, 1999, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers submitted to Congress 
a ``Restudy'' of the Central and Southern Florida Project. Called the 
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, this blueprint provides the 
details and layout of the 30-year restoration project.
  The bipartisan Everglades legislation approves the Comprehensive 
Everglades Restoration Plan as the overall framework to restore the 
ecological health of the Florida Everglades. The bill also includes 
authorization of the initial projects necessary to get restoration 
underway. Specifically, the bill includes authorization of 10 
construction projects. These projects, which employ already proven, 
standard technologies, were carefully selected by the Army Corps of 
Engineers and the South Florida Water Management District and included 
in the plan as the projects that would, once constructed, have 
immediate benefits to the natural system. Almost right away, the plan 
gets at restoring the natural sheet flow that years of human 
interference has interrupted.
  If anybody has been in south Florida, been to the Everglades, you 
know what the Tamiami Trail is. Basically, that is a dam that blocks 
the flow of that water. We will begin the process of punching holes in 
that dam and allowing that sheet of water to flow once again.
  The bill includes authorization of four pilot projects to test new 
and innovative technologies that may be employed in future restoration 
projects.
  There is a requirement that future components of the plan must have a 
favorable Project Implementation Reports [PIR] from the Secretary of 
the Army, similar to a Chief of Engineer's report. Future projects will 
be authorized through the biennial Water Resources Development Act.
  Adaptive management and assessment. One of my favorite aspects of the 
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan is its inherent flexibility. 
If we

[[Page 18879]]

learn something new about the ecosystem, perfect our modeling 
techniques, or just plain see that something is not working right, 
through the concept of adaptive management and assessment, we can 
modify the plan as new technologies and new methods become available. 
Much is made of this and much more will be made of this issue in the 
debate. This is a 36-year plan. This is a risk. It is not a sure thing. 
We take risks all the time in the money we spend, whether it is for a 
weapons system or cancer research. I am sure we would not say we 
haven't found a cure for cancer so therefore let's not risk any more 
money in research. We are saying if we do not do something to save the 
Everglades, we will lose the Everglades. So we have to try. We believe, 
on the best science we can find, that we have reasonable expectations 
here to invest approximately $4 billion over 36 years. That is a can of 
Coke a year for every American. That is not a lot of investment. I 
think we would be willing to do that so our grandchildren can see 
alligators and wading birds and enjoy the Everglades as I have with my 
children on many, many occasions.
  So we have adaptive management. It is a great concept. If it doesn't 
work, we stop and we try something else. We are not locked into 
something for the next 36 years. We are going to perfect our 
techniques. If something isn't working right, we are going to modify 
it.
  We have ``assurances'' that the environment will be the primary 
beneficiary of the water made available through CERP. The overarching 
object of the Plan is to restore, preserve, and protect the south 
Florida ecosystem, while meeting the water supply, flood protection, 
and agricultural needs of the region. These assurances also protect 
existing water users, such as the Seminole Tribe of Florida's water 
compact.
  This bill has unprecedented broad, bipartisan support. My colleague 
Senator Graham has compared our feat to achieving peace between the 
Hatfields and the McCoys. This truly is a remarkable accomplishment 
that deserves recognition by the Senate in the form of swift passage.
  Every major constituency involved in Everglades restoration has 
written us a letter of support and I will later ask unanimous consent 
that these letters be printed in the Record. Also, in addition to the 
bipartisanship, I think we should give a lot of credit to the State of 
Florida. The State of Florida certainly, along with the legislature, in 
a bipartisan unanimous vote set aside money for this project. Gov. Jeb 
Bush has been fantastic in his support, as has Senator Graham and 
Senator Mack, and the entire congressional delegation. Presidential 
candidates Gore and Bush have also been supportive and expressed their 
support.
  I think there is an understanding here, that this is a huge treasure 
that we must do something quickly to protect and preserve.
  In addition to Senators Voinovich, Baucus, Graham, and Mack; the 
administration; Florida Gov. Jeb Bush--I already mentioned them--the 
Seminole Tribe of Florida and the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians support 
this, as do Industry Groups: Florida Citrus Mutual; Florida Farm 
Bureau; Florida Home Builders; The American Water Works Association; 
Florida Chamber; Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association; Southeast 
Florida Utility Council; Gulf Citrus Growers Association; Florida Sugar 
Cane League; Florida Water Environmental Utility Council; Sugar Cane 
Growers Cooperative of Florida; Florida Fertilizer and Agri-chemical 
Association; and Environmental Groups: National Audubon Society; 
National Wildlife Federation; World Wildlife Fund; Center for Marine 
Conservation; Defenders of Wildlife; National Parks Conservation 
Association; the Everglades Foundation; the Everglades Trust; Audubon 
of Florida; 1000 Friends of Florida; Natural Resources Defense Council; 
Environmental Defense; and the Sierra Club.
  I also have a set of colloquies and I will later ask unanimous 
consent that these colloquies be printed in the Record.
  Garnering the support of these vast interests was not easy. Long 
hours of intense negotiations since the time the committee reported 
this bill has resulted in this broad coalition of supporters. They are 
not the only ones who recognize a good, effective bill when they see 
it. Newspaper editorial boards across the country have called for 
Congress to swiftly enact Everglades restoration legislation this year.
  On September 13, the New York Times ran an editorial, ``Congress's 
Obligation to Nature.'' This editorial calls on Congress to approve two 
vital conservation bills, one of those being the Everglades bill. The 
New York Times had run an initial editorial in support of our 
Everglades bill on July 13, 2000.
  On July 7, 2000, the Washington Post ran an editorial lauding 
restoration of the Everglades.
  Just last week, on September 6, the Baltimore Sun ran an editorial, 
as well which summed up what we face now: absent action, the unique 
ecosystem will be lost.
  Numerous Florida-based papers have also voiced strong support for the 
Everglades bill. On September 7, a Miami Herald editorial, ``Pass the 
`glades bill,'' so correctly states:

       more delay serves no interest--not federal, state, tribal, 
     regional, or local. Let this Congress authorize restoration . 
     . .''

  On July 23, a Tampa Tribune-Times editorial titled, ``Noble effort to 
rescue Everglades'' recognizes that:

       the long-term survival of the Everglades National Park, 
     which belongs to all Americans, depends upon restoring a 
     natural flow to the Glades . . . Congress should adopt this 
     noble plan to rescue one of the nation's genuine natural 
     wonders.

  On June 30, the Sun Sentinel ran an editorial, ``Restoring the 
Everglades: Bill on the right track'' which stated that:

       Everglades restoration will require a massive, sustained 
     commitment . . . but it is worth it.

  And if I could indulge in one more, on June 28th, the Palm Beach Post 
editorial, ``Give Florida a lifeline'' summed it up:

       Florida and the feds need to get started.

  It is clear that these major national and Florida newspapers agree: 
the bill is strong and the time is now. This Senate, this Congress and 
this administration must pass Everglades restoration before the 
conclusion of the 106th Congress.
  If you care about the environment, if you care about this national 
treasure, you must join me, Senators Voinovich, Baucus, Mack, and 
Graham, and help us move WRDA, with Everglades, forward. The Everglades 
cannot afford to wait. We have worked too hard to build this coalition 
of support and the Everglades has waited too long for Congress to 
notice and act upon its demise. Each day that we are delayed, we 
jeopardize the chances of realizing restoration. Each day that we are 
delayed, we come closer to losing this unique ecosystem. Each day that 
we are delayed, vital habitat is lost and we threaten the species that 
are already in peril. Each day that we are delayed, the Everglades come 
closer to sure extinction.
  I am afraid too often people forget that the Everglades is a national 
environmental treasure. We need to view our efforts as our legacy to 
future generations. Many years from now, I hope that this Congress will 
be remembered for answering the call and saving the Everglades while we 
still had the chance. Mr. President, I strongly encourage my colleagues 
to support passage of the WRDA, with the Everglades title intact. With 
that, I will only add that I hope we can finish this bill 
expeditiously.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the managers' amendment is 
agreed to and the committee substitute is agreed to. The bill as thus 
amended is the original text now for the purpose of further amendment.
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to join my good friend and chairman 
of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Smith, in 
supporting S. 2796, the Water Resources Development Act of 2000. I will 
say a few words about the bill and a couple of words about some 
projects in Montana, and finally wrap up with further comments about 
the Everglades restoration.

[[Page 18880]]

  This bill authorizes projects for a lot of different areas. It is 
really quite a sweeping bill: flood control, for one, navigation, shore 
protection, environmental restoration, water supply storage, and 
recreation.
  It also modifies some existing projects and directs the Corps to 
study other proposed projects. All projects in this bill have the 
support of a local sponsor, somebody at home willing to share the cost 
of the project.
  Even a brief review of the projects will demonstrate the importance 
of passing this bill. A number of the projects are needed to protect 
shorelines along oceans, lakes, and rivers.
  Several of the navigation projects will ensure that our ports remain 
competitive in an increasingly global marketplace. The studies 
authorized in the bill will help us make informed decisions about the 
future use and management of our water resources.
  Each project in this bill has been reviewed by the Army Corps of 
Engineers and has been found to be in the Federal interest, 
technologically feasible, economically justified, and environmentally 
sound. These projects have also been reviewed in accordance with 
applicable standards and also with our own committee criteria; in other 
words, they are worthy of support.
  Let me mention two that are very important to my State of Montana. 
First is the authorization for a fish hatchery at Fort Peck. This fish 
hatchery will make good on a long-awaited promise on the Fort Peck 
project; namely, to create more opportunities for people in communities 
like Sidney, Malta, Lewistown, Billings, and, of course, Glasgow, and 
all across Montana.
  Fort Peck Lake, one of the greatest resources that exists in our 
State, not only plays a major role in power production, water supply, 
but it is an increasingly important center for recreation. Not just for 
Montanans; people from all around the world--believe me, that is true, 
all around the world--come to Fort Peck Lake, MT, for our annual 
walleye tournaments. Hundreds of boats and probably 1,000 or more 
anglers participate in these events. It is amazing. I was there last 
summer. It is truly a sight to behold, all these boats taking off for a 
major national fishing tournament. The local community really puts its 
heart and soul into these tournaments.
  Local folks have also collaborated on raising a lot of money for the 
matching share of the feasibility study for the fish hatchery, from 
Sidney, Malta, Glasgow, all across northeastern Montana. There are not 
a lot of people in northeastern Montana, but there is a lot of spirit 
and spunk and a lot of wide open spaces.
  Fort Peck Lake is very important to these communities, in some sense 
it is almost the heart and soul of the northeastern part of our State. 
So, these communities have come together, they have raised the funds, 
and they have pitched in to support the fish hatchery project.
  The State legislature also passed a special warm water fishery stamp 
to help provide additional financial support for the hatchery.
  This hatchery will help ensure the continued development of 
opportunities at Fort Peck Lake, and it will represent a major source 
of jobs and economic development for that part of our State.
  Another provision of the bill that affects my State of Montana is the 
one that affects cabin sites that are leased by private individuals on 
Federal land at Fort Peck Lake. The lake is huge. It is surrounded by 
the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, but there are a lot of 
private in-holdings in this refuge.
  This provision will allow cabin leases to be exchanged for other 
private land within the refuge that has higher value for, say, fish, 
wildlife, and recreation. By consolidating management of the refuge 
lands, the provision will reduce the cost to the Corps associated with 
managing these cabin sites. It will also enhance public access to the 
refuge lands.
  This exchange is modeled on a similar project, of which I am very 
proud, near Helena, MT, which Congress authorized in 1998. It 
represents a win-win-win solution--a win for the public, a win for the 
wildlife, and a win for the cabin site owners.
  I also want to mention another landmark provision in this bill 
referred to at some length by my good friend, Senator Smith, chairman 
of the committee. In addition to the usual project authorizations 
contained in the water resources bill, this bill also affords a 
historic opportunity. Title 6 of the bill is known as the Comprehensive 
Everglades Restoration Plan.
  Restoration of the Everglades has been many years in the making. For 
example, in the 1970s, the State of Florida became concerned that the 
previously authorized central and south Florida water project was doing 
too good a job. Why? Because it was draining the swampy areas of the 
State and was, in fact, draining the life out of the Everglades.
  Under the leadership of our current colleague from Florida, Senator 
Graham, who was then Governor Graham, the State recognized that the 
health of the entire south Florida ecosystem, including the Everglades, 
was in serious jeopardy and that a major effort was needed to restore 
it.
  Ever since, Senator Graham has worked tirelessly to achieve that 
goal. I can testify to that personally. The comprehensive plan to 
restore this valuable ecosystem that is contained in the bill before us 
is the culmination of his work.
  The Everglades is clearly a national treasure. I know it holds a 
particularly special place in the hearts of Senator Graham and Senator 
Mack. Senator Mack joined Senator Graham to make Everglades restoration 
a key part of their agenda for the State of Florida. Both of them 
worked very hard in a bipartisan way to make this provision a reality.
  The administration, under the leadership of the Corps of Engineers 
and Army Assistant Secretary for Civil Works, Joe Westphal, with the 
cooperation of the Department of Interior and the Environmental 
Protection Agency, are also committed to bringing all the affected 
parties together to develop a plan that will work for the State of 
Florida, the ecosystem, and the Everglades.
  The committee has worked with all the stakeholders in South Florida 
and with the administration to develop the consensus contained in this 
bill. There are provisions to review the progress of the plan, to make 
sure it is working, to require Congress to approve steps along the way, 
and to assure the water will be where it is needed, when it is needed.
  We cannot wait for the Everglades to die. We have to begin now to 
restore it. This project is the largest environmental restoration 
project in the Corps' history, and it will reverse the decline of the 
Everglades. It is the right thing to do. I know my colleagues will join 
us with in supporting this section of the bill and the Water Resources 
Development bill generally.
  I have one final point. I pay special commendation to the chairman of 
our committee, Senator Smith. The first committee hearing he held as 
chairman of the committee was in Florida on the Everglades. It was 
there he saw the need to restore the Everglades, and it was there he 
made his pledge to the people of Florida, and to the Nation, to restore 
the Everglades. That is the hallmark of the very balanced, solid, far-
reaching, and perceptive way in which he has handled the chairmanship 
of the Environment and Public Works Committee.
  We are here today, in many respects, not only because of the Senators 
from Florida, Senators Graham and Mack, and others, but also because of 
Senator Smith's farsighted work as chairman of the committee. I thank 
him, as well as the others, for what they have done for a true national 
treasure.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I thank my colleague for those remarks.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I yield whatever time he 
may consume to my colleague, the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator 
Voinovich.

[[Page 18881]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I congratulate the chairman of the 
Environment and Public Works Committee and his staff, and the ranking 
member and members of his staff for their terrific work. I also thank 
Senator Graham and Senator Mack for their patience as we worked through 
some of the problems we had with the Florida Everglades restoration 
project.
  This Water Resources Development Act of 2000 is a product of months 
of hard work by the Environment and Public Works Committee. The bill 
provides authority for the Secretary of the Army to carry out 24 
projects for water resources development, conservation, and other 
purposes, substantially in accordance with the Chief of Engineer 
reports referenced in the bill language.
  In addition to the projects authorized by WRDA 2000, there are a 
number of significant policy provisions in the bill, including a 
provision to enhance the Corps' ability to accomplish multiple 
jurisdiction watershed studies, a provision to extend the ability-to-
pay provisions to all types of projects, and a provision to accelerate 
project deauthorizations, which is very important.
  The bill also provides for a facilitated role for the Corps to 
partner with non-Federal interests in implementing small environmental 
restoration projects on a regional basis including the Ohio River, the 
Puget Sound region, New England, the Great Lakes region, Chesapeake 
Bay, and the Illinois River.
  There are some who may question the need for a WRDA bill this year 
since Congress passed a WRDA bill just last year. In reality, last 
year's bill was actually unfinished business from 1998, and if Congress 
is to get back on its 2-year cycle for passage of WRDA legislation, we 
need to act on a bill this year. The 2-year cycle is important to avoid 
long delays between the planning and the execution of projects, and 
also to meet Federal commitments to State and local government partners 
who share the costs with the Federal Government.
  While the 2-year authorization cycle is extremely important in 
maintain efficient schedules for completions of important water 
resources projects--as I explored in a hearing I conducted in May of 
this year--efficient schedules also depend on adequate levels of 
funding. Unfortunately the appropriations for the Corps; program have 
not been adequate to meet the needs that have been identified.
  I would like to direct my colleagues' attention to Chart No. 1. This 
chart dramatically illustrates what has occurred. Chart No. 1 shows our 
capital investment in water resources infrastructure since the 1930s, 
shown in constant 1999 dollars, as measured by the Corps of Engineers 
Civil Works construction appropriations. You can see the sharp decline 
from the peak in 1966 of a $5 billion appropriation, and appropriations 
through the 1970s in the $4 billion level, to the 1980s, and then to 
the 1990s, where as you can see, the annual Corps construction 
appropriations have dropped substantially. Corps projects have averaged 
only around $1.6 billion during this period of time.
  Another dramatic thing has happened, as illustrated in the next two 
charts. We are asking the Corps of Engineers to do more with less. 
These two charts show the breakdown by mission area for the Corps' 
construction appropriation in FY 1965 and FY 1999.
  If we look at the FY 1965 chart, you will see that in FY 1965, most 
of the money went for flood control, navigation, and hydropower.
  Then we come to 1999. We find that the Corps' mission has expanded 
into many, many other areas: Shore protection, environmental 
infrastructure. So we have asked the Corps to take on a lot more 
responsibility than it ever had before.
  As the FY 1999 chart shows, there is a dramatic mission increase with 
environmental restoration as a significant mission area, and two new 
mission areas: environmental infrastructure, and remediation of 
formerly used Government nuclear sites. Environmental infrastructure, 
as contrasted with environmental restoration, includes such work as 
construction of drinking water facilities and sewage treatment plants.
  What is the point of all this?
  If you recall the chart, the Corps construction appropriations have 
been falling since 1965, and its falls sharply in the 1990s. At the 
same time, the Corps' mission has been growing.
  The result is today's huge backlog of over 500 active projects that 
will cost the Federal Government some $38 billion to complete. Think 
about it--$38 billion.
  These are worthy projects with positive benefit-to-cost ratios and 
capable non-Federal sponsors. The projects in the backlog that are 
being funded for construction are being funded under spread out 
schedules that result in increased construction costs and delays in 
achieving project benefits.
  I recognize that budget allocations and Corps appropriations are 
beyond the purview of this Water Resources Development Act. But the 
backlog issue impacted very fundamentally the way we approached WRDA 
2000 by highlighting the importance of adhering to three important 
criteria in putting together the bill.
  We adhered to these criteria which made many of our colleagues 
unhappy because many of the projects they wanted did not fit into the 
criteria we laid down.
  First, we controlled the mission creep of the Corps of Engineers. 
WRDA 2000 addresses national needs within the traditional Corps mission 
areas: needs such as flood control, navigation shore protection, and 
the emerging mission area of restoration of nationally significant 
environmental resources such as the Florida Everglades.
  The second thing we did in WRDA 2000 is make sure that the projects 
we are authorizing meet the highest standard of engineering, economic 
and environmental analysis.
  We can only assure that projects meet these high standards if 
projects have received adequate study and evaluation to establish 
project costs, benefits, and environmental impacts to an appropriate 
level of confidence. This means that a feasibility report must be 
completed this calendar year before projects are authorized for 
construction. That is a requirement.
  Finally, we have to preserve the partnerships and cost-sharing 
principles of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. WRDA 1986 
established the principle that water resources projects should be 
accomplished in partnerships with State and local governments and that 
this partnership would involve significant financial participation by 
the non-Federal partners.
  My experience as mayor of Cleveland and Governor of Ohio convinced me 
that the requirement for local funding to match Federal dollars results 
in much better projects than where Federal funds are simply handed out. 
It doesn't matter if it is parks, housing, highways, or water resources 
projects, the requirement for a local cost share provides a level of 
accountability that is essential to a quality project. Cost sharing 
principles were enforced in this WRDA bill.
  I am very proud of the discipline that the Environment and Public 
Works Committee exercised in putting together this bill Chairman Smith 
should be congratulated. I recognize, though, that not everyone, as he 
said has been satisfied, but I believe that our authorization actions 
must reflect the fiscal realities of the Corps national program.
  Without a doubt, the centerpiece of WRDA is the Comprehensive 
Everglades Restoration Plan. I want you to know, I have spent a lot of 
time in the Everglades on a number of different occasions. I want my 
grandchildren and their grandchildren to have the same experience as I 
have had in enjoying this wonderful national treasure.
  Our Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Bob Smith and his 
staff deserve enormous credit for making this Everglades provision a 
reality, particularly in the very difficult area of assuring that the 
benefits to the natural system are realized while the interests of 
other water users are adequately protected.
  As Senator Baucus said, this is not only the largest restoration 
project the

[[Page 18882]]

Corps has undertaken, but it is the largest restoration project ever 
undertaken in the world. So this is really quite an undertaking.
  My role in putting together the Everglades title has been to assure 
that we moved the Everglades Restoration Plan forward while achieving 
consistency with the criteria that applied to all the projects in this 
WRDA bill. The Everglades Restoration Plan is extremely important but 
there are other critical water resources needs reflected in this WRDA 
bill. I believe the playing field should be level for the consideration 
of all projects.
  I want my colleagues to know that we spent a great deal of time 
making sure that the Florida Everglades restoration plan does fit into 
the criteria we have establishes for other projects.
  Originally, the administration's Everglades legislative proposal 
deviated substantially from Corps of Engineers and Environmental and 
Public Works Committee policies for other water resources projects, and 
would have set precedents which would have been very damaging to 
preserving effective Congressional oversight of the Corps of Engineers 
program. Our goal was to hold the Everglades project to the same 
standards that apply to other projects. This is really important.
  We have accomplished a great deal in meeting this objective. I would 
just like to mention a few of them to give comfort to my colleagues.
  First, we have reduced the level of programmatic authority for 
restoration projects that can be accomplished without congressional 
review. That is very, very important. The levels we have set are 
applicable to other parts of the Corps program.
  We have required that two primarily land acquisition projects have 
been earmarked to be accomplished under other programs. That was in 
this. We are saying, No. Those will be done someplace else.
  We have expressed concerns about advanced wastewater treatment and 
indicated that more effective ways of providing additional water must 
be explored.
  We have eliminated the provision that would have allowed 
reimbursement to the State of Florida for the Federal share of work 
accomplished by the State. However, we have retained the ability of the 
State to receive credit for work in-kind for up to 50 percent of the 
work but only as this work is accomplished proportionate to Federal 
expenditures based on appropriations. In other words, they cannot move 
ahead of Federal appropriations.
  We have added an incentive to encourage the completion of the 
modified water deliveries to the Everglades project which is essential 
to many aspects of Everglades restoration.
  I think our most important accomplishment was in assuming that 
individual Everglades projects receive the same level of congressional 
review as other water resources projects. The administration 
recommended 10 projects for authorization at a total cost of $1.1 
billion without a traditional feasibility report level of detail and 
without individual project justification.
  These projects would have been authorized without congressional 
review of the detailed information normally associated with a Corps 
feasibility report and required of every other large Corps of Engineers 
project as a condition of authorization.
  I am pleased to have been able to add a requirement to the Everglades 
section of the bill that no appropriation shall be made to construct 
any of the 10 projects until the Secretary submits the Project 
Implementation Report on the individual projects. Such reports will be 
presented to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the 
Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 
House of Representatives, and each committee will be able to approve 
the projects by resolution.
  This assures that the Everglades projects will get a similar level of 
congressional oversight as other Corps projects.
  I believe we have accomplished a great deal in making this Everglades 
Plan acceptable to all parties. The only question I have is the 
question of the operation and maintenance costs. I will be discussing 
that later in an amendment.
  As a final item, let me turn to the redevelopment of the former 
Homestead Air Force Base and its relationship to the Comprehensive 
Everglades Restoration Plan.
  In December of 1999, the U.S. Air Force and the Federal Aviation 
Administration released a draft supplemental environmental impact 
statement, EIS on the disposal of 1,632 acres of the former Homestead 
Air Force Base. About 870 acres of the Homestead Air Force Base has 
been retained as the Homestead Air Reserve Station.
  This draft supplemental EIS presents as its proposed action the 
redevelopment of portions of the Homestead Air Force Base as a regional 
airport with a projected 150,000 annual air operations by 2015, and an 
estimated 231,000 air operations at maximum use. As a point of 
comparison, Reagan National Airport has about 300,000 air operations 
and Miami International Airport has over 500,000 air operations.
  The draft supplemental EIS presents three mixed use development plans 
and a commercial spaceport as alternatives to the regional airport. The 
draft supplemental EIS was circulated for public comment in December 
1999. The Air Force is currently evaluating the comments on the EIS and 
plans to make a final decision on conveying the property later this 
year.
  If we look at this map, here is the Homestead Air Force Base in 
Homestead, FL. Ten miles away is the Everglades National Park, 2 miles 
away from that is Biscayne National Park, and about 10 miles away is 
the National Marine Sanctuary. This is the Everglades project. We can 
see that the use of this base will have a large impact on this very 
fragile area of Florida we are trying to restore.
  I agree with the assessment of the Natural Resources Defense Council 
and eight other national and local environmental groups, that the 
information generated in preparing the draft supplemental EIS does not 
support the proposed action of regional airport development.
  This information reinforces what common sense would dictate: the 
Homestead base is an inappropriate site for the proposed commercial 
airport. Indeed airport development would have a number of different 
adverse impacts:
  It would significantly increase the noise in Everglades and Biscayne 
Parks, potentially affecting wildlife and detracting from the 
experience of visitors. At places within Everglades Park, the amount of 
time that aircraft noise would be above the ambient sound levels would 
increase more than two hours. Portions of Biscayne Park would 
experience similar increases up to 2 hours.
  The proposed airport would be an air pollution source equivalent to a 
large power plant, with increases of emissions to about 392 tons per 
year in nitrogen oxides by 2015.
  The secondary and cumulative impacts of commercial airport 
development would result in residential and commercial growth in the 
surrounding area that would frustrate planned Everglades restoration 
activities, specifically, the Biscayne Coastal Wetland feature of the 
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan.
  Private environmental groups are not alone in raising objections to 
the commercial airport development. Federal and State environmental 
agencies have also raised strong objections.
  The Department of the Interior, commenting on the EIS, indicated that 
the development of a commercial airport near Biscayne and Everglades 
National Parks could have a series of negative consequences on these 
nationally and internationally recognized resources including 
significant noise impacts, increased contaminants in Biscayne Bay and 
impacts on the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Secretary of 
the Interior Bruce Babbitt also has publicly expressed his personal 
opposition to the airport development.
  The Environmental Protection Agency has serious environmental 
objections to the airport proposal.
  The National Marine Fisheries Service does not recommend the 
commercial airport development because of the

[[Page 18883]]

loss of buffer areas between the airport and Biscayne Bay.
  The Florida Department of Environmental Protection is opposed to this 
development. They say it poses a threat to the protected terrestrial 
and marine environment within the Florida Keys' Area of Critical State 
Concern.
  The South Florida Water Management District is concerned about the 
impacts of off-site growth generated by the airport redevelopment plan 
on 40,000 acres of wetlands owned and managed by the Management 
District.
  I recognize the argument that the City of Homestead has made 
regarding the economic boost that the airport would provide to the city 
and surrounding area. When I was a member of the Ohio legislature, 
these same kinds of economic arguments were advanced in pressing for my 
support of oil and gas exploration leases in Lake Erie.
  However, I believed that the environmental health of Lake Erie was 
more important in the long run to the economic health of Ohio than the 
short term revenue from oil and gas exploration.
  I believe the same is true of redevelopment of Homestead Air Force 
Base. The environmental health of Biscayne Bay, the Everglades National 
Park and the Florida Keys are much more important to the long term 
economic future of Homestead than any airport proposal. There are 
alternative uses of the base property that are compatible with South 
Florida environmental restoration--uses that would also make 
significant contributions to the economy of the region.
  Clearly if it was my decision to make, I would not redevelop the 
Homestead Air Force Base as a commercial airport. We are approving a 
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan which will involve Federal 
and State expenditures of $7.8 billion. I believe it would be 
irresponsible to approve an investment of billions of dollars in the 
restoration of the south Florida ecosystem, while at the same time 
ignoring a re-use plan for Homestead Air Force Base that is 
incompatible with the restoration objectives.
  My preference would have been to elevate the decision on Homestead 
redevelopment from the Secretary of the Air Force to the Secretary of 
Defense to make the decision in conjunction with the Department of 
Interior, the EPA, and the Department of Commerce.
  This approach was not acceptable because of perceptions that it would 
interfere with the process and cause a delay in the decision. I have 
agreed instead--and it is in this bill--to a sense-of-the-Senate 
provision that conveys the concern of the Senate about potential 
adverse impacts of Homestead redevelopment and about the need for 
consistency in redevelopment and restoration goals. This approach was 
endorsed by environmental interests, and it is my hope that it will 
make a difference in the ultimate decision on Homestead.
  I know that through all of this I have been sometimes categorized as 
an opponent of Everglades Restoration. Nothing could be further from 
the truth. I believe my efforts have helped assure that this effort can 
move forward. I look forward to passage of WRDA 2000 and the 
opportunity to get started on the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration 
Plan and the other critical water resources projects contained in the 
bill.
  I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I recognize that the senior Senator from 
Massachusetts is going to address the Senate for about an hour. It is 
my understanding, with his courtesy, that he will allow the Senator 
from Virginia to send to the desk an amendment and ask for its 
consideration, with the understanding that it will be laid aside for 
such period of time as the senior Senator from Massachusetts desires. 
Am I correct in that?
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank my good friend and colleague, the senior Senator 
from Massachusetts.
  I send to the desk, on behalf of myself and my colleague Senator 
Voinovich, an amendment. In two or three sentences, the amendment 
simply does the following: Since 1986, the Senate has operated under a 
law whereby projects built by the Corps of Engineers, pursuant to the 
process of authorizing projects, are then, upon completion, carried by 
the States--the financial burden of the operation and maintenance of 
those projects.
  The current legislation along the Everglades--and I am going to vote 
for the Everglades provision--changes that law by virtue of setting a 
precedent whereby the Federal taxpayer will pay half the cost of 
operation and maintenance for the life of the project.
  Now, with due respect to my distinguished chairman and good friend, 
Senator Smith, and others, who have written this legislation, I cannot 
understand any valid reason for changing a law that has been in effect 
for 14 years and served this Nation so well for this single project. My 
colleague from Ohio shares these concerns. That is the purpose of this 
amendment--to strike only a few words, providing the exception for this 
particular Florida project, and saying the Florida project will be 
treated just as all the other projects that have been authorized by the 
Congress in the past 14 years and presumably in the future.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). The Senator from Massachusetts is 
recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I understand that under the agreement I have up to an 
hour, is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.


                   ISSUES THE SENATE SHOULD CONSIDER

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this afternoon we are considering 
legislation on the preservation of our water resources. That is an 
important issue and it should be debated, but in the short time 
remaining in this session, we also must answer the call of the American 
people for real action on key issues of main concern to working 
families. We still must raise the minimum wage. We must pass a 
Patients' Bill of Rights--a real Patients' Bill of Rights. We must 
enact a prescription drug benefit as a part of Medicare. We must invest 
in education in ways to make a real difference to our children. We must 
strengthen our laws against hate crimes. We must adopt sensible gun 
control to keep our communities and our schools safe.
  But the Congress has done little more than pay lip service to these 
concerns of working families. In fact, this year, we have done little 
work at all. By the time this Congress is scheduled to adjourn only 2 
weeks from now, the Senate will have met for only 115 days. That is the 
lowest number since 1956. It is only 2 days shy of the record set by 
the famous do-nothing Congress in 1948.
  We know what the Senate leader has said about how he wanted to spend 
the last few weeks of this Congress, and that we would work day and 
night to get the business done. We were supposed to work on legislation 
by day and on appropriations bills by night. Specifically, Senator Lott 
said, on September 6:

       We will focus the greatest time commitment on four other 
     priorities. The four worthy are the permanent trade relations 
     with China, completion of the 11 remaining appropriations 
     bills for the fiscal year that begins October 1, raising the 
     annual limits for protected savings in 401(k), individual 
     retirement accounts, and the elimination of some unfair taxes 
     like the telephone tax.

  In a letter to GOP Senators, Senator Lott wrote:

       The Senate will focus on the completion of the remaining 
     appropriations, the China trade bill, and on the votes to 
     override the President's vetoes of our bipartisan bills to 
     end the marriage penalty and the death tax.

  There was no mention of key priorities such as prescription drugs, 
Patients' Bill of Rights, or the minimum wage.
  Senator Lott said:

       When we return to session after Labor Day, there will be 
     long days, but we will do our best to keep Senators advised, 
     after communicating with leadership on both sides of the 
     aisle, on what the schedule will be.


[[Page 18884]]


  The Senate is still waiting for an answer to our unmet priorities, 
and so are the American people.


                       H-1B High-Tech Legislation

  Mr. President, I'm pleased that the Senate is finally taking steps to 
debate and vote on the H-1B high tech visa legislation. Our nation's 
economy is experiencing a time of unprecedented growth and prosperity. 
The strong economic growth can, in large measure, be traced to the 
vitality of the highly competitive and rapidly growing high technology 
industry.
  I'm proud to say that Massachusetts is leading the nation in the new 
high tech economy, according to a recent study by the Progressive 
Policy Institute. Thanks to our world-class universities and research 
facilities, Massachusetts is a pioneer in the global economy of the 
information age. We are home to nearly 3,000 information technology 
companies, employing 170,000 people, and generating $8 billion in 
annual revenues.
  With such rapid change, the nation is stretched thin to support these 
new businesses and their opportunities for growth. Nationally, the 
demand for employees with training in computer science, electrical 
engineering, software, and communications is very high.
  In 1998, in an effort to find a stop-gap solution to this labor 
shortage, we enacted the American Competitiveness and Workforce 
Improvement Act, which increased the number of temporary visas 
available to skilled foreign workers. Despite the availability of 
additional H-1B visas, we have reached the cap before the end of the 
year in the last two fiscal years.
  We need to be responsive to the nation's need for high tech workers. 
We know that unless we take steps now to address this growing workforce 
gap, America's technological and economic leadership will be 
jeopardized. I believe that the H-1B visa cap should be increased, but 
in a way that better addresses the fundamental needs of the American 
economy. Raising the cap without addressing our long-term labor needs 
would be a serious mistake. We cannot count on foreign sources of labor 
as a long-term solution.
  These are solid, middle class jobs that Americans deserve under the 
H-1B program. The median salary for H-1B high tech workers is $45,000. 
Approximately 57 percent of H-1B workers have earned only a bachelor's 
degree. More than half of these workers will be employed as computer 
programmers and systems analysts. These are not highly specialized 
jobs. They do not require advanced degrees or years of training. 
American workers are the most productive workers in the world. It makes 
sense to demand that more of our workers be recruited and trained for 
these jobs.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, I am happy to yield.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for the comments he is 
making. I ask him if he would draw a historical parallel to the 
situation we faced in the late fifties, when the Russians launched 
Sputnik and we, as a nation, decided to devote resources into a 
National Defense Education Act, so that we would have the scientists 
and engineers to be able to compete then with the Russians in the space 
race. President Kennedy followed on with our exploration into space.
  Aren't we facing a similar challenge today regarding whether we will 
be able to compete in the 21st century with the scientists and 
engineers and skilled employees with all the other nations competing 
for the very best jobs?
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is exactly right. That is why, when we do 
have the measure before us, we will offer amendments to try to develop 
the support in the Senate, and also in the House, for the funding of a 
program that will help ensure that this deficit, in terms of the highly 
skilled who are being addressed by the H-1B visa, will be eased. We 
will utilize very effective services. For example, the National Science 
Foundation, which has a good deal of skill and understanding and 
awareness in giving focus and attention to encouraging highly 
specialized vocations and support for these types of programs.
  We will welcome the opportunity to join with my friend from Illinois 
in bringing this to the attention of the Senate when we actually have 
the measure before us. We are very hopeful that we will have the 
opportunity to address it and not have steps taken in the Senate that 
will foreclose both the debate and discussion on this issue.
  The fact is that the great majority of these H-1B jobs have good, 
middle-income salaries, and they are the kinds of jobs that would 
benefit any family in America. For a number of reasons, which I think 
many of us are familiar with, we have not developed the kinds of 
training programs and support programs for the development of the 
skills in these areas that we need. But the question that will be 
before us is, Should we throw up our hands and say we won't do that and 
we will depend upon a foreign supply of these workers in the future?
  I think not. I think we should take the steps now to make sure this 
provision actually becomes an anachronism.
  Perhaps we will also need opportunities for those who have the very 
highly specialized skills to come here and to benefit and fit into some 
aspect of either industry or academia. We ought to recognize that. But 
to rely on the kind of jobs where only 57 percent of H-1Bs earned a 
bachelor's degree and the average income is only $45,000--this is a 
long way from those. I think most Members of the Senate and I certainly 
think most Americans would say H-1B is a superscientist that is going 
to go to a very specialized company or that will generate thousands of 
jobs. That may be true for very few that are included. But the fact is, 
for the most part, these are the kinds of jobs that can be filled with 
American labor if they have the right kind of skills, and we ought to 
be able to develop that effort as we go into this program.
  We also hear countless reports of age and race discrimination as 
rampant problems in the IT industry. The rate of unemployment for the 
average IT worker over age 40 is more than 5 times that of other 
workers. Just when we should be doing more to bring minorities into 
technology careers, we hear that organizations in Silicon Valley cannot 
get companies to recruit from minority colleges and universities, or 
hire skilled, educated minorities from neighboring Oakland. The number 
of women entering the IT field has also dramatically decreased since 
the mid-1980s. If the skill shortage is as dire as the IT industry 
reports, we can clearly do more to increase the number of minorities, 
women and older workers in the IT workforce.
  Any credible legislative proposal to increase the number of foreign 
high tech workers available to American businesses must begin with the 
expansion of high-skill career training opportunities for American 
workers.
  Now more than ever, employer demand for high-tech foreign workers 
shows that there is an even greater need to train American workers and 
prepare U.S. students for careers in information technology. As 
Chairman Alan Greenspan recently stated,
  The rapidity of innovation and the unpredictability of the directions 
it may take imply a need for considerable investment in human capital . 
. . The pressure to enlarge the pool of skilled workers also requires 
that we strengthen the significant contributions of other types of 
training and educational programs, especially for those with lesser 
skills.
  When we expanded the number of H-1B visas in 1998, we created a 
training initiative funded by a visa fee in recognition of the need to 
train and update the skills of members of our workforce. Today, as we 
seek to nearly double the number of high tech workers, we must ensure 
that legislation signed into law includes a significant expansion of 
career training and educational opportunities for American workers and 
students.
  I propose that we build on the priorities in current H-1B law. The 
Department of Labor, in consultation with the Department of Commerce, 
will provide grants to local workforce investment boards in areas with 
substantial shortages of high tech workers. Grants

[[Page 18885]]

will be awarded on a competitive basis for innovative high tech 
training proposals developed by workforce boards collaboratively with 
area employers, unions, and higher education institutions. Annually, 
this program will provide state-of-the-art high tech training for 
approximately 50,000 workers in primarily high tech, information 
technology, and biotechnology skills.
  More than ever, today's jobs require advanced degrees, especially in 
math, science, engineering, and computer sciences. We must encourage 
students, including minorities to pursue degrees in these fields. We 
must also increase scholarship opportunities for talented minority and 
low-income students whose families cannot afford today's tuition costs. 
We must also expand the National Science Foundation's merit-based, 
competitive grants to partnership programs with an educational mission. 
Equally important, closing the digital divide must be a part of our 
effort to meet the growing demand for high skilled workers.
  The only effective way for Congress to responsibly ensure more high 
skill training and scholarships for students is to increase the H-1B 
visa user fees. High tech companies are producing record profits. They 
can afford to pay a higher application fee. According to public 
financial information, for the top twenty companies that received the 
most H-1B workers this year, a $2,000 fee would cost between .002% and 
.5% of their net worth. A $1,000 fee would cost them very little. 
Immigrant families with very modest incomes were able to pay a $1,000 
fee to allow family members to obtain green cards.
  The H-1B debate should not focus solely on the number of visas 
available to skilled workers. It should also deal with the professional 
credentials of the workers being admitted. It makes sense to expand the 
number of H-1B visas to fill the shortage of masters and doctoral level 
professionals with specialized skills that cannot be easily and quickly 
produced domestically. We should insist that a significant percentage 
of the H-1B visa cap be carved out and reserved for individuals with 
masters or higher degrees.
  In the days to come, we will have the opportunity to debate these 
issues and pass legislation that meets the needs of the high technology 
industry by raising the visa cap and also by ensuring state-of-the-art 
skills training for American workers. Clearly, however, the immigration 
agenda is not just an H-1B high-tech visa agenda. Congress also has a 
responsibility to deal with the critical issues facing Latino and other 
immigrant families in our country. To meet the needs of these 
immigrants, my colleagues and I have introduced the Latino and 
Immigrant Fairness Act.
  The immigrants who will benefit from this legislation should have 
received permanent status from the INS long ago. These issues are not 
new to Congress. The Latino community has been seeking legislation to 
resolve these issues for many years. The immigrant community--
particularly the Latino community--has waited far too long for the 
fundamental fairness that this legislation will provide.
  This measure is also critical for businesses. All sectors of the 
economy are experiencing unprecedented economic growth, but this growth 
cannot be sustained without additional workers. With unemployment 
levels at 4 percent or even lower, many businesses find themselves 
unable to fill job openings. The shortages of highly skilled, semi-
skilled and low-skilled workers are becoming a serious impediment to 
continuing growth.
  Information technology companies are not the only firms urging 
Congress to provide additional workers. An equally important voice is 
that of the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition, a consortium of 
businesses and trade associations, and other organizations, including 
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, health care and home care associations, 
hotel, motel, restaurant and tourism associations, manufacturing and 
retail concerns, and the construction and transportation industries.
  These key industries have added their voices to the broad coalition 
of business, labor, religious, Latino and other immigrant organizations 
in support of the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act. Conservative 
supporters of the Act include Americans for Tax Reform and Empower 
America. Labor supporters include the AFL-CIO, the Union of Neeletrades 
and Industrial Textile Employees, and the Service Employees 
International Union.
  All of the major Latino organizations support the bill, including the 
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the National 
Council of La Raza, the League of United Latin American Citizens, and 
the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials. 
Religious organizations include a broad array of American Jewish 
groups, the U.S. Catholic Conference, and Lutheran Immigration and 
Refugee Services.
  The Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act includes parity for Central 
Americans and Haitians. In 1997, Congress enacted the Nicaraguan 
Adjustment and Central American Relief Act, which granted permanent 
residence to Nicaraguans and Cubans who had fled their repressive 
governments. The act provided other similarly situated Central 
Americans and Haitians with the opportunity to apply for green cards 
under more difficult and narrower standards and more cumbersome 
procedures.
  It is unfair not to provide the same relief for all immigrants 
seeking safe haven in the United States. Fairness requires that we 
address this grave injustice. As Congresswoman Carrie Meek said on the 
floor of the House of Representatives ``Nicaraguans, Cubans, 
Guatemalans, and Salvadorans . . . live next door to each other in some 
of our communities [but] one will get a green card and the others 
cannot. One could seek citizenship after 4 to 5 years; the others 
cannot. Is that fair? My answer is no, it is not fair.''
  Senator Mack, Senator Abraham, and others said, ``Last year, we 
adopted legislation to protect Nicaraguans and Cubans. But Haitians 
were unfairly excluded from that bill. The time has come for Congress 
to end the bigotry. We must remedy this flagrant omission and add 
Haitians to the list of deserving refugees.''
  There it is, Mr. President, those who have reasonable access: Cubans 
and Nicaraguans; those who have unreasonable access, Salvadorans, 
Guatemalans, Haitians, Hondurans, and immigrants from Eastern European 
countries. We have the support from the Chamber of Commerce and from 
the AFL-CIO to bring this in. With H-1B legislation we are looking out 
for the high tech industry; why not look out for other industries, as 
well? We had a strong indication of support by two Republican Senators 
last year when this was passed. Yet we are being denied the opportunity 
by the Republican leadership to bring this matter before the Senate. We 
are being denied the opportunity by the Republican leadership to have a 
vote on it. We will agree to a time limit. They are denying even the 
chance to bring it up. That is wrong. That is unfair. It is unjust.
  We are going to do everything we possibly can to remedy that through 
other parliamentary means. The idea that we are bringing up one 
particular proposal to look at high tech--and I am all for those 
provisions, and stated my support for them--and saying we should be 
able to deal with this issue and expand the job opportunities for other 
Americans, while on the other hand, saying absolutely no, we are going 
to set up a parliamentary situation where we are absolutely denied the 
opportunity to bring that up. It is supported by the religious and 
business communities, and has had the support of Republican Senators, 
but we are being denied the opportunity to bring it to the floor for a 
vote. It is wrong. It is unfair. The American people ought to 
understand it.
  Not only are we failing to deal with some of the key issues which are 
at the heart of the American families' concerns, but we are refusing to 
be fair on this issue with regard to the Latino and Immigrant Fairness 
provisions. The Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act will create a fair 
and uniform set of procedures for all the immigrants from the region 
who have been in this country since 1995.

[[Page 18886]]

  It is important to remember the recent history of why people in 
Central America and Haiti fled from their homes. In Guatemala, hundreds 
of so-called ``extra-judicial'' killings occurred every year between 
1990 and 1995. Entire villages ``disappeared.'' Most of the villages 
were probably massacred. In El Salvador, an end to 12 years of civil 
war has not meant an end to violent internal strife. Ironically, the 
death toll in 1994 was higher than during the war. In Honduras, the 
Department of State's Human Rights Report cites ``serious problems,'' 
including extra-judicial killings, beatings and a civilian and military 
elite that has long operated with impunity. Haiti has been ruled by 
dictators for decades. In September 1991, Haiti's first democratically-
elected government was overthrown in a violent military coup that was 
responsible for thousands of extra-judicial killings over a three-year 
period.
  The idea that we have discriminatory provisions in our immigration 
laws is nothing new. I remember in 1965 when we passed the Immigration 
Act, which eliminated the Asian Pacific triangle, a provision that went 
back to the old Yellow Peril days. In 1965, we permitted only 125 
Asians to come into the United States. We effectively excluded Asians 
from their ability to immigrate here. We gave preferences to others. 
Who did we give preference to? To those who qualified under the 
national origin quota system that was based upon the ethnic 
requirements.
  The immigration laws in our country historically have been filled 
with these inequities, and we have been battling to try and make them 
fair and just. Now we are refusing to eliminate one of the most glaring 
discriminatory aspects that has ever existed in our immigration laws, 
and we are being denied that opportunity on the floor of the Senate by 
the Republican leadership. That is fundamentally wrong.
  Providing parity for immigrants from countries in Central America and 
Haiti will help individuals such as Ericka and her family. In 1986, 
when Guatemala was in the midst of a civil war, Ericka's father was 
abducted and disappeared. He is presumed dead. The rest of the family 
fled to the United States for safety. When Ericka joined her mother in 
1993, she was a minor and could be included in the family's asylum 
application. Her family now qualifies for permanent residence under 
NACARA. However, because Ericka is 21, she no longer qualifies under 
this law and will therefore remain in legal limbo--or worse, be 
deported back to Guatemala.
  This is happening every single day. She lives in fear of being sent 
back to the country where her father was killed. Her life here is in 
limbo. She graduated from high school and has dreams of going on to 
college. But without permanent residence, she cannot qualify for 
scholarships. Passage of the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act will 
enable her to remain in the United States with her family and continue 
her education.
  The Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act will also provide long overdue 
relief to immigrants, who because of bureaucratic mistakes, were 
prevented from receiving green cards long ago. That is one aspect of 
the bill. Listen to this and wonder why we can't address this aspect of 
the law.
  In 1986, Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act, 
called IRCA, which included legalization for persons who could 
demonstrate that they had been present illegally in the United States 
since before 1982. There is a one-year period to file. However, INS 
misinterpreted the provisions in IRCA, and thousands of otherwise 
qualified immigrants were denied the opportunity to make timely 
applications.
  Several successful class action lawsuits were filed on behalf of 
individuals who were harmed by these INS misinterpretations of law. The 
courts required the INS to accept filings for these individuals. One 
court decision stated:

       The evidence is clear that the INS' . . . regulations 
     deterred many aliens who would otherwise qualify for 
     legalization from applying.

  They went to court. The court found for them. We are talking about 
300,000 individuals. The court found for them and said: You are 
qualified, you got misinformation from the agency that was supposed to 
administer this. We apologize. Go ahead and apply.
  Then what happened? The ink was not even dry and in 1996, the 
immigration law stripped the courts of the jurisdiction. The Attorney 
General ruled that the law superseded the court cases. As a result of 
these actions, this group of immigrants have been in legal limbo and 
fighting government bureaucracy over 14 years.
  We are denying them the opportunity to make the adjustment of their 
status. Our bill will alleviate this problem by allowing all 
individuals who have resided in the United States prior to 1986 to 
obtain permanent residency, including those who were denied 
legalization because of INS' misinterpretation, or who were turned away 
by the INS before applying.
  Consider Maria. Maria, who came to the United States 18 years ago, 
has been living in legal limbo with temporary permission to work, while 
courts determine whether she should have received permanent residence 
under the 1986 legalization law. Maria now has a U.S. citizen son who 
suffers from a rare bone disease that confines him to a wheel chair. As 
a result of the changes in the 1996 immigration law, Maria has now lost 
her work permit. Her father recently passed away in El Salvador, but 
her tenuous legal status did not permit her to return there to pay her 
last respects. All Maria wants to do is legalize her status and 
continue to work legally to support her family and pay her son's 
medical bills. Without the passage of this legislation, Maria faces an 
uncertain future.
  This bill will also restore section 245(i), a vital provision of the 
immigration law that permitted immigrants about to become permanent 
residents to apply for green cards while still in the U.S. for a $1,000 
fee, rather than returning to their home countries to apply.
  Section 245(i) was pro-family, pro-business, fiscally prudent, and a 
matter of common sense. Under it, immigrants with close family members 
in the U.S. are able to remain here with their families while applying 
for legal permanent residence. The section also allows businesses to 
retain valuable employees, while providing INS with millions of dollars 
in annual revenue, at no cost to taxpayers. Restoring Section 245(i) 
will keep thousands of immigrants from being separated from their 
families and jobs for as long as ten years.
  America has historically been open and welcoming to immigrant 
populations seeking to build new lives, free from the fear of 
persecution and tyranny. The Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act builds 
on that tradition, by restoring fairness to the immigrant community and 
fairness in the American legislative process. This legislation will 
regularize the status of thousands of workers already in the U.S., 
authorize them to work --that is what this is all about, obtaining a 
Green Card so they can work, pay taxes--and create a policy that is 
good for families and good for this country. It will correct past 
government mistakes and misdeeds that have kept hard-working immigrant 
families in bureaucratic limbo for far too long.
  This is legislation that cannot wait. Families are being torn apart 
because we have failed to take the necessary steps to pass the Latino 
and Immigrant Fairness Act. Before the August recess, Democrats 
attempted to bring this legislation before the Senate, but the 
Republican leadership objected. Just last week, Democrats were prepared 
to debate and vote on this legislation as part of the high-tech visa 
bill, but our Republican colleagues were unwilling to bring this 
measure to the floor and take a vote. They prefer to talk about their 
support for the Latino community, rather than take tangible steps to 
benefit immigrant workers and their families.
  Few days remain in this Congress, but we are committed to doing all 
we can to see that this legislation becomes law this year. Passage of 
this bill will be a victory for all who believe in justice, fairness, 
and the American dream.

[[Page 18887]]

  There may be individuals who want to take issue with those 
observations I have made. We would be glad to debate them. We had, 
under the Democratic leader's proposal, indicated a willingness to 
limit amendments to, I believe, five amendments and to have short time 
agreements on all of those. We could have disposed of this whole 
legislation and done it in a way that would have expressed the will of 
the Senate. Instead, we are spending all week on it. We are spending 
virtually the whole week. With 3 weeks left, we are spending a whole 
week on this legislation and are still failing to deal with the 
fundamental issues of fairness which are within the legislation, 
although we will have an opportunity to deal with it, and that is the 
Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act.
  I hope we will have that chance. I am confident Senator Daschle will 
give us that opportunity. We look forward to debating these issues. But 
we ought to be able to do that in the sunshine on the open floor of the 
Senate. Maybe there are those who differ, who believe this is not an 
issue of fairness. Maybe there are those who say we ought to have a 
dual standard, one standard for the high-tech industry and a different 
standard for those who basically track their heritage to Spanish 
tradition.
  I cannot speak about what the reservation is, but I fail to be 
persuaded by any of the arguments I have seen so far about why we 
should not have fairness, the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act, as we 
are having fairness in the H-1B. Maybe there are those who will want to 
engage in that discussion and debate. I will look forward to 
participating in that as well.
  Mr. President, I wanted to take a few moments now of the remaining 
time--I will only take 15 more minutes.
  In addition, I want to mention briefly my sense of what, we ought to 
be addressing in the Senate. We are constantly reminded that we do not 
set the agenda, that it is the other side that sets the agenda. We have 
certainly learned that over the period of this year. But we want to let 
the millions of Americans who are out there, who care about these 
issues, know that there are Members in the Senate who are deeply 
committed to these areas of public policy and who want to take action 
and think action can be taken in the areas of education, education 
reform; in the area of prescription drug and prescription drug reform; 
in the area of patients' rights and patients' rights reform. I spoke 
yesterday about the importance of the minimum wage.
  On the issues of education, what is of enormous concern to me is--I 
read earlier, into the Record, what was going to be the calendar 
established by the Republican leader. But I also want to read this, so 
we have a good idea of what the Republican leader has said on other 
occasions about education. This is the majority leader's promises on 
education.
  On January 6, 1999:

       Education is going to be a central issue this year. . . . 
     For starters, we must reauthorize the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act. That is important.

  It is important for this reason: This will be the first time in 35 
years--the first time in 35 years, if we do not reauthorize the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, that we have failed to do so.
  Maybe there is a good reason for that. Maybe there are other higher 
priorities. But when the Senate spends 16 days debating the issue of 
bankruptcy, with 55 amendments, and then has a 6-day debate on 
education, and of the seven rollcall votes, three of them were 
virtually unanimous--we have not had the real debate and discussion the 
American people want.
  Nonetheless, we have these promises, promises on education. This is 
what was said:

       Remarks to U.S. Conference of Mayors Luncheon, January 29, 
     1999--But education is going to have a lot of attention, and 
     it's not going to just be words. . . .
       Press conference, June 22, 1999--Education is number one on 
     the agenda for Republicans in the Congress this year.
       Remarks to U.S. Chamber of Commerce, February 1, 2000--
     We're going to work very hard on education. I have emphasized 
     that every year I've been majority leader. . . . And 
     Republicans are committed to doing that.
       Speech to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 
     February 3, 2000--We must reauthorize the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act. . . . Education will be a high 
     priority in this Congress.
       Congress Daily, April 20, 2000--. . . Lott said last week 
     his top priorities in May include an agriculture sanctions 
     bill, Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization, 
     and passage of four appropriations bills.
       Senate, May 1, 2000--This is very important legislation. I 
     hope we can debate it seriously and have amendments in the 
     education area. Let's talk education.
       Press Stakeout, May 2, 2000--
       Question: Senator, on ESEA, have you scheduled a cloture 
     vote on that?
       Senator Lott. No, I haven't scheduled a cloture vote. . . . 
     But education is number one in the minds of the American 
     people all across this country and every state, including my 
     own state. For us to have a good healthy, and even a 
     protracted debate and amendments on education I think is the 
     way to go.
       Senate, May 9, 2000--
       Senator Kennedy: As I understand, . . . we will have an 
     opportunity to come back to [ESEA] next week. Is that the 
     leader's plan?
       Senator Lott: That is my hope and intent.

  Then on July 10:

       I, too, would very much like to see us complete the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I feel very strongly 
     about getting it done. We can work day and night for the next 
     3 weeks.

  Then finally, July 25:

       We will keep trying to find a way to get back to the 
     legislation and get it completed.

  The reason we are not having a debate is because the majority thought 
there might be an amendment dealing with limiting the opportunity for 
children to obtain guns in school areas. That kind of outrageous 
question, about whether we were going to try to make our schools safer 
and more secure, once that was even mentioned, the word went out and we 
effectively found there was not going to be any more debate and 
discussion.
  However, in 1994, under Republican leadership, the Republican leader 
actually cosponsored a weapons amendment. At that time, no one on that 
side of the aisle said: Oh, no, we are not going to consider it. That 
is not relevant to education. We want to make sure we are not only 
going to have smaller class sizes, better trained teachers, afterschool 
programs, modernization of schools, more technology available, greater 
accountability, preschool help and assistance for our children, but we 
want our children to be safe and we want them to be secure.
  I think parents understand that and support it.
  We are denied the opportunity to even vote on that. It used to be 
around here, years ago in the Senate--and also not that long ago--when 
people had differences, you settled them through debates and by votes. 
Now you settle them by not even bringing them up.
  That is where we are: Nowhere, on the issues of education.
  This is in spite of the fact we know that student enrollment will 
continue to rise in the foreseeable future. According to the U.S. 
Department of Education's 2000 Baby Boom Echo Report, between 1990 and 
the year 2000, growth in the K-12 student population has gone up by 6.6 
million students, from 46.4 million to 53 million. And, even beyond the 
next ten years, the number of school-age children will continue to 
increase steadily. Between the year 2000 and the year 2100, the total 
will rise from 53 million to 94 million children, 41 million more 
children are going to be going to schools in this country.
  Does anyone believe the education issue is going to go away? Does 
anyone think by not calling it up or giving it attention it is going to 
disappear? We used to debate these issues and then have resolution.
  This is against the background that in more recent times, since 1980 
to 1999, the Federal share of education funding has declined from 11 
percent to 7.7 percent for elementary and secondary education, and 15 
percent to 10 percent for higher education. I know there are Members 
who do not want any funding in elementary and secondary education.
  I was here in 1994 when the new Republican leadership took over. The 
first thing they did was decrease funding for programs under the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act. That was the first major 
debate. I know they have been in favor of abolishing the Department of 
Education. I am aware of

[[Page 18888]]

that. Most parents think we ought to have a partnership and that we 
ought to move ahead.
  I would like to mention just one other fact. More students today are 
taking advanced math and science courses. This is very encouraging 
since these rigorous classes provide the foundation that students need 
to acquire solid math knowledge. In precalculus, the percent who are 
taking advanced placement courses has increased from 31 percent to 44 
percent; calculus, 19 percent to 24 percent; physics, 44 percent to 49 
percent.
  SAT math scores are the highest in 30 years. Modest, gains have been 
made, but the upward trend lines are very important, and they have 
consistently flowed upwards. This is important. We ought to be debating 
this. We ought to know what schools are doing to achieve that success. 
We ought to benefit from those schools' successes. We ought to give our 
support to those successful efforts. We ought to give flexibility to 
the local community to make sure their schools are successful.
  Why can't we debate this? We have more children taking the SATs than 
have ever taken them before. All of these SAT math scores--for males 
and females--are following an upward trend.
  But, our work is far from over. In spite of this promising news, the 
results so far are not enough. Now is not the time to be complacent. We 
still have enormous problems. We have them in my State and in many of 
our largest cities. In so many of these areas, we have teachers, 
parents, communities, business leaders, and workers who are prepared to 
do something. In my city of Boston, we had a net day. We were 48th out 
of 50 States in terms of access to the Internet. We had net days around 
our State. Now we are tenth, and it was all done voluntarily.
  The IDEW in Boston laid 450 miles of cable and did it voluntarily. We 
had contributions from the software industries of tens of millions of 
dollars. Many helped the teachers in training programs. They were 
delighted to do it. They wanted to work on it. Things are happening. We 
are not saying we are the only solution, but what we are saying is 
let's find ways we can be supportive. We are not given that 
opportunity.
  Finally, I want to mention two other areas. One is on the issue of 
the Patients' Bill of Rights. It has been just over a year since the 
House passed good Patients' Bill of Rights legislation--the bipartisan 
Norwood-Dingell bill. The Senate passed another bill that failed to 
meet these requirements.
  I remind the American people, there is not a single medical 
organization that supports the Republican proposal. Not one. I have 
said that a dozen times. I have challenged the other side to come up 
with a single medical organization in this country that supports their 
proposal. There isn't any. Three hundred support ours. Every children's 
group, every women's group, every group representing the disabled, 
every medical group of every stripe has supported ours--North, South, 
East, and West. We still cannot get it. If the Republicans would let us 
vote on this again, we would have a majority of the Members of this 
body support the bipartisan proposal that passed the House of 
Representatives. The American people ought to know that the Senate 
leadership is keeping this bottled up.
  This chart shows the particular protections and where they came from. 
I am not going to take the Senate's time now to read all of them. If 
one is looking at where these protections came from, access to 
emergency care was recommended by the Committee on the Patient's 
Quality Commission, based of Democrats and Republicans. It was a 
unanimous recommendation. It is also from the insurance commissioners, 
the Association of Health Providers, plus it is already in Medicare. 
Every one of these protections has been out there one way or the other. 
We should be about the business of ensuring that the American people 
are going to get all the protections.
  I see my good friend from the State of Florida who is doing such an 
important service to the Senate in bringing a historic perspective to 
the importance of a prescription drug bill, and the emotional and day-
to-day reality that exists without these protections.
  We still have a chance to vote on these issues. We have two different 
proposals that are basically before us. The one that Senator Graham 
will introduce and support and that has broad support will ensure that 
individuals benefit from a prescription drug benefit program that lets 
doctors decide what is in their best interest. It can go into effect a 
year from now. That is enormously important.
  The proposal that has been recommended on the other side consists of 
block grants that go to the States, in which 28 million American 
seniors will not participate because they will not be eligible. We will 
also have to wait until the money is actually appropriated by the 
Congress to those States.
  States will need enabling legislation to provide those prescription 
drugs, and then sometime after 4 years, if there is a modernization 
program under Medicare, there can be a prescription drug benefit. If my 
colleagues want to take their chances and roll the dice, that is the 
way to go. If they want to have a dependable, reliable, stable, 
predictable benefit program, it should be under Medicare. The seniors 
understand that. They have confidence in it. They want it strengthened. 
We have a responsibility to do that. We can build on that program for a 
sound and effective future.
  I will be glad to yield the remaining time to the Senator from 
Florida.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The Senator from Massachusetts 
wanted to be notified when he had 15 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, it is my understanding there is an hour 
reserved under the control of Senator Thomas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. BENNETT. It is my understanding further, Mr. President, and I 
inform the Chair, that with Senator Thomas' permission, I am here to 
claim that time. Is there objection to my doing that?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. L. Chafee). Without objection, the Senator 
has the time.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Florida, I want 
to respond briefly to the comments of the Senator from Massachusetts 
and then perhaps respond to the Senator from Florida.
  The Senator from Massachusetts has touched a number of issues in this 
debate. I am not sure I can keep up with him in terms of the volume of 
subjects he has brought before us, but I will try to respond to some 
that I think need response.
  I will start with the H-1B issue, which is the issue with which he 
started. He told us at great length how much he supports the H-1B 
program and described the high-tech activity in Massachusetts, his home 
State, which is dependent on our doing something about the H-1B 
problem. He did not tell us that he was one of two Senators--and there 
were only two--in the committee who voted against reporting out the H-
1B visa bill about which we are talking. So it is clear his support is 
conditional on a number of things.
  He outlined those on the floor. And he is certainly entitled to his 
conditions and to his attitude with respect to them. But I will point 
out a few things with respect to H-1B which those Senators who are 
primarily responsible to the AFL-CIO, in their political lives, do not 
seem to talk about.
  We talk about jobs. The Senator from Massachusetts said: Many of the 
jobs for H-1B visas are filled by people who do not require very high 
academic standards, so those can be filled by Americans. We should only 
have the H-1B visas for people with master's degrees and doctorates. He 
talked about a screening program that would be set up by the Federal 
Government to determine, on the basis of academic credentials, who 
could get in and who could not get in on the H-1B system.

[[Page 18889]]

  I spent a good portion of my life in the private sector. I found that 
experience to be tremendously valuable to me when I came to the Senate. 
At one point in my young life, I fantasized about the possibility of 
coming here as a very young Senator, taking a seat maybe in my thirties 
or even forties. Now I am very glad that I did not do that because that 
would have meant I would have spent all of that time in the 
governmental orbit and not learning some very fundamental lessons in 
the private community.
  The first lesson I learned in the private community--and learned it 
again and again and again whenever the situation came up--was that the 
marketplace rules. I have said here before that if I could control what 
we carve in marble around here, along with the Latin phrases, which are 
inspiring and wonderful and historic, I would carve another slightly 
more practical phrase in marble, to keep it before us so we never 
forget it, and it would be: ``You cannot repeal the law of supply and 
demand.'' We try that every once in a while. We try to repeal the law 
of supply and demand with congressional mandates. This is what, 
frankly, the Senator from Massachusetts would be up to if he had his 
way on the H-1B visa issue.
  Why is there an H-1B visa issue? Because there is a gap between 
supply and demand. It is as simple as that. There is an enormous demand 
for certain kinds of jobs in this country. Currently it is running 
somewhere between 350,000 and 400,000. That is the demand. For whatever 
reason, the American educational system cannot supply the workers to 
fill that demand. There is a pool of skilled workers who can fill that 
demand worldwide, and that pool of supply will meet that level of 
demand. The only question is: Where?
  We held a high-tech summit in the Joint Economic Committee, of which 
the senior Senator from Massachusetts is a member. He came to that 
summit and heard the executives of the high-tech companies speak to us. 
I am not sure whether he was there when one particular statement was 
made, but it made a strong impression on my memory, and I would remind 
the Senator from Massachusetts, and others, of what one particular man 
said.
  He said: ``Senators, understand, this work''--he was referring to the 
demand--``will be done by these people''--referring to the supply. 
``The only question is, whether they will do it living in the United 
States or living abroad.''
  In today's high-tech world, in today's world of the Internet, the job 
can be sent electronically to the worker living in India, or Pakistan, 
or some other country; and the results of the work can be sent 
electronically back to the corporate headquarters in Silicon Valley, or 
Route 128 in Massachusetts, or Utah Valley, or Salt Lake Valley, or the 
Dulles Corridor, or any other high-tech center you might want to 
identify.
  I cannot understand why it is not recognized in this Chamber almost 
universally that it would be better for the United States to have 
highly skilled, highly motivated, immediately qualified individuals 
living in the United States, paying taxes in the United States, adding 
to the economic activity of the United States, while they do this work, 
instead of having them live abroad and paying their taxes and making 
their contributions to the economy of other countries.
  Yet the restrictions that would be put on H-1B visas, primarily at 
the behest of the AFL-CIO, would have the effect of saying, you can't 
do this work in the United States. And to have the Government screen 
those who can get H-1B visas on the basis of the Government's criteria 
of what constitutes the appropriate educational level, is to deny 
clearly the impact of the market.
  No one is going to hire someone on the basis of anything other than 
that person's ability to do the work. I do not want to say to Hewlett-
Packard or Intel or Novell, or any other high-tech company you can 
name: You can't hire this worker because we in the Government have 
decided that he does not have the appropriate educational credentials.
  I want Hewlett-Packard to make that decision. They might not make it 
right. But it is the shareholders of Hewlett-Packard who pay the price 
if they make a mistake. That is the way the entire American economy has 
been built from the very beginning, and that is the way it will 
flourish in the future.
  But no, we have from the Senator from Massachusetts an outline of the 
restrictions that the Government should put on the hiring practices of 
American companies. And we have from the Senator the statement that the 
Government should decide who is qualified to come in under an H-1B visa 
to fill one of these high-tech jobs.
  Whenever the Government gets involved in trying to change the law of 
supply and demand, you get one of two things--I said this yesterday 
when we were in the debate on the minimum wage; I repeat it today--
whenever the Government interferes with the law of supply and demand, 
you either get a shortage or you get a surplus.
  Let me expand on that a little. As I reread my remarks from 
yesterday, I was not as clear as I usually like to be.
  Right now, we have an example of the Government dictating how many 
foreign nationals can come in to work in the high-tech industry. They 
set the amount below that for which there is demand. What is the 
result? A shortage. Interfering with the law of supply and demand, the 
Government says, we will only allow this many, when, in fact, the 
requirement is for that many; and the result is we have a shortage of 
these workers.
  A flip side of this, where surpluses are created, is where the 
Government sets a price higher than the market would. If I can go back 
historically to a time that is impressive to the Western U.S., the 
Government said: We will buy silver at a set price for our coinage. 
They set the price of silver higher than the market price. What 
happened? Everybody went out to find any kind of silver in their 
mountains, or any sort of mining operation, and the Government acquired 
a huge surplus of silver. The price was set higher than the market 
would set and it created a surplus.
  In the case of skilled workers, the quantity is set lower than market 
demands, and we get a shortage.
  So once again, engraved in marble on the walls: ``You cannot repeal 
the law of supply and demand''--and recognize that every time you try, 
all you do is create either an artificial surplus or an artificial 
shortage.
  As I said, with respect to H-1B visas, the work will get done either 
in the United States or abroad; and it will get done by the same people 
either in the United States or abroad. The only question we have to ask 
ourselves is, Do we want the people who are doing this work, getting 
paid by American corporations, drawing salaries with which they support 
their families, to be living in the United States and spending those 
salaries in the United States, contributing to the tax base of the 
United States, adding to the economic benefits of the United States, or 
do we want them living abroad?
  Obviously, the American companies that seek to hire these individuals 
want them here because it is more efficient for them to be here. It 
would mean higher costs for them if they had to do the work abroad, but 
they will absorb those higher costs because they have to do the work. 
If they don't, America will lose its technological lead. America will 
lose its edge over the rest of the world, and we will see the 
technology world begin to disappear.
  We have recaptured it. There was a period of time when people said 
the future lies in Japan, that America's great day of technological 
advance is behind us, that the Japanese have taken over. I remember 
those debates. I remember those speeches. It is not true. There is no 
country in the world that is close to the United States in our 
technological edge.
  But to maintain that technological edge, not rest on our oars and 
coast into the future, we have to have a skilled workforce that can 
keep things moving forward. It is not available in this country. We 
have to let those companies hire on a worldwide basis so that the edge 
can be maintained here.

[[Page 18890]]

  People say, well, they are taking jobs from Americans. Again, Mr. 
President, the statistics are clear. There are 350,000 to 400,000 high-
tech jobs going begging right now because there are not people 
qualified to fill them. Companies are paying bounties to their 
employees who bring in a potential employee. In many companies in 
Silicon Valley, an existing employee will be paid thousands of dollars 
if he can introduce another prospective employee to his company who 
gets hired. Bounties are being paid to find people with these skills so 
that the companies can maintain their technological skills.
  It is not a matter of saying, well, there are Americans who will be 
shut out if the H-1B visa program passes. It is not a matter of saying 
there are American graduates from American universities who will be 
denied jobs if we let these other people in. No. It is a matter of jobs 
going begging, jobs that have to be performed if this country is to 
maintain its technological edge, people who are capable of filling 
those jobs being allowed to come into this country and perform them.
  Now there is one other aspect to this that I will highlight and 
discuss. That is the importance of maintaining America's edge. I have 
referred to it already, but I want to expand on it a little bit.
  It used to be that in the industrial age, when a company was 
established and momentum was created in the marketplace, you could 
expect the momentum of that company to carry it forward not only for 
years but probably for decades. In today's world, a technology company 
can disappear virtually overnight if somebody else gets the edge on 
them and produces something better quickly. The most important factor 
in today's economy is speed, the speed with which you get your product 
to market, the speed with which you move ahead of your competitor. That 
means, once again, qualified people. That means, once again, being able 
to fill those particular assignments.
  Now the Senator from Massachusetts says, well, what we really need to 
do is spend money increasing training. We look at the bills that are 
before the Appropriations Committee, and there is an enormous amount of 
money being spent to increase training in the United States to try to 
close this educational gap. I would be more than thrilled if we could 
say that there were already 400,000 American graduates from American 
universities ready to fill these jobs, that we don't need any visas for 
high-tech people abroad.
  One of the ironies of that, however, that applies to the H-1B visa 
issue, is this: a large percentage--indeed, in some universities it is 
close to 50 percent--of the high-tech graduates of these universities 
are foreign born. They hold foreign passports. We give them visas to 
come to this country to gain the best education that is available 
anywhere in the world in these high-tech skills. Then when they 
graduate, we say to them: Thank you very much; you cannot stay because 
we can't give you an H-1B visa.
  The American taxpayers--in the State of Utah, it is my State 
taxpayers--are subsidizing those universities. Why? Because we want the 
product that comes out of them in the form of qualified graduates. So 
we have ourselves in the interesting and ironic situation of saying, 
because we believe in education, we will appropriate money for higher 
education on both a Federal and State level; because we believe in 
education, we will do everything to make the American university system 
the very best in the world, which it is; and because we believe in 
opportunity, we will allow students from all over the world to come to 
these schools.
  But when they have been here and partaken of that tax subsidy and 
have obtained that education, we say to them: Now you can't work here. 
You have lived here for 4 years, 5 years, 6 years, with a graduate 
degree, maybe you have been here 7 or 8 years. You have become 
assimilated into American culture. You have become comfortable with 
hamburgers and pizza (which is more of an American food than it is 
Italian food, I have discovered). You feel comfortable in all of this. 
You are ready to find a job. You can't find a job in the hotbed of 
technological advancement, which is the United States of America. You 
have to go home. We won't give you an H-1B visa after we have 
subsidized your education at taxpayer expense.
  I have a hard time understanding how that makes any sense, that these 
students from our best universities, who have received the taxpayer 
subsidy giving them the best degrees, then have to leave because of the 
artificial barriers created by the attempt, once again, of Government 
to try to repeal the law of supply and demand.
  When we talk about Americans filling these jobs, talk about graduates 
of American universities filling these jobs, let us understand that 
many of those graduates are themselves the very people who will benefit 
from the H-1B visa program that is included in this bill.
  Now a few other comments, and then I will yield the floor.
  I was interested to hear the Senator from Massachusetts talk about 
the fact that there are jobs going begging in this good economy and how 
difficult it is for employers to fill jobs. He was speaking at this 
time not about the H-1B visa and the high-tech kind of jobs, he was 
speaking about very ordinary jobs. He was speaking on behalf, he said, 
of immigrants who he wanted to come in to fill these jobs. He said 
these jobs are going begging and we need to pass his particular bill in 
order to make it possible for these immigrants to take these jobs.
  I am not a member of the appropriate committee, so I cannot comment 
in detail on the bill he was pressing, but I would like to go back to 
our debate of yesterday when the senior Senator from Massachusetts was 
demanding that we raise the minimum wage. We have raised the minimum 
wage. We do that periodically. But he is demanding that we raise the 
minimum wage again.
  To me, there is an interesting gap between the rhetoric of yesterday 
that says these people cannot support themselves on their wage and the 
Government must interfere, once again, with market forces that set 
their wages, to push those wages up, and then the rhetoric of today 
that says there are a bunch of low-level jobs going unfilled.
  If the jobs are going unfilled, why is it? It is, once again, because 
there are not people qualified to take them. I told the Senate 
yesterday about the experience I have in my home State. When I talk to 
employers, they say their biggest problem is finding workers. They 
can't get anybody to fill the jobs.
  I ask them: Do you offer more than the minimum wage?
  The answer is always: Yes, we are offering more than the minimum 
wage.
  The problem is not that the Government hasn't mandated a high enough 
wage in order for these people who are just subsisting at minimum wage 
to get by; the problem is they do not have the skills that will allow 
them to return enough value to the employer so they can command the 
jobs that are open in this economy.
  The Senator from Massachusetts answered his rhetoric of yesterday 
with his rhetoric of today. I hope he can connect the two so that we 
can realize that the challenge for people who are living at poverty's 
edge, the working poor who are getting by on just the minimum wage, is 
not Government intervention to artificially demand that they be paid 
more and, thereby, in some cases, run the risk of being priced out of 
the market for the skills they have. The challenge is to see that their 
skills are improved. That is where training money should go. That is 
where many American corporations are spending their training money, and 
that is where the educational challenge becomes most obvious.
  American corporations are spending billions of dollars to teach 
employees how to read and write. That is correct--billions of dollars 
to teach basic skills that should have been learned in public schools 
and were not.
  Now we get to the next issue that the Senator from Massachusetts 
talked about in his presentation, which is education. I was lured back 
into public life by the issue of education. I was very happy being the 
CEO of a comfortable and profitable company.

[[Page 18891]]

  I got a phone call one day saying: Would you be willing to serve as a 
member of the strategic planning commission for the Utah State Board of 
Education and address our education issue?
  I said: Yes, that sounds like a proper kind of citizen thing to do.
  Then I got a phone call a few days later and they said: By the way, 
we want you to be the chairman of that commission.
  Thus, I found myself dragged in a little further and a little deeper 
than I had originally planned.
  I immersed myself in education issues and came out of that experience 
absolutely convinced of several things:
  No. 1, education is our No. 1 survival issue. Now that the Soviet 
Union is no more, nothing threatens the future of America, long term, 
so much as the educational challenge that we face. I am sure that the 
Senator from Massachusetts would agree with me on that.
  No. 2, nothing is more high bound and determined not to change than 
the educational institution in this country. And we have seen that in 
the debate on this floor. We have seen that in the educational 
initiatives that have been offered on this floor. The Republicans have 
brought forth proposal after proposal after proposal that would bring 
fresh air, new opportunities, new experimentation into the educational 
establishment. Some of them passed, some of them were filibustered. 
Those that were passed were vetoed. And always we were told the 
solution to education is to put more money into the present system.
  Now, there is a cliche that we have in the business world that says, 
``If you want to keep getting the result you are getting, keep doing 
what you are doing.'' If we want to continue the educational crisis and 
challenge that we have in this country, then we should keep funding 
education as we are funding it. But when the Senator from Washington 
proposes allowing 10 States to experiment--if they want to--with a 
greater degree of local control over Federal dollars, we are told: No, 
that threatens public education as we know it. We can't do that. That 
is risky, that is dangerous.
  We keep reminding our friends on the other side that if the State 
doesn't want to do that, they don't have to. We are not mandating this 
kind of change. We are just making it an opportunity. No, they 
filibuster against that. They say the President will veto that. They 
say we can't consider that.
  I am not one of those who thinks that a voucher program constitutes a 
silver bullet that is going to solve every educational problem. I know 
some on my side of the aisle do believe that. I don't; I think there 
are serious problems with vouchers. But I am willing to experiment with 
them to find out whether or not in certain circumstances vouchers can 
help. I am willing to try and get a little data. The data we have with 
respect to vouchers is quite encouraging--sufficiently encouraging that 
Robert Reich, a former Secretary of Labor in the Clinton 
administration, a man not known for his right-wing proclivities, wrote 
a piece in the Wall Street Journal that said that the data is in and 
vouchers work. I was stunned when I read that. I thought, gee, the 
experiment is over and we know that it works. He had a most 
interesting, most creative kind of further proposal to test the 
implication of vouchers.
  But, once again, we heard again and again: No, no, we can't 
experiment with that. It will threaten public education as we know it. 
And here are their key words, which test very well in a poll, and they 
work very well in a focus group: If you try the Republican experiment 
in education, you will drain money away from the public schools.
  There is an answer to Robert Reich in the Wall Street Journal 
recently, where Governor Hunt says: No, no, no; you can't do this 
because what you are doing is taking money away from the public 
schools.
  Well, Mr. President, as I say, I spent most of my life in the private 
sector. I think I understand money and the movement of money. This is 
the way I understand it. Let me walk through it and see if someone can 
help me realize how it takes money away from public schools to run one 
of these experiments.
  Let's say that a school district is spending $7,000 per year on a 
child. There are many public school districts in this country that 
spend more than that. We happen to spend less than that in Utah for a 
variety of reasons. We spend considerably more than that here in the 
District of Columbia.
  Let's take that as a number, for the sake of this illustration. The 
school district is spending $7,000 per child. Along comes a Republican 
opportunity to try something with that child, and we follow the Robert 
Reich formula that says this is only with low-income children. We will 
not subsidize a Member of Congress who wants to send his children to 
private schools, as many Members of Congress have done--as the Vice 
President has done. No, we won't subsidize them. We will say that only 
low-income people who otherwise could not even conceive of going 
anyplace else will be eligible for this program. That is Robert Reich's 
proposal. OK. Let's take $5,000 and say to this child: You can take 
$5,000 and go someplace else.
  As I say, in the private world where I have spent most of my time, 
$5,000 subtracted from $7,000 leaves $2,000. It seems to me that if you 
do that, you are saying to that school district you have an extra 
$2,000 per child for every child to whom you give a voucher, and you 
can use that $2,000 per child to spend on the children who stay. You 
can increase spending per child in the public school system if you 
adopt a voucher program such as the one Robert Reich has endorsed.
  I do not ever hear that when we hear the rhetoric about education. 
You are taking money away from the public school system. In the 
aggregate, yes; you probably are. But we don't teach in the aggregate. 
We fund and we teach per child. If you are going to make your 
calculation on the basis of the amount of money available per child, 
you want as many children on vouchers as you can possibly get because 
you are going to make an extra $2,000 for every two grand on every one 
of them. That extra $2,000 is available for the kids who stay in the 
public system.
  I would be very interested to have anyone on either side of the aisle 
explain to me why that math doesn't work. Explain to me why the reality 
of those numbers doesn't add up because they always add up every time I 
do the calculation. Every time I run through the examples, it always 
ends up being more money per student less in public education if you 
try one of these experiments.
  I repeat again that I do not believe that vouchers represent a silver 
bullet. I have spent enough time examining them that I think there are 
some serious problems with them. I think it needs to be checked and 
rechecked. We need to be very careful before we endorse any kind of 
massive movement towards vouchers as some of my fellow Republicans have 
done.
  But I ask those who do not even want to experiment: What are you 
afraid of finding? Are you afraid of finding that it might work? I am 
not afraid of finding that it fails. I am willing to admit that it was 
wrong, once we have some actual data. As I say, Robert Reich decided 
the data demonstrates that it works. The city of Milwaukee has been 
doing it longer than anyone else. They endorsed it and say it is 
working there. The driving force behind it was an inner-city black 
single mother named Polly Williams who serves as a liberal member of 
the Democratic State legislature. She says: The private system is 
failing my child. It is failing our children.
  Interestingly, when you do the polls, support for this kind of 
experimentation is perhaps highest in the minority community--not the 
white, middle-class soccer moms in the school districts where the 
schools do a pretty good job, but in the inner-city minority schools 
where the children are being left behind,
  Ultimately, this is the solution to the H-1B visa problem. It is 
fixing American education so that we have enough Americans to fill 
those 400,000 high-tech jobs. But it will not be done in the way that 
the Senator from Massachusetts wants to do it.

[[Page 18892]]

  I repeat: If you want to keep getting the results you are getting, 
keep doing what you are doing. That is basically what he has offered 
us--keep putting more and more money into the present system, and don't 
even think about experimenting with it. When the Republicans say, let's 
try giving more control to the local school board, we are told, No. 
That would threaten the present system. When the Republicans say, let's 
experiment in the District of Columbia with some vouchers and see what 
happens, we are told, No. That would threaten the present system.
  I believe we are trying to act responsibly with respect to the 
education situation. I am afraid there are some others who are trying 
to act politically and respond to the teachers union and other parts of 
the educational establishment for whom the only thing better than 
things the way they are is things the way they were. They don't want to 
try anything different. They don't want to experiment in the way the 
late Senator from Georgia tried--it was vetoed; the way the Senator 
from Washington tried, it was vetoed; the way Robert Reich suggested we 
try, and it was filibustered.
  I think we should say to the Senator from Massachusetts: What are you 
afraid of? What are you afraid of in terms of experimentation? Don't 
filibuster; don't tell the President to veto. Let us have some of this 
experience, and then we will see if we can't move in the direction 
which will give us the graduates from American universities who will 
fill the 400,000 high-tech jobs.
  One final comment: The Senator from Massachusetts talked at great 
length about problems with the INS and the problems with aliens here on 
an undocumented status who would like citizenship--that we must pass a 
law in order to solve their problems. Again, I am not a member of the 
committee, and I don't know the details of the law. I might very well 
end up in favor of it. But I would say this to the Senator from 
Massachusetts: If he makes a phone call to the White House, the chances 
are it will be returned more rapidly than if I do.
  I will share with him my experience as a Senator, which I think is 
not atypical. We spend more time in our offices in Utah dealing with 
INS problems than any other single issue. More people come in with 
heartrending stories about their difficulty in dealing with the INS.
  I have ridden along with the Salt Lake Police Department. They told 
me their No. 1 problem has to do with the INS and the way the INS 
handles undocumented aliens.
  In the city of Salt Lake, 80 percent of our drug arrests and 50 
percent of our murders are committed by undocumented aliens. They come 
across the border, go past the border States, and come into Utah where 
they think they are free from INS supervision because INS is located 
most heavily in the border States. And they have set up the drug turf 
wars. They control the drug traffic. They fight to protect their turf. 
The police tell me that 50 percent of the murders come from that.
  Interestingly, once the cocaine is gone--they bring it with them--
they will go back for more, and then come back again with another 
stash. Interestingly, the chief of police told me that for some reason 
there was a shortage of cocaine south of the border and that month all 
they had in Salt Lake was heroin. They brought a different drug with 
them, and they stayed until that shipment was gone. Then they went back 
and another group came--80 percent of the drug crimes; 50 percent of 
the murders.
  Naturally, I spend time with the INS trying to get their assistance 
to deal with this. My point is this: If the Senator from Massachusetts 
is concerned about INS problems, he is not alone. But the problems, it 
appears to me, lie with the administration of the INS in this 
administration rather than with the underlying legislation that deals 
with it.
  I was stunned to discover that there are people in my State who have 
been waiting for a green card so long that their 5-year visa 
opportunity will expire before they get it. And the answer as to why 
they are waiting so long has nothing to do with their qualifications 
but with the backlog that has been built up in the way the INS 
processes applications for green cards. We are not going to solve that 
problem by passing a visa piece of legislation that the Senator from 
Massachusetts wants.
  But I think if he made a phone call to the President, if he made a 
phone call to the Attorney General, and he started with the same fervor 
and volume and excitement that he demonstrates from time to time on the 
Senate floor to berate them about the way the INS is administered and 
managed, those who need intelligent handling by the INS in my State 
would start to get some relief. I don't think they will get relief with 
the passage of this legislation. But I think they can get relief if we 
can get the attention of the INS, and the managers, the bureaucrats, 
the political appointees--call them what you will--in the Clinton 
administration who have been handling this for the last 8 years.
  I am one who would vote for increased appropriations for the INS if I 
were confident the management of that agency were capable of handling 
it because I recognize the seriousness of the problem. I see day to 
day, from the people who come into my office, how wrenching it is in 
terms of their relationship with their families, but this is something 
the executive branch should get together first and foremost before they 
come to the legislative branch for the passing of a piece of 
legislation that makes everybody feel good.
  That is the best I can do on this short notice to respond to the 
issues the Senator from Massachusetts has raised. I enjoy the exchanges 
that seem to come about now as the Senator from Massachusetts, the 
Senator from Minnesota, the Senator from Illinois, and others 
repeatedly come to the floor to raise these issues. I and other 
Senators on this side will repeatedly come to the floor to respond. I 
am grateful to the Senator from Massachusetts for giving me the 
opportunity.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, my understanding is at this time the 
Senate will proceed with the matter before it relating to the Florida 
Everglades and the bill submitted by the distinguished chairman of the 
Environment and Public Works Committee; am I not correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. The pending business is an amendment submitted by the 
Senator from Virginia with my principal cosponsor, the Senator from 
Ohio; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment has not been recorded.


                           Amendment No. 4165

   (Purpose: To require payment by non-Federal interests of certain 
                    operation and maintenance costs)

  Mr. WARNER. I send the amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for himself, and 
     Mr. Voinovich and Mr. Inhofe, proposes an amendment numbered 
     4165.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 196, strike lines 1 through 7 and insert the 
     following:
       (4) Operation and maintenance.--The operation, maintenance, 
     repair, replacement, and rehabilitation of projects and 
     activities carried out under this section shall be consistent 
     with section 528(e)(3) of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1996 (110 Stat. 3770).

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the clerk. I asked the amendment 
be read because this is a technical amendment. It clearly strikes the 
provision which, if left, changes the law that the Congress and the 
executive branch have operated under for 14 consecutive years. It 
changes it for this project, and it establishes a precedent that every 
Member of Congress in the future will have to grasp as he or she 
advocates their next project in their State. I think that is ill 
advised.
  For 14 years, we have had a body of law that has served well 
regarding the most complicated and very expensive series of programs to 
take care of needed situations in our country--floods,

[[Page 18893]]

saving lives, navigation, promoting commerce. We can go on and describe 
these many projects that each year the Congress considers working with 
the Corps of Engineers and the executive branch to obtain.
  All of a sudden, we are going to quietly, with one short sentence, 
take off the law books the provision which has established that the 
States have the responsibility for operation and maintenance when these 
projects are completed with taxpayer money and some cost-sharing 
formula by the States. I think that is wrong. I see no justification.
  I support this project. I will vote for it. It is a very important 
part of America. Indeed, it is shared, although in Florida the benefits 
are shared by all Americans. I point out regarding the Chesapeake Bay, 
for years I have advocated, with some success, and with the help of 
many colleagues, the cleanup and the restoration of that great national 
asset. That has been in progress for a dozen years. Each year, we get a 
few million dollars to do it, just a few million here and there, to 
improve this magnificent estuary serving a number of States on the east 
coast.
  All of a sudden, we come along with the romance of the Everglades, 
and the administration has some idea--and I cannot find any 
justification clearly in the Record--and says do away with 14 years of 
practice and legislation that has been in effect by the Congress.
  I say to every Member voting, be prepared to go back home and explain 
to your constituents why they must continue to pay the full 100 percent 
O&M for their projects in the last 14 years, and all of a sudden 
Florida gets a cost sharing of 50-50. Be prepared to go back home and 
answer that question. My amendment simply restores, preserves, the law 
as it has been for 14 years.
  Very interestingly, in 1996 I, as I have for 14 years, served on the 
Environment and Public Works Committee. I happened to be subcommittee 
chairman when we considered the Florida Everglades and wrote the 
initial legislation to get this project underway. I am addressing the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1996, Public Law 104-303, October 
12, 1996. I refer to the following, 110 Stat. 3770:

       Operation and Maintenance.--The operation and maintenance 
     of projects carried out under this section shall be a non-
     Federal responsibility.

  So Congress, just 4 years ago, reiterated in this Everglades project 
that it shall be non-Federal for operations and maintenance.
  What is the mystery about this project that first induced the 
administration, then the Environment and Public Works Committee in 
reporting this bill out--what induced them to change the law which was 
very succinctly and expressly stated just 4 years ago, a law that had 
been in effect since 1986?
  I will vote for this. It is a good project. However, I succinctly 
say, let's adhere to the law that has served this Nation well. I 
guarantee no Member of this body or the other body can bring to the 
attention of their colleagues the need for something to be done in 
their State without having this same cost-sharing formula in the years 
to come.
  To do otherwise would be unfair to your constituents. So all I am 
trying to do is preserve equity and fairness--equity and fairness for 
what has been done in the past and what shall be done in the future.
  By requiring the States under the 1986 law, and as repeated under the 
1996 law, to bear the burden of operation and maintenance puts a burden 
on the States to examine the projects brought forth by the Members of 
Congress to determine is this worthy, in fact, of the support of the 
taxpayers of that State for the life of the project. It is a joint 
decision at that point.
  Now with the stroke of a pen in this statute we are requiring the 
Federal taxpayers to pay 50 percent of the lifetime of this enormous 
project. This is one big project.
  You say, Senator, what do you mean such a big project? Look at the 
budget. Just look at the budget of the Corps of Engineers for the past 
few years. It has averaged around $1.4 billion for the whole of 
America, for the 50 States--$1.4 billion. In this bill alone we are 
authorizing $1.1 billion for 10 of perhaps 50 to 60 projects of this 
one restoration of the Everglades.
  Let me repeat that: $1.1 billion for Florida, and that is 
construction costs. The O&M costs for these first 10 is estimated, 
total for these 10 projects, somewhere between $10 and $40 million a 
year. And as you look at the next 10 and the next 10 and the next 10 
and the next 10, to where you get to the 50 or 60 total projects for 
the restoration of the Everglades, that O&M figure becomes quite 
considerable. This project is going to suck the lifeblood out of 
projects all across America, not only in terms of the construction 
costs but, if the Congress were to adopt this, 50-50 cost sharing.
  Paul Revere called out, ``The British are coming.'' I call out: 
Folks, this is coming. I forewarn you. This is coming. You better go 
back home and talk to your constituents and say this one is going to be 
in competition with what I had planned this year and next year, or next 
year, for our State. Is the Congress ready to take the Corps of 
Engineers' budget averaging $1.4 billion and double it and triple it? 
If you look at the statistics, this budget of the Corps has been coming 
down through the years. Today, the Corps has insufficient funds to meet 
the requirements that existed prior to 1986.
  Let me point that out. Prior to 1986, we did have a cost sharing on 
O&M for projects. It is still the obligation of the Federal Government 
to live up to the O&M expenses for the project prior to 1986. Yet the 
Corps is short funds to meet its obligations under law prior to 1986. 
So I am anxious to hear from our distinguished chairman, a very valued 
and dear friend of mine of many years.
  I see both the distinguished Senators from Florida are going to 
participate at some point in this debate. I just come back to something 
very simple. What is it about the mystique and the romance of the 
Florida Everglades that justifies changing a body of law that has 
served this Nation well for some 14 years, and that was specifically 
reiterated and put into law in 1996 when we addressed the first, very 
first pillars, the foundation for the Everglades project which we 
address here today?
  Mr. President, I would like to return to this subject, but I know my 
colleague from Ohio, who is joining with me on this, and my 
distinguished colleague from Oklahoma--both of whom serve on the 
Environment and Public Works Committee--are desirous of speaking to 
this issue. For the moment, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Warner amendment. 
In my dissenting view on S. 2797, the ``Restoring the Everglades, An 
American Legacy Act,'' I outlined my concerns with this legislation. I 
would like to submit my dissenting view for the Record.
  While I recognize the Everglades as a national treasure, S. 2797 sets 
precedents, which I cannot, in good conscience, condone.
  I would also like to reiterate my objection to the marriage of the 
Everglades and WRDA legislation. I know many advocates of this plan 
argue that the Everglades should be a part of WRDA 2000. However, the 
Everglades plan is hardly a typical WRDA project. Because of the scale 
and departure from existing law and policy of the Everglades 
legislation, it should be considered as a stand alone bill--not a 
provision in the Water Resources Development Act of 2000. This is a 
precedent setting bill. With other plans of this nature in the works, 
the Everglades will be a model for how we handle these enormous 
ecological restoration projects in the future. We are entering new and, 
in my opinion, dangerous territory.
  No. 1. This legislation violates the committee policy concerning the 
need for a Chief of the Army Corps of Engineer's report before project 
authorization. This legislation authorizes 10 projects at a cost of 
$1.1 billion with no reports of the Chief of Engineers on these 
projects. Since 1986, it has been the policy of the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works to require projects to have undergone full 
and

[[Page 18894]]

final engineering, economic and environmental review by the Chief of 
Engineers prior to project approvals by the committee. This process was 
established to protect taxpayer dollars by ensuring the soundness of 
all projects. While I understand that, under this legislation, no 
appropriation can be made until a ``Project Implementation Report'' is 
submitted by the Corps, this legislation is still breaking committee 
policy--it is authorizing projects without a Chief's report.
  No. 2. Everglades restoration is based on unproven technology. I have 
serious concerns about the wisdom of a federal investment in unproven 
technologies--particularly a $7.8 billion investment. The project 
approval process, described above, was established to prevent exactly 
what is happening with this legislation--a gamble with the American 
taxpayers' money.
  No. 3. The open-ended nature of costs of this project. The total cost 
of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan is estimated at $7.8 
billion over 38 years. This is the current estimate. I have serious 
concerns about this potential for cost over runs associated with this 
project. GAO agrees with me. In a report--released today--GAO stated, 
``Currently, there are too many uncertainties to estimate the number 
and costs of the Corps projects that will ultimately be needed . . .'' 
As with almost all federal programs, this project will probably cost 
much more at the end of the day. For example, in 1967, when the 
Medicare program was passed by Congress, the program was estimated to 
cost $3.4 billion. In 2000, the costs of the program are estimated to 
$232 billion. No one could have foreseen this exponential growth! The 
future cost of projects of this magnitude must be taken into 
consideration by Congress before we pass legislation. Once projects 
like these get major investments, they are funded until the end--no 
matter what the cost. There should be a cost cap on the entire 
Everglades project--not just on portions.
  No. 4. This legislation sets a new precedent which requires the 
federal government to pay for a major portion of operations and 
maintenance costs. The Warner amendment will remedy this problem.
  Since 1986, water resource projects, including environmental, 
navigation, flood control, and hurricane restoration are financed 
partially by the federal government and partially by the local and 
state governments. And all of the costs of operations and maintenance 
of the projects has been the non-federal entities--usually state or 
local governments responsibility. We should not forget that this 
critical cost-share policy was a key factor in breaking a 16 year 
stalemate on water resources development authorization legislation.
  This Everglades legislation splits the cost of operations and 
maintenance of the Everglades--\1/2\ to the federal government and \1/
2\ to the State of Florida. The O&M expenditures for these prematurely 
authorized projects is expected to cost $20 million, and, according the 
Corp, when the Everglades project is completed, O&M costs are projected 
to be in excess of $170 million a year.
  At the end of FY 2000, there will be a $1.6 billion backlog of 
federal O&M costs nationwide of which $329 million is considered 
``critical'' because, if O&M is not performed on these facilities, they 
will not be able to maintain current performance. In the Tulsa 
district, which includes Oklahoma, there is a $80 million backlog in 
O&M. The $170 million needed for O&M of the Everglades--which is almost 
half of the this year's critical backlog--will drain resources--
creating a larger backlog around the rest of the nation. How can we 
fund local O&M expenses when we can't fund federal O&M expenses.
  States and localities have enormous backlogs of operations and 
maintenance costs due to lack of funding. The precedent, which the 
Everglades legislation sets, could open a pandora's box--having the 
Federal Government take on expenses for the operations and maintenance 
of many projects. There are a number of Oklahoma projects that could 
use federal funds for operations and maintenance costs. My hometown of 
Tulsa pays in excess of $3 million a year in O&M costs.
  The Everglades legislation is also unfair because the Corps will be 
conducting annual inspections on all flood control projects turned over 
to the local sponsors for 100 percent O&M. Though they try very hard, 
many localities, which cannot afford O&M costs, will not be able to 
keep their projects properly maintained. When it comes time for more 
Federal projects, they will not be favorably looked upon. the Federal 
Government will say, well, if the local sponsor cannot afford the 
current cost-share agreement, how could they afford a new one--even if 
the community desperately needs the new project. How can the Federal 
Government fund Florida's Everglades O&M bill; while other community's 
projects are denied because they can not afford proper O&M and we will 
not help them? How is this fair?
  Again, I recognize the Everglades as a national treasure--as I do 
many treasures in Oklahoma. As Congress considers the Everglades 
restoration legislation, all I ask is that Congress play by the rules.
  Mr. President, to reiterate, I commend the Senator from Virginia for 
bringing to our attention what is happening here. I am concerned. This 
is a major piece of legislation. As I said yesterday in committee, it 
would be my preference not to have it as part of the water bill but to 
have it as a stand-alone bill. Because of the size, the magnitude, and 
nature of it, it should be. It is true what Senator Warner has said 
about how this violates both the letter and the intent of what we 
decided in 1986. I remember when it happened. But it is not just in 
this area. Let me mention briefly three other areas where we are having 
the same problem.
  First of all, this legislation violates the committee policy 
concerning the need for the Chief of the Army Corps of Engineer's 
report before project authorization. This was decided back in 1986. To 
my knowledge--and I had my staff research this--we have not gone 
forward with any other projects that have not had a recommendation and 
a report completed by the Chief of the Corps of Engineers.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I checked that 
out. This is part of the statement I am putting in the Record. Clearly, 
it was not done. That is a second area where it is deviating from the 
longstanding practice of the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. INHOFE. I can see what is going to happen after this because 
every time something comes up they are going to say: Wait a minute, you 
didn't require it then. They are overworked. So why should we require 
it now?
  We have two right now in the State of Oklahoma, in my State, awaiting 
those reports.
  The second thing is the unproven technology. If you go back to 1986, 
repeated again in 1996, we said we will only use proven technology when 
these projects are authorized. Admittedly, during the committee meeting 
they said--in fact even the chairman of the committee said--we know a 
lot of this technology is not proven.
  The third thing is it is open ended. I want to mention we are talking 
about $7.8 billion over 38 years. Yesterday, the GAO came out, and 
after pressing on this, said it could be higher. How much higher? It 
could be as high as $14 billion. I am old enough to remember--I think 
there are a couple of us in this Chamber who might remember, too--back 
in 1967 when we started out on the Medicare program. They said at that 
time it was going to cost $3.4 billion. I suggest to you this year it 
is $232 billion. I do not like these open-ended things. They say we are 
only talking about the first year. Once you start, you are committed.
  The last thing, of course, is what this amendment addresses. I 
believe very strongly that when we open up the O&M accounts, the 
operation and maintenance costs will be borne by the Federal 
Government. It is not just going to be that on future projects that 
come up we will say we don't have to worry about O&M accounts because 
50 percent of it can be provided by the Federal Government; there is 
now a precedent for it. Not only that, I can see right now coming back 
on existing

[[Page 18895]]

projects and saying: Look, we are undergoing that as a State expense. 
Why should we do that when we are not doing it for this particular 
project?
  I think the amendment is very good, but I think the amendment should 
be broadened to cover these other violations of both the intent and 
letter of the 1986 law.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, before the Senator yields the floor--we 
served on the Environment Committee for 14 years--I have to bring to 
the attention of the Senate another project. It is called the Central 
Artery in Boston. There are those who affectionately refer to it as 
``the big ditch'' which our late, highly respected and beloved Speaker 
of the House, Tip O'Neill, initiated. I went back and checked the 
record, I say to my friend from Oklahoma. I bear some of the 
responsibility because I was on this committee at this time.
  The first estimate for the big ditch was $1 billion. It is still 
unfinished. We have expended about $7 or $8 billion and the GAO 
estimate to finish it is $13.5 billion, underlining the importance of 
getting that chief engineer's report, which has been the law and the 
precedent of our committee for these many years. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise to support the Warner-Voinovich-
Inhofe amendment regarding operation and maintenance of the 
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan.
  I join my colleagues in rejecting the current language contained in 
the legislation which unfairly grants the State of Florida a 50-percent 
non-Federal and 50-percent Federal cost share on the operation and 
maintenance of the Everglades project. I note this is even more 
generous than the administration's bill which provided for a 40-percent 
Federal share.
  This amendment is an issue of equity among all of the 50 States, 
where, to date, operation and maintenance has been a State and local 
responsibility. I remind my colleagues that the recommendation of the 
Chief of Engineers was that the operation and maintenance of the 
Everglades restoration project be 100-percent non-Federal, consistent 
with WRDA 1986 and national policy, as pointed out by my colleague from 
Virginia.
  The annual operation and maintenance costs for the construction 
features of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan currently 
contained in S. 2796 are $172 million per year.
  These operation and maintenance costs would be shared on a 50-50 
basis, which means the Federal share of these costs would be almost $90 
million. The current operation and maintenance appropriation nationally 
is about $1.8 billion. This means the Everglades operation and 
maintenance responsibility of the Corps could represent 5 percent of 
the total current national appropriation for operation and maintenance.
  The stark reality is that the Corps of Engineers is in no position to 
assume a large additional maintenance burden. By 2001, the Corps will 
have a backlog of critical maintenance nationwide of $450 million.
  Chart 1, which I have before the Senate, shows a breakdown of that 
backlog by project purposes. As my colleagues will note, 61 percent of 
the maintenance backlog is in navigation, both inland navigation on our 
rivers and maintenance dredging of our coastal harbors. The Corps is 
not meeting its critical needs today for the infrastructure we depend 
on for our increasingly trade-based economy.
  My colleagues should realize these unmet needs are in each of our 
States, not only in Florida but throughout the United States. Further, 
my colleagues can also see that maintenance of the flood control 
projects that are essential in protecting lives and property makes up a 
significant part of the backlog at 18 percent.
  Finally, I want to highlight recreation which is especially important 
to my colleagues from the West. The Corps is second among Federal 
agencies in recreation visitation to the land and water resources it 
manages. Many people associate the Corps with its lake projects, and 
yet the Corps does not have the resources it needs to meet its 
maintenance responsibilities at these projects.
  This next chart shows the maintenance shortfall by State as a 
percentage of the maintenance backlog. As one can see, California has 
the largest, followed by Florida and Louisiana. It is ironic to me that 
Florida is among the States already most severely impacted by the 
maintenance backlog whose situation is likely to become much more 
severe if the Corps takes on a larger portion of the operation and 
maintenance responsibility for the Everglades. I ask my colleague, 
Senator Graham, how do you believe the Corps will be able to meet the 
maintenance needs in Florida, such as dredging its harbors, maintaining 
its waterways, and operating portions of the central and south Florida 
project while taking on this additional $90-million-a-year maintenance 
burden?
  This last chart I have before the Senate shows a few examples of 
maintenance needs that are not being addressed in some of the other 49 
States.
  The reason I bring these charts to my colleagues' attention is that 
this maintenance problem is not in a few States; it goes across the 
United States of America. Every Senator in some way is impacted because 
we do not have enough money for paying for the operation and 
maintenance on these projects.
  Operation and maintenance activities to accommodate the large influx 
of recreation visitors to Corps projects along the route of the Lewis 
and Clark exploration during its bicentennial celebration is 
underfunded. It deals with the Missouri River basin--the Dakotas, 
Montana, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska.
  How about the dredging in New York Harbor? That needs to be done.
  How about seismic studies on projects throughout the New England 
States which are not able to be done because we do not have enough 
money?
  How about recreation facilities in Oklahoma or flood protection in 
North and South Dakota?
  The point is, it is not a Florida issue. Adding to a maintenance 
burden that the Corps already cannot meet will impact all of us who 
have Corps-managed resources in our States.
  This is a matter of equity. The Senator from Virginia has spoken to 
that eloquently. We had it right in WRDA 1986. The operation and 
maintenance responsibility for new Corps of Engineers investments must 
rest with the non-Federal sponsors. We cannot afford at this time to 
deviate from principle.
  This is my first term in the Senate, but I have been here long enough 
to know that if we begin to make exceptions, there will be no end to 
it. We must stick to our principles, and that is why I am asking my 
colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield for a moment? I want to clarify, 
the charts of the Senator from Ohio are pre-1986 projects done by the 
Corps.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Yes.
  Mr. WARNER. That is the point. In other words, all of that magnitude 
of money, which was a $451 million shortfall last fiscal year, is for 
projects done prior to 1986. Since 1986, the States have paid for it 
and that is existing law. If you fail to maintain a project, a dam or a 
waterway, what happens? It deteriorates. The cement crumbles, the silt 
fills in, and it begins to degrade and begins to impact the safety of 
the citizens who rely on those projects for protection or navigation.
  This is a very serious program my distinguished colleague brings to 
the attention of the Senate, and I am so glad that the Senator clearly 
reiterated my message: It is not a Florida situation; it is all 50 
States.
  When my colleagues vote, bear in mind how that vote affects this year 
and for years to come your State projects.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from New 
Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I yield such time as he may consume to 
the distinguished Senator from Florida, Mr. Graham.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.

[[Page 18896]]


  Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I thank my colleague 
and chairman of Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, who 
has given outstanding leadership to this entire legislation, the Water 
Resources Development Act of 2000, and has been a particularly 
thoughtful student of the Everglades restoration.
  I rise in strong opposition to the amendment proposed by my colleague 
from Virginia. To put what we are about in some context, we are talking 
about a unique partnership between a State and the Federal Government 
for the protection of one of the world's treasures. The Florida 
Everglades has been designated by the United Nations as a world 
heritage site, one of the few places on the planet that has been 
designated such because of its unique features, features that have a 
global importance.
  Everglades National Park, which is just a small portion of the 
overall Everglades system, is the second largest national park in the 
continental United States. This restoration program will be the most 
significant and the most expensive environmental restoration project 
ever attempted anywhere in the world.
  This is going to be a world laboratory for how we will restore 
damaged environmental systems, both within the United States and 
elsewhere on the globe.
  This has been a bipartisan effort. It has been an effort that has now 
been underway for the better part of three decades --bipartisan in the 
sense that it has been supported by Republican Presidents and 
Governors, Congresses, and State legislatures; and Democratic 
Presidents, Governors, Congresses, and State legislatures.
  It is a proposal that is much in the nature of a marriage. It is a 
relationship in which both partners must respect each other, pledge to 
work through their challenges together, and, thus, build a strong and 
sustaining relationship.
  The legislation before us today offers a balance between the partners 
of that marriage. It requires the State to pay 50 percent of the 
construction cost of this project. It requires the State to pay 50 
percent of the $7.8 billion, which is the estimated cost of 
construction of this project over the next 30 to 40 years.
  It requires the Federal Government to pay 50 percent of the operation 
and maintenance costs of the project as it is completed.
  Cost sharing for operation and maintenance represents a responsible 
action by the Federal Government to protect the Federal taxpayers' 
investment in the restoration of the Everglades.
  Why is this a responsible action? It is a responsible action and is 
also a recognition of a reality which differentiates this project from 
other Federal public works projects; that the major beneficiary of this 
project is the natural system, and the natural system is owned in large 
part by the Federal Government.
  To repeat, the principal beneficiary of this project will be enormous 
Federal land tracts in the affected area. Thus, the Federal Government 
has an ongoing interest; and we suggest, as does the committee of 
jurisdiction, the administration, and the State of Florida, that that 
large Federal investment and responsibility warrants an ongoing 
Federal-State shared role in the operation and maintenance of the 
project once it is completed.
  Some of the projects that are in this plan, such as the wastewater 
reuse projects, which have some of the highest estimated cost of 
operation and maintenance, are included primarily for the benefit of 
Biscayne National Park, Florida Bay, a significant part of Everglades 
National Park, and the National Marine Sanctuary. The perspective that 
I share is not mine alone or not parochially Florida's alone.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two letters on this topic 
be printed in the Record immediately following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. GRAHAM. The first letter is signed by a broad coalition of 
national environmental groups, including the National Audubon Society, 
the National Parks Conservation Association, the Natural Resources 
Defense Council, the Sierra Club, the World Wildlife Fund, as well as 
environmental groups within Florida.
  This letter states:

       In addition, approval of the [Warner] amendment would . . . 
     severely jeopardize the likelihood of enacting Everglades 
     Restoration legislation this year. . . .

  The second letter is from a broad coalition of agricultural and 
industrial representatives. It states:

       The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan is primarily 
     a plan to restore and protect Federal properties.

  It also states:

       The coalition of Florida agriculture, water utilities, and 
     homebuilders is convinced that without Federal participation 
     in the costs of operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, 
     and rehabilitation activities associated with the 
     Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Everglades 
     restoration will never be implemented.

  My colleague, Senator Mack, will soon be inserting into the Record a 
letter from Florida's Governor, Jeb Bush, which will state, in part:

       Not only is this partnership formula fiscally and 
     politically prudent, it is also critical to maintaining the 
     diverse and broad-based support that the bill before you has 
     earned.

  Mr. President, you and others in this body may ask why there is near 
unanimous agreement that operation and maintenance costs must be a 
shared cost of this project. What is it that differentiates this 
project from other public works projects?
  Let me suggest the following. First, to quote from the bill itself:

       The overarching objective of the Comprehensive Everglades 
     Restoration Plan is the restoration, preservation, and 
     protection of the South Florida ecosystem while providing for 
     other water-related needs of the region.

  Let me read a portion of that again:

       The overarching objective of the Comprehensive Everglades 
     Restoration Plan is the restoration, preservation, and 
     protection of the South Florida ecosystem. . . .

  What is that system that we are about to protect and preserve? It is 
essentially a Federal system.
  First, it is an enormous marine sanctuary that runs from the lower 
part of the Florida peninsula to some 150 miles to the Dry Tortugas, an 
area with the only living corral reef area in the continental United 
States.
  It is also four units of the National Park System: The Everglades 
National Park, which I indicated earlier is the second largest national 
park in the continental United States; Biscayne National Park; the Dry 
Tortugas National Park; and the Big Cypress Natural Preserve. Those 
great Federal ownership areas are going to be primary beneficiaries of 
the restoration of the Everglades; finally, 16 national wildlife 
refuges in the area that will be affected by the Everglades 
restoration, from those at the upper edges of the Everglades system to 
those throughout the Florida Keys.
  Once constructed, this project will be operating, in large part, for 
the benefit of the natural system, which is in Federal ownership.
  As the primary beneficiary of this project, the Federal Government 
should have a continued interest and financial role in seeing that its 
goals are achieved through appropriate implementation.
  Once the Federal Government is a full and equal partner in the cost 
of operating this project, it will also be able to assure that the 
project continues to be operated for the benefit of the natural system 
in Federal ownership.
  Without this participation in operation and maintenance, the Federal 
Government would be, in effect, abdicating its responsibility to the 
American taxpayers to protect the investment which they are going to 
make in restoration of the Everglades, which they have already made in 
the acquisition of these enormous Federal interests.
  Another important fact, in reviewing Senator Warner's proposal, is 
the cost-sharing for the Everglades restoration project. I did not hear 
this very significant fact mentioned by any of the three previous 
speakers.
  The traditional Federal public works project is financed 65 percent 
by the

[[Page 18897]]

Federal Government, 35 percent by the local sponsor, whoever that might 
be.
  There are several and significant environmental and ecosystem 
restoration projects which contain that very cost sharing in the bill 
that we have before us, the Water Resources Development Act of 2000.
  I draw your attention to page 118, line 7: A project for 
environmental restoration at Upper Newport Bay Harbor in California; 
65-percent Federal, 35-percent local sponsor.
  On page 121, line 23, there is a project for ecosystem restoration at 
Wolf River in Memphis, TN; 65-percent Federal, 35-percent local 
sponsor.
  On page 122, line 3, there is a project for environmental restoration 
at Jackson Hole, WY, 65-percent Federal, 35-percent local sponsor.
  I point out these examples in this very bill that is before us today, 
not because they are unusual but because in fact they are the norm. 
Sixty-five percent is the normal share that the Federal Government pays 
for a project in the Water Resources Development Act.
  But for this project, one of the largest projects of its type in our 
Nation's history, the State of Florida is paying 50 percent--not 35 
percent, but 50 percent--of the cost of construction.
  To my knowledge--and I ask the proponents of this amendment if they 
have information to the contrary--I know of no other local sponsor for 
an environmental restoration project who is paying 50 percent of the 
cost of the project.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if the Senator would yield, I would be 
happy to reply.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I am glad to yield.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, my amendment goes to the operation and 
maintenance, which from 1986 on was 100-percent State responsibility. 
That is the amendment. The Senator, of course, quite properly is 
addressing, by way of background, the construction. And there are 
various formulas for cost sharing on construction. But he points out 
that they are paying 50 percent versus the 35 percent on the 
construction allocation of the State. But in fairness, the reason they 
are paying the higher is that there are some other than environmental 
projects here. This whole thing goes from Orlando to the tip of 
Florida. This is enormous. This is over half the State's length; is 
that correct?
  Mr. GRAHAM. That happens to be the size of the Everglades system. 
This project encompasses the Everglades system, an integrated 
environmental system, the totality of which creates the environments 
that sustain all of these great Federal investments.
  Mr. WARNER. I am trying to draw some parallel for the average Member 
of Congress who deals with a dam or a waterway which is in a small 
portion, relatively speaking, of his or her State. This covers over 
half the State; isn't that correct?
  Mr. GRAHAM. No.
  Mr. WARNER. All right. What percentage, from Orlando to the tip?
  Mr. GRAHAM. From Orlando to the tip of Florida would be approximately 
35 to 40 percent.
  Mr. WARNER. Thirty-five to forty. I was off 10 percent. I say to my 
good friend, the reason you go to 50 percent and not 35 is you are 
covering non-Federal and part of municipal water supplies. There are a 
whole lot of municipal water supplies that are benefited.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would appreciate the opportunity to 
complete my remarks, and then I would like to respond specifically to 
the statement relative to the nature of the projects, the Federal 
purposes that they will play, and the appropriateness of the overall 
arrangement of a 50-percent State share in construction and then a 50-
percent Federal share in operation and maintenance.
  Mr. WARNER. Certainly, I did not wish to invade. But the Senator 
invited questions: Does any other Senator know of projects other than 
35 percent? I am pointing out, yes, because he is including a lot of 
municipal water supply, treatment plants for runoff water, and a lot of 
other things that most States pay for back home.
  I thank the Senator.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I will return to discuss the specific issue of municipal 
water. Let me complete the arithmetic of the analysis I was doing.
  On an annual basis, the difference between the State of Florida 
contributing 50 percent as opposed to the norm of 35 percent is 
approximately a $35-million-a-year savings during the construction 
period of this project, some 30 to 40 years, for the Federal 
Government. If the Federal Government were to take that $35-million-a-
year savings and invest it, even at a conservative rate of interest of 
5 percent, over the period of this project, that would produce a total 
of approximately $1.8 billion. That is the savings plus the interest 
earned on those savings to the Federal Government. That $1.8 billion 
would pay the cost of operation and maintenance of this project to 
approximately the year 2050.
  We are, for the first half century of the 21st century, going to be 
saving the Federal Government an enormous amount of money by the State 
paying at the rate of 50 percent rather than 35 percent, and those 
funds will go substantially towards meeting these ongoing operation and 
maintenance costs that the Federal Government will share on a 50-50 
basis.
  The amendment Senator Warner has offered fails to recognize any of 
these distinct characteristics, the nature of the Federal interest to 
be protected, the continuing interest of the Federal Government in how 
its capital investment is implemented, and, finally, the fact that 
because of a much more generous and forthcoming State share of the 
construction cost, the Federal Government is saved substantial funds.
  The Senator from Virginia raised the question that there are other 
projects. He specifically talked about wastewater projects. There are 
no wastewater projects in here. There are wastewater reuse projects 
which are one of the areas being done precisely to protect Federal 
interests. They are not wastewater systems that are going to be serving 
a local municipality. They are wastewater systems to purify the water 
before it goes into the Biscayne Bay National Park and before it goes 
into the Florida Bay component of the Everglades National Park or 
before it goes into the National Marine Sanctuary in the Florida Keys.
  This is not a wastewater treatment system that a municipality would 
have. These are systems to protect the quality of water in order to 
protect the quality of the Federal investment. As I said earlier, these 
are some of the most expensive of the operation and maintenance costs 
this project will generate.
  The amendment fails to reflect the fact that this is a marriage, a 
marriage between the State and Federal Government, and that that 
marriage is necessary to assure the plan's success, a true union where 
each partner respects the other and makes a commitment as equals. 
Everglades restoration won't work unless the executive branch, 
Congress, and the State government move forward hand in hand.
  We are about to make one of the most important decisions that this 
Congress will make. Obviously, it is a project that has enormous 
personal interest to me because of my personal long association with 
the Everglades and my deep appreciation of the qualities it represents. 
But this will be an opportunity for the Congress to commit itself to 
one of the great ventures in terms of environmental restoration and 
protection in our Nation's history. It is a project that I suggest 
Members of Congress will look back upon later in their lives and 
careers with pride that they were part of this effort.
  It is a project in which we are asking that there be a long-term 
commitment with the State of Florida. On the concerns that were 
expressed about the possibility that additional changes might be called 
for, or additional costs incurred, I underscore, every one of those 
costs is going to be shared on a 50-50 basis. So we have a partner in 
this project who is going to be just as concerned about achieving the 
result and doing so in the most cost-effective way as we share those 
concerns.
  So this is legislation which is truly historic. It is legislation 
which will lead us down the path toward Everglades restoration--a goal 
which our

[[Page 18898]]

Nation has shared for many decades, a goal in which we can play an 
important role today in seeing that it becomes reality.
  Thank you, Mr. President.

                             Exhibit No. 1

         1000 Friends of Florida, Audubon of Florida, Center for 
           Marine Conservation, The Everglades Foundation, The 
           Everglades Trust, National Audubon Society, National 
           Parks Conservation Association, Natural Resource 
           Defense Council, Sierra Club, World Wildlife Fund,
                                               September 19, 2000.
     Hon. Bob Smith,
     Chairman, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, 
         Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Max Baucus,
     Ranking Member, Senate Environment and Public Works 
         Committee, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Senator Smith and Senator Baucus: We are writing to 
     express our opposition to the Voinovich amendment to H.R. 
     2796, the Water Resources Development Act of 2000, that would 
     eliminate the state-federal operations and maintenance (O&M) 
     cost share for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan 
     (CERP).
       S. 2796 presently provides a 50-50 cost share between the 
     State and Federal government. The Voinovich amendment would 
     make the State of Florida pay the entire cost. The Voinovich 
     amendment ignores the fact that this is no ordinary water 
     project because the taxpayer is a primary beneficiary of the 
     project.
       Within the project area there is a unique and compelling 
     federal interest that justifies a 50-50 state/federal cost 
     share for operations and maintenance. The project area 
     includes four National Parks, 16 National Wildlife Refuges, 
     and one National Marine Sanctuary that comprise five million 
     acres of federally owned and managed lands--50% of the 
     remaining Everglades.
       In addition, approval of the Voinovich amendment would 
     likely yield two results; both of which would severely 
     jeopardize the likelihood of enacting Everglades Restoration 
     legislation this year: First, the State could withdraw its 
     support for the bill leaving this a project without a non-
     federal sponsor. Or, the State could seek new modifications 
     to reflect the diminished federal commitment to restoration 
     of America's Everglades, a move that would send the 
     Everglades back to the drawing board with no time left on the 
     clock.
       Therefore, we respectfully request that you vote against 
     the Voinovich Everglades cost share amendment to S. 2796.
       Thank you for your consideration of our views.
           Sincerely,
       Nathaniel Reed, Chairman, 1000 Friends of Florida.
       David Guggenheim, Vice President for Conservation Policy, 
     Center for Marine Conservation.
       Tom Rumberger, Chairman, The Everglades Trust.
       Mary Munson, Director, South Florida Programs, National 
     Parks Conservation Association.
       Frank Jackalone, Senior Field Representative, Sierra Club.
       Stuart Strahl, Ph.D., Executive Director, Audubon of 
     Florida.
       Mary Barley, Chair, The Everglades Foundation.
       Tom Adams, Director of Government Affairs, National Audubon 
     Society.
       Bradford H. Sewell, Senior Project Attorney, Natural 
     Resources Defense Council.
       Shannon Estenoz, Director, South Florida/Everglades 
     program, World Wildlife Fund.
                                  ____



                               Dawson Associates Incorporated,

                               Washington, DC, September 19, 2000.
     Senator Bob Smith,
     Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, Dirksen 
         Senate Office Bldg., Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Smith: The coalition of Florida agriculture, 
     water utilities, and homebuilders is convinced that without 
     Federal participation in the costs of operation, maintenance, 
     repair, replacement, and rehabilitation activities associated 
     with the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), 
     Everglades restoration will never be implemented. Governor 
     Bush's Commission for the Everglades has taken the position 
     that if the Federal government is to be a full and equal 
     partner in restoration, it should share in all of the 
     associated costs. Furthermore, it is certain that the Florida 
     Legislature will not supply the level of funding needed to 
     construct this plan if they are going to have to pay the full 
     cost of operation over the life of the project.
       The CERP is primarily a plan to restore and protect Federal 
     properties, and the development of the plan has been 
     dominated by the federal agencies, especially the Department 
     of Interior. The restoration of a unique ecological system of 
     world significance dramatically and fundamentally 
     distinguishes the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan from 
     those of other Army Civil Works projects.
       Furthermore, the Army Corps of Engineers indicated to 
     stakeholders throughout the planning process that it would 
     seek cost sharing for all modifications over their life 
     cycle. This commitment eliminated the biases in project 
     decision-making that result when all costs are not treated in 
     the same way. Affirming this commitment in the authorization 
     will ensure that project design decisions will continue to be 
     based on cost-effectiveness alone.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Robert K. Dawson,
                                                        President.


                           Coalition Members

       Florida Citrus Mutual (Mr. Ken Keck, Director for 
     Government Affairs).
       Florida Farm Bureau (Mr. Carl B. Loop, Jr., President).
       Florida Home Builders Association (Mr. Keith Hetrick, 
     General Counsel).
       The American Water Works Association, Florida Section 
     Utility Council (Mr. Fred Rapach, Chairman).
       Florida Chamber (Mr. Chuck Littlejohn, Government Affairs).
       Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association (Mr. Mike Stuart, 
     President).
       Southeast Florida Utility Council (Mr. Vernon Hargrave, 
     Chairman).
       Gulf Citrus Growers Association (Mr. Ron Hamel, Executive 
     VP).
       Florida Sugar Cane League (Mr. Phil Parsons, Environmental 
     Counsel).
       The Florida Water Environment Association Utility Council 
     (Mr. Fred Rapach, Chairman).
       Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida (Mr. George 
     Wedgworth, President).
       Florida Fertilizer and Agri-chemical Association (Ms. Mary 
     Hartney, President).

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I yield such time as he 
may consume to the Senator from Florida, Mr. Mack. And I thank him for 
his help and cooperation on this legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida, Mr. Mack, is 
recognized.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I want to say to my dear friend, the Senator 
from Virginia, I thoroughly enjoyed listening to his presentation. And 
I say this with all good humor. It was a great performance. It reminded 
me a little of Chicken Little in ``The Sky is Falling'' when I listened 
to equating $86 million in operating expenses to a $1.4 billion budget. 
The $86 million will be the cost of operating and maintaining this new 
system 25 or 30 years from now. I think it might be appropriate to try 
to figure out what the Corps' budget might be 25 or 30 years from now. 
I think that would bring a more significant understanding of the impact 
of the operating and maintenance costs to the Federal Government.
  The second point I will make is that we are already spending more 
than that now on the Everglades. I suggest that on this project we are 
proposing today--and I believe strongly that it will pass--we will 
probably seek a reduction in the long run as a part of the Corps' 
budget. But, again, I appreciate the fervor with which my colleague 
presented his argument.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague for his courtesy. We will have more 
to say.
  Mr. MACK. I am sure we will.
  Mr. President, I am in strong opposition to the amendment offered by 
my friend from Virginia. This amendment, if passed, will put an end to 
the unprecedented partnership developed between the Federal Government 
and the State of Florida in an effort to restore and protect America's 
Everglades. While I am sure my colleague from Virginia has the best of 
intentions in offering his amendment, I caution my colleagues that one-
size-fits-all solutions can be extremely harmful to something as 
sensitive and as difficult as Everglades restoration.
  It may be useful to take a few minutes today to help highlight the 
Everglades provision in the water resources bill before us and explain 
how the amendment of the Senator from Virginia will impact our 
longstanding efforts to restore and protect this unique ecosystem.
  Let me begin by stating that the legislation before us today is a 
consensus product supported by a full spectrum of environmental groups 
and economic stakeholders. It is supported by Florida's two Indian 
tribes, Gov. Jeb Bush of the State of Florida, and it is supported by 
the Clinton administration.
  Nine months ago, my colleague from Florida, Senator Graham, and I set 
out to write a balanced Everglades bill that

[[Page 18899]]

addressed the needs of south Florida's environment and its citizens. 
This was no small task. We asked individuals and groups who have long 
been divided to set aside their differences and work together with us. 
We asked them to help us restore this vibrant, natural system to its 
former glory. With the steady leadership of Chairman Bob Smith and 
Senator Baucus, we have accomplished our goal. The bill we bring to the 
floor today is something of which all Americans, and I believe all 
Senators, can be proud.
  In the bill we are considering today, we authorize a comprehensive 
plan to undo the harm done by 50 years of Federal efforts to control 
flooding in south Florida, without consideration for damage done to 
south Florida's environment. This comprehensive plan was developed over 
the past 8 years by the Corps of Engineers, with input from economic 
and environmental stakeholders, local governments, scientists, 
restoration engineers, the people of south Florida, and the Congress. 
It is recognized throughout south Florida and the Nation as a fair and 
balanced plan to provide for the water-related needs of the region 
while, for the first time, ensuring that the needs of the Everglades 
will be met as well.
  It is terribly important that we do this. Without this plan, the 
Everglades will die and water, the lifeblood of south Florida's 
economy, will continue to be siphoned off into the sea without 
benefiting the environment or the people who live and work in the 
region.
  Let me take a moment to share with you some of the principles Senator 
Graham and I have used to guide our efforts this year in drafting this 
bill. We wanted to be sensitive to the legitimate concerns and needs of 
all citizens and interests who have a stake in how the plan is 
implemented, we wanted to be true to the restoration mandate and ensure 
that the Everglades got the first benefit of any new water generated by 
the plan, and we wanted to affirm and establish in law the true 
partnership we share with the State of Florida in achieving the plan's 
restoration goal.
  The cooperation between the State agencies charged with managing this 
effort and the Federal Government over the years has been truly 
unprecedented. The State shared the cost of developing the plan we are 
considering today. The Corps of Engineers has benefited greatly from 
the engineering talent at the South Florida Water Management District. 
Florida has been our full partner in bearing half of the cost of the 
restoration projects already underway in the Everglades. The State has 
committed to split evenly the cost of implementing the plan once it is 
authorized. The reason for this partnership is simple. Both the State 
and Federal Government have a vital interest in the restoration of the 
Everglades. Both the State and the Federal Government should pay for 
the cost of operating and maintaining the restoration project once it 
is built.
  I say this to provide background for the debate on the amendment 
before us. This partnership we have established is vital to our 
efforts, and if this amendment passes, it will be very difficult to 
accomplish our restoration goals.
  I have a letter from Gov. Jeb Bush expressing his opposition to the 
amendment of the Senator from Virginia. I ask unanimous consent that it 
be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, a key part of this partnership has been the 
commitment by the State of Florida--already enshrined in a bill 
approved by Governor Bush earlier this year--to pay fully half the $7.8 
billion cost of implementing the Everglades restoration plan. This is a 
significantly greater cost share than the local sponsor typically pays 
to construct a Corps project.
  Many Corps projects have a local cost share of as little as 20 
percent of the total project and few pay more than 35 percent. In fact, 
if the State were paying 35 percent, rather than the 50 percent it has 
committed to, it would increase the burden of the Federal taxpayer by 
almost $1.2 billion. Let me repeat that. The State has committed to a 
greater-than-average cost share for constructing the restoration 
project and will save the Federal taxpayers almost $1.2 billion.
  I believe the good faith demonstrated by the State's offer--not to 
mention the resulting savings of the Federal Government--clearly 
refutes any argument that the State is somehow unduly benefiting from 
the operation and maintenance cost share proposed in the bill before us 
today.
  While I cannot stress enough the damage this amendment will do to our 
relationship with the State of Florida, I remind my colleagues about 
the significant Federal investment we are making in the Everglades and 
the important Federal interest in ensuring this project is operated and 
maintained properly.
  Within the boundaries of the proposed restoration area, there are 
four national parks, including Everglades National Park, one of the 
crown jewels of our National Park System. There is a national marine 
sanctuary and many other national interests. All of these important 
environmental assets are dependent upon the successful operation of the 
restoration plan.
  If the project is not operated properly--if the water is not right--
these important Federal holdings in south Florida will continue to 
suffer the same fate they are suffering today. If we and the State of 
Florida are to come together behind a restoration plan and spend $7.8 
billion to implement that plan, it seems we also have the 
responsibility and obligation to stay in Florida and help with the 
successful operation and maintenance of the project. That is a 
reasonable position.
  I add that the operation and maintenance cost share in this bill is 
fully consistent with prior central and southern Florida project 
authorizations. In fact, the Federal Government pays the full cost of 
operating and maintaining the levees, channels, locks, and control 
works of the St. Lucie Canal, Lake Okeechobee, and the Caloosahatchee 
River. The Federal Government pays the full cost--not 50-50, but the 
full cost--of operating the levees, channels, locks, and control works 
of the St. Lucie Canal, Lake Okeechobee, and the Caloosahatchee River. 
All of these areas that I have mentioned are in this restoration area. 
It pays the full cost of operating and maintaining the main spillways 
in the system's water conservation area.
  Further, the Flood Control Act of 1968 provided that the project 
costs of providing water delivery to Everglades National Park is 
considered a federal responsibility and on that basis the federal 
government would share in the operation and maintenance of projects 
that serve that area of the system. The federal government is also 
required, under a 1989 law, to participate in the cost share for the 
modified water deliveries project. And, finally, the water resources 
bill of 1996 provides that the cost of operating and maintaining water 
deliveries to Taylor Slough and Everglades National Park be shared 
between the State and federal governments.
  That is my argument to this constant mention of the fact that for 14 
years we have had this precedent.
  I have just stated the whole series of issues related to the 
Everglades in which there is a whole range of the sharing of costs and 
maintaining the Everglades system.
  There appears to be ample precedent for a shared cost between the 
State and federal governments on projects related to the Everglades and 
Everglades restoration.
  What the Senator from Virginia is advocating is something far 
different. He would have the federal government pack up and leave when 
the restoration project is completed--essentially abandoning precedent 
and abandoning a national treasure after an unprecedented effort to 
save it. His amendment would have the federal government abdicate its 
responsibility, to both the environment and the taxpayer, to protect 
the substantial investment we're making on their behalf in the 
Everglades.
  I would remind my colleagues, the Everglades is a dynamic system. It 
is

[[Page 18900]]

dependent on the steady, reliable supply of fresh water this 
restoration project will provide over the years.
  It is not like a levee, or a bridge, which the federal government can 
construct and turn over to the local authorities. This is an enormously 
complex restoration project managing the water flow over and through 
18,000 square miles of subtropical uplands, wetlands and coral reefs. 
The area covered by this project spans from Lake Okeechobee to Key 
West; from Fort Myers on the gulf to Fort Pierce on the Atlantic.
  This is not an investment we can afford to abandon, Mr. President. 
The investment is too great and the stakes are too high. I would urge 
my colleagues to defeat the amendment.

                               Exhibit 1


                             Governor of the State of Florida,

                                               September 19, 2000.
     Hon. Connie Mack,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Mack: Florida awaits with much anticipation 
     Congress' authorization of the plan to restore America's 
     Everglades. Our optimism is derived in large measure from the 
     demonstrated leadership in the Senate, particularly your 
     efforts and those of Senator Smith and Senator Trent Lott and 
     his leadership team. We are also hopeful that, with time 
     running out, the White House will hold together the 
     bipartisan nature of this effort by encouraging minority 
     members to keep focused on the historic nature of the 
     opportunity before them.
       Clearly, with just a few legislative days remaining, a key 
     to success will be limiting efforts to revisit some of the 
     fundamental agreements that have now carried us so far. Among 
     these agreements is the unprecedented equal cost sharing 
     arrangement between the federal government and our state.
       This true and equal partnership creates all of the right 
     incentives for making wise, cost-effective decisions as the 
     project proceeds through construction, operation and 
     maintenance. An equal and shared interest between the state 
     and federal governments ensures that cost control remains a 
     shared goal, and that design and construction decisions are 
     made based on what will provide the greatest long-term 
     efficiencies. No party will benefit from attempting to shift 
     costs forwards or backward for short-term advantage. 
     Everybody, most importantly the taxpayers, wins if there is 
     mutual benefit in controlling overall costs for the life of 
     the project.
       The current 50-50 cost sharing formula for construction, 
     operation and maintenance of the Comprehensive Everglades 
     Restoration Plan is far superior to the conventional funding 
     formulas used for more typical Water Resources Development 
     Act projects. Florida, by paying half of the project 
     construction costs, will save the federal treasury nearly $2 
     billion. This up front savings to the federal government is 
     equivalent to more than 20 years of the projected operation 
     and maintenance costs.
       Beyond the sound fiscal arguments for an equal partnership, 
     there are also important practical and management benefits.
       All of the diverse interests that have rallied around the 
     bill that is now before the Congress recognize the delicate 
     political balance that has been struck regarding the 
     management and allocation of water resources in the South 
     Florida ecosystem after the construction project is complete. 
     Clearly the maintenance of this balance is best protected if 
     there are equal commitments from the state and the federal 
     government for the ongoing operation and maintenance of the 
     project.
       I respectfully urge you to remain alert to the importance 
     of this full and equal partnership between the state and 
     federal governments. Not only is this partnership formula 
     fiscally and politically prudent, it is also critical to 
     maintaining the diverse and broad-based support that the bill 
     before you has earned. Please let me know if you believe that 
     this agreement is ever in jeopardy in the critical days ahead 
     as this Congress prepares to make environmental history.
           Sincerely,
                                                         Jeb Bush.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  I was much taken by my colleague's comment that this is a matter 
between the Federal Government and the State. Indeed, it is a marriage 
that every Governor would dream about, and the wedding presents being 
given are astronomical. Look at the whole project. It is dotted with 
wastewater projects to clean up the water that comes from the 
communities before it goes to these estuaries. I can understand that. I 
can understand that, I say to my other colleague from Florida. But how 
does that differ from the Chesapeake Bay which has been struggling over 
a 10-year period to clean up the wastewater from their surrounding 
communities which goes into the Chesapeake Bay and which affects the 
striped bass, crabs, and everything else? Who pays for that? The local 
communities do.
  The wastewater comes from the various adjacent communities, and why 
shouldn't this cleanup project be paid for by the local communities 
rather than this massive public project?
  I have looked at towns all over Virginia that are struggling to meet 
the wastewater requirements and paying their local taxes to clean it up 
before it is distributed into the streams and rivers and lakes in my 
State. I say there is no difference between my streams and my lakes in 
the Chesapeake Bay and the magnificence of the Florida Everglades. Yet 
the Senator is asking the Federal taxpayer to pay for it and changing a 
law which has served this Nation for some 14 years.
  That is why you do not have the 35-percent construction cost formula 
but 50 percent, because of the many projects which are not related to 
the magnificence of the flora, fauna, birds, alligators, snakes, and so 
forth, which indeed are very important. They are very important and 
essential to these projects.
  Fine, clean up the water, but do it like every other municipality. 
Have the States pay for it with the local taxes before it is 
distributed back into the various components of the Florida Everglades.
  If there are any Senators who wish to reply during the course of the 
debate, I would be glad to yield.
  There is an abundance of wedding presents coming with this marriage, 
I say to my good friend from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I repeat what I said before. The purpose 
of these water reuse facilities, as I indicated earlier, and the nature 
of these reuse facilities is one of the areas on which we are going to 
be doing some preliminary experimentation and demonstration before 
committing to what the ultimate formula will be.
  The purpose of these is to take water which has been polluted in 
large part because of the Federal projects that have been in place 
since it was authorized in 1948 and to clean that water to a point that 
it will no longer serve to damage the important Federal investment.
  As an example, in the middle of the Everglades there will be a 
variety of what are called stormwater treatment areas constructed. 
These are not mechanical, but biological methods of cleaning the water 
that comes off the middle part of the Everglades so that when it gets 
down into the area of Everglades National Park, it will meet the 
standards that will avoid the water-causing adverse effects in the 
park.
  At the present time, the injection of inappropriate water quality 
into Everglades National Park has contributed substantially to a 
dramatic fall in the natural wildlife, fisheries, and fauna of 
Everglades National Park, and it has contributed to the development of 
extensive exotic, nonnatural plants in the area.
  The purpose of these water reuse and treatment areas--most of which 
are not the kind of sewage treatment plants we think about with 
concrete in place where water comes and is mechanically treated and 
then discharged--is to deal with natural water flow systems--not from 
municipal areas; they are largely going to be biological and not 
mechanical. And the purpose of all of this is to achieve a level of 
water quality, the principal beneficiary of which will be these Federal 
landowners.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I may respond to my friend, I accept 
what he is saying. It is just a question of who is going to pay for it.
  Take, for example, the cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay, which begins 
way up in Delaware, reaches Baltimore, MD, reaches Washington, DC, and 
reaches Norfolk, VA. All of the water runoff from those municipalities 
the local people accept the cost of because it goes into the Chesapeake 
Bay, which is, as any number of projects, a Federal investment. The 
Federal taxpayer has put money into cleaning up the Bay.
  What is the distinction between the water runoff from municipalities 
into

[[Page 18901]]

the local streams or the Chesapeake Bay, which is just as important to 
the people of those communities as are the everglades to the people of 
Florida?
  Mr. GRAHAM. The source of pollution is largely from a previously 
authorized Federal project; two, the nature of the cleanup in Florida 
is not of the type that surrounds the Chesapeake Bay.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator will suspend, the time is under 
the control of the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from New 
Hampshire. At the present time, the Senator from Virginia has the time.
  Mr. WARNER. Thank you. I wish to share the time. I will accept the 
time of my questioning to be charged to the time of the Senator from 
Virginia, and, of course, the reply would be charged to the chairman's 
time.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. WARNER. I make my point, Mr. President. I see no distinction. 
Water is water. Cleanup is cleanup. The question is, Who is going to 
pay for it? The question is, Who will pay for it?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from New Hampshire has time and the Senator from Virginia 
has time.
  Mr. WARNER. I yield such time as the Senator from Ohio desires, but 
our colleague from Florida also seeks recognition.
  Mr. MACK. I wanted to respond to the question.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senator from Florida wishes to respond 
to a point I made. I suggest to the Chair we recognize our colleague 
from Florida. Of course, his time is under the control of the chairman 
of the committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I yield such time as the Senator from 
Florida may consume to respond to the Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. MACK. This will be a brief response. I apologize to my colleagues 
for trying to hop in here, but the Senator raised a question I thought 
should be responded to: What makes us different?
  In the State of Florida, in 1994, we passed the Everglades Forever 
Act which provides for local payment of water cleanup costs. The 
Federal Government's share in the cost of cleaning up the water that 
directly benefits Federal areas such as the Everglades National Park--
the fact is that the local communities are paying for the cleanup of 
the waters that the Senator has suggested.
  The second point I make, I think there is something unique about what 
we have come up with. The Senator says the uniqueness is the 50-50 cost 
sharing. The uniqueness that I see--and I don't think there is a Member 
who has traveled to the State of Florida and become involved and 
knowledgeable about the Everglades Project, who is not amazed by the 
partnerships that have been developed--is the various interests in our 
State that have come together and who have said not only do they 
support but they are willing to put money into it.
  As the Senator knows, the State of Florida, during this past 
legislative session, in fact, put up I believe almost $200 million 
towards this project.
  Again, to answer the question directly, the cities are, in fact, 
paying. The State of Florida anticipated that question in 1994 and 
passed the act that I referred to a few moments ago.
  I thank the Senator for yielding.
  Mr. WARNER. I want to reply to my colleague.
  We love our States equally. I say to the Senator, the Chesapeake Bay 
is just as dear to our people as are the Everglades to Floridians. The 
Chesapeake Bay is a national asset--maybe not of the proportions but 
certainly of equal significance to the Everglades. All of this has been 
done through the years at a minute fraction of the cost to clean up the 
bay. Striped bass and crabs are returning and are beginning to live and 
prosper. We are making some progress. Again, there has been a clear 
cost sharing by the local communities, which I do not find in this 
bill.
  My question to the Senator is, Why did the Congress of the United 
States in 1996, just 4 years ago almost to the day, October 12, pass a 
law saying ``operation and maintenance expenses of projects carried out 
under this section shall be a non-Federal responsibility''?
  That was 1996, 4 years ago. Why is this now being changed?
  Mr. MACK. I believe, if I can respond, and perhaps I can find the 
language, if you read further on in the act, you will find some 
language that has to do with some cost sharing of the area that the 
Senator is referring to as identifying certain aspects of the bill, but 
there are other references in there about following precedent with 
respect to cost sharing. There is, as I read in my statement, a whole 
series of things in which there is even 100-percent participation at 
the Federal level for operation and maintenance.
  Mr. WARNER. I will pass this document to my good friend and we should 
address that together before the vote.
  My amendment simply says, leave in place the 1986 and the 1996 laws. 
That is all.
  I yield time to the Senator from Ohio.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. I make it clear I am a supporter of this Florida 
restoration plan.
  Second, I point out there is this representation that we have all of 
these Federal resources in Florida that are going to benefit from this 
bill. And the answer to that, yes, they are. On the other hand, as a 
former Governor of Ohio, the Everglades are not only a tremendous 
resource for the United States, but they are also a tremendous resource 
for the State of Florida because they bring tremendous numbers of 
people to Florida from which the State benefits. We don't talk about 
that, but that is the other side of the coin.
  Senator Graham from Florida mentioned page 118 of the restoration 
projects. I point out that none of the restoration projects mentioned 
include municipal water supply. This proposal benefits the municipal 
water supply to the extent of 20 percent of the overall cost of the 
project.
  In my State, the municipal water supply is paid for 100 percent by 
the people in the community. If we look at the numbers on this project 
and subtract the benefit to the State of Florida for the cost of paying 
for this public water supply that they would have to pay for entirely 
themselves, they are benefiting to the tune of $1.6 billion. If we take 
the $1.6 billion the State of Florida is benefiting from, the $3.9 non-
Federal share they are putting into it, it works out to be $2.3 billion 
as what they are really paying out because they are saving on the $1.6 
billion that they would have to spend on the public water supply.
  Looking at those numbers, the relationship is basically 35 percent, 
the State of Florida; 65 percent, the Federal Government. I want the 
Senators to look at the numbers: 20 percent of this overall project is 
for the public water supply. Fine. But the fact is that if this project 
wasn't being undertaken, that public water supply would have to be 
supplied by the State of Florida or the communities within the State of 
Florida.
  This argument that it is a 50-50 cost sharing on the construction 
costs does not state the facts. It is more like 35-65. Therefore, to 
say we are paying 50 percent of the construction costs; therefore, it 
should be 50-50 in operations, I don't think is a proper argument on 
their part.
  In addition, I conclude with reference to the equity to the rest of 
the projects throughout the United States of America. In 1986 we 
decided O&M would be taken care of by the restoration project 
beneficiaries. I point out to the other Senator from Florida that as to 
the St. Luci project and many others mentioned, the Federal Government 
is picking up 100 percent of the cost that took place before 1986. 
Perhaps maybe one of the reasons why the Federal Government decided not 
to pay 100 percent is because a lot of people thought that was not 
fair.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from 
Florida.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I respond to the question raised by the 
Senator

[[Page 18902]]

from Virginia when we were talking about cost share. I suggested to 
Senator Warner, if he looked in other places in Public Law 104, which 
is referred to as the Water Resources Development Act of 1996, he would 
find other language different from the language to which he was 
referring. That is found in section 316, central and southern Florida 
Canal, 111. Under ``Operation and Maintenance,'' it says:

       The non-Federal share of operation and maintenance cost of 
     the improvements undertaken pursuant to this section shall be 
     100 percent;

  However, if you go on, it says:

       . . . except that the Federal Government shall reimburse 
     the non-Federal interest with respect to the project 60 
     percent of the cost of operating and maintaining pump 
     stations that pump water into Taylor Slough and in the 
     Everglades National Park.

  I wonder what the argument was 14 years ago about changing precedent. 
People want to refer to precedent. The reality is that Congress does 
what the Congress believes is necessary to carry out an important 
project. I think it is pretty clear. In fact, my colleagues who oppose 
this cost share have indicated they are going to support the 
resolution, or support the act; therefore, I think, accepting the 
notion of the significance and importance of what we are doing. And 
therefore it is reasonable for the Senate to determine on this 
particular project because of its unusual, unique circumstances, that 
somehow we should, in fact, have a 50-50 cost share.
  I do not find that stunning, and I am not impressed with the fact 
that for the last 14 years which some want to refer to that there has 
been a precedent established. There are all kinds of indications that 
we have had different cost shares, to the extent that we find in some 
areas the Federal Government is picking up 100 percent of the cost of 
operation and maintenance.
  I again say to my colleagues, I hope they will support Senator Graham 
and I and Senators Smith and Baucus and defeat this amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the 
Senator from Montana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we all want to protect the Everglades. I 
don't think there is a Senator here who does not want to substantially 
protect and restore the Everglades.
  How do we do it? What is the most fair, most equitable way to restore 
the Everglades? I think it is important to remember we cannot let 
perfection be the enemy of the good. There is no perfect solution. But 
there are good solutions. The committee has crafted a good solution.
  It is true, as the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Ohio 
are pointing out, we are breaking precedent. It is true. The provisions 
of the bill do provide for Uncle Sam to pay 50 percent of the operation 
and maintenance cost of this very large and very important project. 
That is true. I share many of the concerns of the Senators, the 
potential slippery slope; what is this going to lead to? Why are we 
breaking precedent here? It is a 14-year precedent, I think. It has 
been some time. What is a Federal interest? Sometimes it is hard to 
define what a Federal interest is.
  But just as there are more Federal dollars going in for operation and 
maintenance, on the other side of the equation we are also breaking 
another precedent; that is, the State is putting up more of the 
construction costs. Ordinarily the State would have to put up about 35 
percent of the construction costs. It is a big project, about $8 
billion. Florida has decided to put up the full 50 percent. So they are 
paying more than they ordinarily would. The U.S. Government will be 
paying more than it ordinarily would in operation and maintenance 
costs.
  This arrangement may not be perfect. But we are dealing with an 
extraordinary, special situation, and that is the Everglades. All of us 
in America feel a part of the Everglades. Certainly, the Floridians 
feel more closely attached to the Everglades, but I think the rest of 
us in this country have a feeling about it. It is part of America, a 
special part of America we want to protect and restore as best we can. 
So I say we should stick with the approach the committee has come up 
with after a lot of hard work, and a lot of give and take.
  In addition, I might point out 50 percent of the benefits go to 
parks, Federal parks, Federal land. There are about 18,000 square miles 
involved in the Everglades restoration. About 9,000 square miles of 
that is Federal lands; 9,000 is non-Federal lands. So it seems to me a 
50-50 operation and maintenance cost share--it is rough justice. It is 
about right: 9,000 Federal, 9,000 non-Federal, 50-50; at a time when 
the State of Florida also is putting up more than its usual share for 
construction.
  So this has been a good debate. In future years, when we are faced 
with similar questions, I know the Senator from Virginia and the 
Senator from Ohio are going to be front and center saying: Uh-oh, here 
we go again. Remember that time in September 2000? And they will be 
making good points. But I believe one has to make a decision. The 
decision is now before us to proceed with the bill and not adopt the 
amendment offered by my good friend, recognizing they made good points, 
but I do not agree those points are sufficiently valid to warrant 
passage of their amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield for a question on my time?
  Mr. BAUCUS. I yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. In those few moments when I am able to take a vacation, I 
like to go to your State.
  Mr. BAUCUS. You go often and I appreciate it.
  Mr. WARNER. I started there as a firefighter in 1943.
  Mr. BAUCUS. You did, and you told many stories about how proud you 
are of that.
  Mr. WARNER. I was a 15-year-old boy. But what are you going to tell 
the people in Billings, Missoula, Livingston? There is lots of Federal 
land out there.
  What percentage of your State is Federal land?
  Mr. BAUCUS. I tell you, we are very proud of it.
  Mr. WARNER. It is a high percentage.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I will tell them this is a good precedent for Montana.
  Mr. WARNER. You better go back and undo some of the things we have 
done in the last 14 years and readjust the cost sharing.
  I say to my friend, I don't understand it. The State of Florida has 
to pay 50 percent rather than 35 percent. I will tell you why. It is 
because you have so many collateral projects, wastewater and other 
things. But if that was the problem, why didn't you stick in the 
committee to the 35 percent and leave the cost sharing as it was and 
not change the law?
  Mr. BAUCUS. I think the answer to that, if I might answer my friend, 
is, again, a sort of rough justice. The State of Florida wants to be a 
partner in this thing.
  Mr. WARNER. We shifted from marriage to partner, Mr. President.
  Mr. BAUCUS. It is not lopsided. There is a slight tilt in favor of 
the State of Florida, and I mean it is slight. It is not really out of 
bounds. But the Everglades is really special. It is a national 
treasure. I think we should help restore the Everglades.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank my friend. I wouldn't want to go back to Virginia 
and say to my community they are more special than they are.
  But one of the interesting things, if I may add for a minute, where 
are the environmental organizations, the watchdogs who are the first to 
come up? They are standing by in absolute silence as to the change of 
this law which they helped us put in place in 1986, and again in 1996. 
It is just silence across the land because of the romance and the 
mystique of this magnificent Everglades.
  I say to those organizations: My little lakes, my little streams in 
Virginia are just as important. And the people of Virginia are paying 
to clean up the

[[Page 18903]]

water going into those streams and lakes, rivers and dams, not the 
Federal Government.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. WARNER. I yield time to my friend from Ohio.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Will the Senator from Montana yield for a question?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Yes, on the Senator's time.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. The cost sharing on municipal waters is 100 percent 
local. Does the Senator agree?
  Mr. BAUCUS. That's correct, ordinarily.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. I have many areas of my State that need to upgrade 
their water supply. They would love to have the Federal Government pick 
up the tab for part of it.
  Mr. BAUCUS. That is correct, as do all States.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. As mayor of Cleveland, we had to increase water rates 
300 percent in order to do the job we needed to do and we didn't get 
any money from the Federal Government. I think it is really important 
to recognize that 20 percent of this total cost is municipal water 
supply. We are paying for the cost of the municipal water supply. They 
are avoiding some $1.6 billion of cost for this municipal water. That 
is an enormous contribution.
  If you subtract out that $1.6 billion from Florida's share on it, it 
works out to be about 35-65, so that the argument, 50-50, and therefore 
we ought to do 50 percent of the operation and maintenance I do not 
think is as relevant as it might be if it was really 50-50.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Might I respond to the Senator?
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Yes.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I heard what you are saying, but I think you heard the 
Senator from Florida, both Senators, very extensively explain how it is 
the Corps project, the original Everglades project, which I think cost 
about $3 billion in today's dollars to build, that caused a lot of the 
pollution problems.
  Here we are coming up with a restoration of the Everglades which 
includes restoration of waters, municipal waters included, which 
otherwise would be degraded because of the original Corps project or 
because of the costs and pollution problems associated with that 
project.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. The point is, I am not referring to wastewater. I am 
talking about public water supply which is very important to developing 
any State. You have people coming in, and you need a public water 
supply. In order to provide it, you have to go to the local people, the 
ratepayers, and say: Come up with the money. And the Federal Government 
does not participate.
  In this project, we are saying to the State of Florida: If you have 
future municipal water needs, 20 percent of this project is for that. 
It is an equivalent of $1.6 billion, and you are going to be saving 
that cost in the future.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I understand that, but, again, the same principle applies 
to municipal water as I explained applies to wastewater.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. We do not agree on that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). The Senator from New 
Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, how much time remains on 
our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fifteen minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, during the course of the 
debate on this amendment, I heard several statements made--I am sorry 
my colleague from Virginia is not on the floor at the moment--about 
precedent-breaking and about what the law says. We have heard all these 
representations about the law.
  I have the law in my hand, and I am going to read from it word for 
word. This is the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, which has 
been cited a number of times, that somehow we are breaking precedent, 
violating law, or not maintaining the law with what we are doing in the 
Everglades.
  Section 906(e). There are three criteria mentioned here in terms of 
construction, and then I will go to O&M:

       (e) In those cases when the Secretary, as part of any 
     report to Congress, recommends activities to enhance fish and 
     wildlife resources, the first costs of such enhancement--

  In this case construction--

     shall be a Federal cost when--
       (1) such enhancement provides benefits that are determined 
     to be national. . . .

  Everybody in this Chamber today has called the Everglades a national 
treasure, including those proponents of this amendment.

       (2) such enhancement is designed to benefit species that 
     have been listed as threatened or endangered by the Secretary 
     of Interior. . . .

  We have 68 endangered or threatened species in the Everglades.

       (3) such activities are located on lands managed as a 
     national wildlife refuge.

  We have 16 national wildlife refuges in the Everglades ecosystem.
  Here is the line which is absolutely the opposite of what has been 
said on the Senate floor all afternoon on this amendment. Listen 
carefully. This is the O&M portion:

       When benefits of enhancement do not qualify under the 
     preceding sentence, 25 percent of such first costs of 
     enhancement shall be provided by non-Federal interests under 
     a schedule of reimbursement. . . . The non-Federal share of 
     operation, maintenance . . . of activities to enhance fish 
     and wildlife resources shall be 25 percent.

  If the non-Federal portion is 25 percent, the Federal portion should 
be 75 percent. All we are asking for in this legislation is a 50 
percent Federal portion. We are not violating any law. We are 
absolutely following, to Florida's detriment, if one wants to take that 
position since they could do 75-25; we are doing 50-50.
  It is very important my colleagues understand. No precedent is being 
broken. No law is being ignored or violated. We are working within the 
law under this provision, up to 75 percent Federal share when those 
three criteria of construction I just mentioned are met. We have met 
all three of those. We do not even have to meet them all. It is ``or.'' 
We met all three. As a result of that, we can go up to 75 percent. We 
have gone to 50 percent in the Federal share. There is a compelling 
reason to do this. It is fair, and it is within the law.
  I will conclude with a few more points. If one looks at the so-called 
normal WRDA legislation, 65 percent Federal--35 percent State on 
construction--we are doing 50-50 with the Everglades--that is a 15-
percent reduction in the Federal cost. If we take that 15-percent 
reduction--Senator Mack referred to this already--that is about $1.2 
billion the Federal Government is saving on the construction portion.
  The question is, If we take that $1.2 billion and offset it, how much 
O&M can we get out of that? Senator Mack thought it was around 20 
years. So there are 20 years of O&M just from the savings on that 
particular part of the construction.
  All my colleagues need to understand, this is a deal-breaking 
amendment. This amendment would basically take down the entire 
Everglades proposal, in my view, and WRDA, because to go from the 50-50 
position, which has been delicately negotiated and has stayed within 
the law and stayed within the precedent, contrary to what has been 
said, would be a deal breaker. That would be a tragedy, in my view, 
with the greatest respect for the proponents because they feel strongly 
about this. I do not want to be breaking precedent or violating law and 
will not.
  I want, first, my colleagues to know after this project is 
constructed, it is the responsibility of the non-Federal interests to 
operate and maintain it. In the Everglades provision, 50-50 O&M--I do 
not think that is out of the ordinary; it is within the law, as I said.
  The Federal Government owns and manages about 50 percent of the lands 
that will benefit from this restoration project. Fifty percent is 
federally owned. For realizing 50 percent of the benefits, it is not 
unreasonable we should put up 50 percent of the costs. We could do 75 
under the law; we are doing 50. There are four national parks,

[[Page 18904]]

as I indicated before, 16 national wildlife refuges, 1 national marine 
sanctuary, and 21 federally managed properties, or 5 million acres of 
federally owned and managed lands all in the south Florida ecosystem.

  I do not mean to imply that other projects are not important, but 
this project has plenty of Federal interest.

  The level of the investment being put forth by the State is 
unprecedented, and they put it up early, to their credit. They put 
money aside right from the beginning. We asked Governor Bush and the 
legislature to do that. They did it and did it quickly and willingly.

  The Federal Government was responsible for damaging the Everglades, 
as has been pointed out. We did it. The Federal Government did it in 
1948. That is another aspect of this that needs to be considered. We 
must look at what we did. We did the damage, not knowingly or not 
knowing how badly it was going to affect the Everglades, but we did it, 
and therefore we have an obligation to correct it. That should impact 
that figure of 50-50.

  Do we want to ensure our investment in the restoration effort is 
preserved for future generations? The answer is unequivocally yes.

  Do we believe the restoration project is an equal partnership between 
the Federal Government and the State of Florida? The answer is yes, 
absolutely. Florida does, too.

  Do we want to impose on Florida the burden for maintaining fresh 
flows of water in the quality and quantity needed by our Federal trust 
resources? I do not think so. Our properties are our responsibility, 
and we should maintain them. That is not unreasonable.

  The Everglades provision in the managers' amendment is supported by 
the administration, supported by the State of Florida, supported by two 
Native American tribes impacted by the restoration, and supported by 
industry groups and environmentalists, and they do not want to risk 
fracturing that delicate coalition of support.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Governor 
Bush of Florida in opposition to this amendment and a letter from 
several environmental groups in opposition, and also a letter from 
Dawson Associates, which represents a number of industries, be printed 
in the Record.

  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                             Governor of the State of Florida,

                              Tallahassee, FL, September 19, 2000.

     Hon. Bob Smith,

     Chairman, Environment and Public Works Committee, Washington, 
         DC.

       Dear Mr. Chairman: Florida awaits with much anticipation 
     Congress' authorization of the plan to restore America's 
     Everglades. Our optimism is derived in large measure from the 
     demonstrated leadership in the Senate, particularly your 
     efforts and those of Senator Mack and Senator Trent Lott and 
     his leadership team. We are also hopeful that, with time 
     running out, the White House will hold together the 
     bipartisan nature of this effort by encouraging minority 
     members to keep focused on the historic nature of the 
     opportunity before them.

       Clearly, with just a few legislative days remaining, a key 
     to success will be limiting efforts to revisit some of the 
     fundamental agreements that have now carried us so far. Among 
     these agreements is the unprecedented equal cost sharing 
     arrangement between the federal government and our state.

       This true and equal partnership creates all of the right 
     incentive for making wise, cost-effective decisions as the 
     project proceeds through construction, operation and 
     maintenance. An equal and shared interest between the state 
     and federal governments ensures that cost control remains a 
     shared goal, and that design and construction decisions are 
     made based on what will provide the greatest long-term 
     efficiencies. No party will benefit from attempting to shift 
     costs forward or backward for short-term advantage. 
     Everybody, most importantly the taxpayers, wins if there is 
     mutual benefit in controlling overall costs for the life of 
     the project.

       The current 50-50 cost sharing formula for construction, 
     operation and maintenance of the Comprehensive Everglades 
     Restoration Plan is far superior to the conventional funding 
     formulas used for more typical Water Resource Development Act 
     projects. Florida, by paying half of the project construction 
     costs, will save the federal treasury nearly $2 billion. This 
     up front savings to the federal government is equivalent to 
     more than 20 years of the projected operation and maintenance 
     costs.

       Beyond the sound fiscal arguments for an equal partnership, 
     there are also important practical and management benefits. 
     All of the diverse interest that have rallied around the bill 
     that is now before the Congress recognize the delicate 
     political balance that has been a struck regarding the 
     management and allocation of water resources in the South 
     Florida ecosystem after the construction project is complete. 
     Clearly the maintenance of this balance is best protected if 
     there are equal commitments from the state and the federal 
     government for the ongoing operation and maintenance of the 
     project.

       I respectfully urge you to remain alert to the importance 
     of this full and equal partnership between the state and 
     federal governments. Not only is this partnership formula 
     fiscally and politically prudent, it is also critical to 
     maintenance to maintaining the diverse and broad-based 
     support that the bill before you has earned. Please let me 
     know if you believe that this agreement is ever in jeopardy 
     in the critical days ahead as this Congress prepares to make 
     environmental history.

           Sincerely,

     Jeb Bush.
                                  ____

         1000 Friends of Florida, Audubon of Florida, Center for 
           Marine Conservation, The Everglades Foundation, The 
           Everglades Trust, National Audubon Society, National 
           Parks Conservation Association, Natural Resource 
           Defense Council, Sierra Club, World Wildlife Fund,
                                               September 19, 2000.
     Hon. Bob Smith,
     Chairman, Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Max Baucus,
     Ranking Member, Senate Environmental and Public Works 
         Committee, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Smith and Senator Baucus: We are writing to 
     express our opposition to the Voinovich amendment to H.R. 
     2796, the Water Resources Development Act of 2000, that would 
     eliminate the state-federal operations and maintenance (O&M) 
     cost share for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan 
     (CERP).
       S. 2796 presently provides a 50-50 cost share between the 
     State and Federal government. The Voinovich amendment would 
     make the State of Florida pay the entire cost. The Voinovich 
     amendment ignores the fact that this is no ordinary water 
     project because the taxpayer is a primary beneficiary of the 
     project.
       Within the project area there is a unique and compelling 
     federal interest that justifies a 50-50 state/federal cost 
     share for operations and maintenance. The project area 
     includes four National Parks, 16 National Wildlife Refuges, 
     and one National Marine Sanctuary that comprise five million 
     acres of federally owned and managed lands--50% of the 
     remaining Everglades.
       In addition, approval of the Voinovich amendment would 
     likely yield two results; both of which would severely 
     jeopardize the likelihood of enacting Everglades Restoration 
     legislation this year: First, the State could withdraw its 
     support for the bill leaving this a project without a non-
     federal sponsor. Or, the State could seek new modifications 
     to reflect the diminished federal commitment to restoration 
     of America's Everglades, a move that would send the 
     Everglades back to the drawing board with no time left on the 
     clock.
       Therefore, we respectfully request that you vote against 
     the Voinovich Everglades cost share amendment to S. 2796.
       Thank you for your consideration of our views.
           Sincerely,
       Nathaniel Reed, Chairman, 1000 Friends of Florida.
       David Guggenheim, Vice President for Conservation Policy, 
     Center for Marine Conservation.
       Tom Rumberger, Chairman, The Everglades Trust.
       Mary Munson, Director, South Florida Programs, National 
     Parks Conservation Association.
       Frank Jackalone, Senior Field Representative, Sierra Club.
       Stuart Strahl, Ph.D., Executive Director, Audubon of 
     Florida.
       Mary Barley, Chair, The Everglades Foundation.
       Tom Adams, Director of Government Affairs, National Audubon 
     Society.
       Bradford H. Sewell, Senior Project Attorney, Natural 
     Resources Defense Council.
       Shannon Estenoz, Director, South Florida/Everglades 
     Program, World Wildlife Fund.

[[Page 18905]]

     
                                  ____
                                      Dawson Associates, Inc.,

                               Washington, DC, September 19, 2000.
     Senator Bob Smith,
     Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Smith: The coalition of Florida agriculture, 
     water utilities, and homebuilders is convinced that without 
     Federal participation in the costs of operation, maintenance, 
     repair, replacement, and rehabilitation activities associated 
     with the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), 
     Everglades restoration will never be implemented. Governor 
     Bush's Commission for the Everglades has taken the position 
     that if the Federal government is to be a full and equal 
     partner in restoration, it should share in all of the 
     associated costs. Furthermore, it is certain that the Florida 
     Legislature will not supply the level of funding needed to 
     construct this plan if they are going to have to pay the full 
     cost of operation over the life of the project.
       The CERP is primarily a plan to restore and protect Federal 
     properties, and the development of the plan has been 
     dominated by the federal agencies, especially the Department 
     of Interior. The restoration of a unique ecological system of 
     world significance dramatically and fundamentally 
     distinguished the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan from 
     those of other Army Civil Works projects.
       Furthermore, the Army Corps of Engineers indicated to 
     stakeholders throughout the planning process that it would 
     seek cost sharing for all modification over their life cycle. 
     This commitment eliminated the biases in project decision-
     making that result when all costs are not treated in the same 
     way. Affirming this commitment in the authorization will 
     ensure that project design decisions will continue to be 
     based on cost-effectiveness alone.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Robert K. Dawson,
                                                        President.


                           coalition members

       Florida Citrus Mutual (Mr. Ken Keck, Director for 
     Government Affairs).
       Florida Farm Bureau (Mr. Carl B. Loop, Jr., President).
       Florida Home Builders Association (Mr. Keith Hetrick, 
     General Counsel).
       The American Water Works Association, Florida Section 
     Utility Council (Mr. Fred Rapach, Chairman).
       Florida Chamber (Mr. Chuck Littlejohn, Government Affairs).
       Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association (Mr. Mike Stuart, 
     President).
       Southeast Florida Utility Council (Mr. Vernon Hargrave, 
     Chairman).
       Gulf Citrus Growers Association (Mr. Ron Hamel, Executive 
     VP).
       Florida Sugar Cane League (Mr. Phil Parsons, Environmental 
     Counsel).
       The Florida Water Environmental Association Utility Council 
     (Mr. Fred Rapach, Chairman).
       Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida (Mr. George 
     Wedgworth, President).
       Florida Fertilizer and Agri-chemical Association (Ms. Mary 
     Hartney, President).
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, in conclusion, we have an 
opportunity to rectify a terrible mistake we made. We did it with good 
intentions. But we made a mistake. This is what we need to do. It is 
our responsibility now to do that. The Everglades provision in the 
managers' amendment is supported by these groups.
  I urge my colleagues to preserve that Federal-State partnership in 
the Everglades restoration, to preserve this 50-50 O&M, and to reject 
this amendment because, again, I believe to pass this amendment would 
break the deal that we have already worked out so delicately among so 
many groups, No. 1, and, No. 2, it would be unfair. It would not be 
consistent with the law, WRDA 86, and it would not, in my view, be 
consistent with the precedent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. WARNER. I yield such time as the Senator from Ohio may require. 
But before doing so, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Warner 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I would like to comment on the remarks 
of the chairman of my committee for whom I have a great deal of 
respect. I would beg to differ in terms of the interpretation of what 
this water restoration project comes under.
  This is not a fish and wildlife enhancement under 906(e). This is an 
environmental restoration under section 103 of WRDA 1986, as amended, 
which basically calls for: 100 percent of the operation, maintenance, 
replacement and rehabilitation costs for projects are to be paid by the 
local participant in the project.
  Last, but not least--and, again, with all due respect to my 
chairman--as a former Governor of Ohio, I can tell you that if this 
amendment is adopted, the Governor of Florida is not going to walk away 
from this wonderful legislation that is going to help restore the 
Everglades and commit the Federal Government to--based on our hearing 
this week--half of some $14 billion.
  If anyone is going to vote against this amendment because they think 
it is a deal breaker, in my opinion, it is not a deal breaker. This 
bill will pass. If this amendment is adopted, the bill is still going 
to pass, and we will move on with this project.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to accommodate the distinguished 
chairman of our committee to facilitate the vote, which would also 
accommodate a number of our colleagues.
  We have had a very good debate. The issue before the Senate is very 
succinct and simple. We have had a body of law for 14 years. That law, 
with reference to this specific project, was reviewed in 1996. And 
explicitly, the Congress, after reviewing it, stated the following: 
``The operation and maintenance of projects carried out under this 
section''--and that section dealt with the Florida Everglades--``shall 
be a non-Federal responsibility.'' So we are now about to vitiate 14 
years of law.
  I say to my colleagues, you will have to go back and explain to your 
constituents how all the projects in that 14-year period are now 
operation and maintenance being funded by the States, and that the 
budget for the projects prior to 1986 is underfunded by $440 million in 
this one fiscal year.
  So I think it is a very bad precedent for this Congress to vitiate 14 
years of law, and particularly when it was reviewed specifically with 
regard to this project just 4 years ago and explicitly written into law 
that the operation and maintenance would be entirely the responsibility 
of the State of Florida.
  I yield the floor and yield back my time.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, how much time do I have 
remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I am prepared to yield that back, but 
Senator Levin has asked for time to make a comment.
  I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator from New Hampshire.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. I understand that there is a managers' package of 
amendments which have been cleared, and that one of those amendments 
was that of my colleague from Michigan, Senator Abraham.
  I had some concerns about that, which I have not had a chance yet to 
share with Senator Abraham. I think I will be able to work this out 
with him, but I have not yet had the opportunity.
  I understand now that amendment would be withheld from the managers' 
package until we can get back with the managers about that subject.
  So if there is a managers' package that is offered tonight, it would 
not include that amendment?
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. The Senator is correct. We are going to 
try to offer a managers' package tonight. It will not include that 
amendment, to give the two Senators from Michigan the opportunity to 
work that out.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator for that. I will be in touch with 
Senator Abraham in the hopes and belief, too, we will be able to work 
something out on it.
  I thank my friend.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I now yield back all time 
on my side on the pending amendment.
  Before the vote begins, I announce, on behalf of the majority leader, 
that following this vote on this amendment, there will be no further 
votes this evening.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the final passage vote 
for WRDA occur at 4:50 p.m. on Monday, and that paragraph 4 of rule XII 
be waived.

[[Page 18906]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to Warner amendment No. 4165. The yeas 
and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the 
Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from California (Mrs. 
Feinstein), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 24, nays 71, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 254 Leg.]

                                YEAS--24

     Allard
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--71

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Collins
     Conrad
     Craig
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Grams
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Akaka
     Boxer
     Crapo
     Feinstein
     Lieberman
  The amendment (No. 4165) was rejected.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


Amendments Nos. 4166, 4167, 4168, 4169, 4170, 4171, 4172, and 4173, en 
                                  bloc

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendments to S. 2796 currently at the desk, be accepted en 
bloc. These amendments have been agreed to by the minority.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendments en bloc.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Smith] proposes 
     amendments Nos. 4166 through 4173, en bloc.

  The amendments are as follows:


                           Amendment No. 4166

     (Purpose: To direct the Corps of Engineers to give expedited 
consideration to the completion of a study on renourishment of certain 
                       beaches in North Carolina)

       At the appropriate place in title III, insert the 
     following:

     SEC. __. BOGUE BANKS, CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.

       (a) Definition of Beaches.--In this section, the term 
     ``beaches'' means the following beaches located in Carteret 
     County, North Carolina:
       (1) Atlantic Beach.
       (2) Pine Knoll Shores Beach.
       (3) Salter Path Beach.
       (4) Indian Beach.
       (5) Emerald Isle Beach.
       (b) Renourishment Study.--The Secretary shall expedite 
     completion of a study under section 145 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1976 (33 U.S.C. 426j) on the 
     expedited renourishment, through sharing of the costs of 
     deposition of sand and other material used for beach 
     renourishment, of the beaches of Bogue Banks in Carteret 
     County, North Carolina.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 4167

(Purpose: To provide the Corps of Engineers the authority to accept and 
expend funds provided by public entities to process permits required by 
                    federal environmental statutes)

       Sec.   . (a) The Secretary, after public notice, may accept 
     and expend funds contributed by non-Federal public entities 
     to expedite the evaluation of permits under the jurisdiction 
     of the Department of the Army.
       (b) In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall 
     ensure that the use of such funds as authorized in subsection 
     (a) will result in improved efficiencies in permit evaluation 
     and will not impact impartial decision making in the 
     permitting process.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 4168

       The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the 
     project deficiencies and identify the necessary measures to 
     restore the project for Cliff Walk in Newport, Rhode Island 
     to meet its authorized purpose.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 4169

       The Secretary shall conduct a reconnaissance study to 
     determine the Federal interest in dredging the Quonset Point 
     navigation channel in Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island.
                                  ____



                           Amendment No. 4170

(Purpose: To provide assistance for efforts to protect and improve the 
              Missouri River in the State of North Dakota)

  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')


                           amendment no. 4171

(Purpose: To direct the Secretary of the Army to establish a program to 
                        market dredged material)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following section:

     SEC.  . SHORT TITLE.

       This section may be cited as the ``Dredged Material Reuse 
     Act''.

     SEC.  . FINDING.

       Congress finds that the Secretary of the Army should 
     establish a program to reuse dredged material--
       (1) to ensure the long-term viability of disposal capacity 
     for dredged material; and
       (2) to encourage the reuse of dredged material for 
     environment and economic purposes.

     SEC.  . DEFINITION.

       In this Act, the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of 
     the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers.

     SEC.  . PROGRAM FOR REUSE OF DREDGED MATERIAL.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish a 
     program to allow the direct marketing of dredged material to 
     public agencies and private entities.
       (b) Limitations.--The Secretary shall not establish the 
     program under subsection (a) unless a determination is made 
     that such program is in the interest of the United States and 
     is economically justified, equitable, and environmentally 
     acceptable.
       (c) Regional Responsibility.--The program described in 
     subsection (a) may authorize each of the 8 division offices 
     of the Corps of Engineers to market to public agencies and 
     private entities any dredged material from projects under the 
     jurisdiction of the regional office. Any revenues generated 
     from any sale of dredged material to such entities shall be 
     deposited in the U.S. Treasury.
       (d) Reports.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter for a period 
     of 4 years, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report 
     on the program established under subsection (a).
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this Act $2,000,000 for each 
     fiscal year.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 4172

       On page 49, line 1, insert a comma between ``assessment'' 
     and ``community''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 4173

       At the appropriate place insert:

     SEC. __. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES STUDIES.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Academy.--The term ``Academy'' means the National 
     Academy of Sciences.
       (2) Method.--The term ``method'' means a method, model, 
     assumption, or other pertinent planning tool used in 
     conducting an economic or environmental analysis of a water 
     resources project, including the formulation of a feasibility 
     report.
       (3) Feasibility report.--The term ``feasibility report'' 
     means each feasibility report, and each associated 
     environmental impact statement and mitigation plan, prepared 
     by the Corps of Engineers for a water resources project.
       (4) Water resources project.--The term ``water resources 
     project'' means a project for navigation, a project for flood 
     control, a project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, 
     a project for emergency streambank and shore protection, a 
     project for ecosystem restoration and protection, and a water 
     resources project of any other type carried out by the Corps 
     of Engineers.
       (b) Independent Peer Review of Projects.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall contract with the 
     Academy to study, and make recommendations relating to, the 
     independent peer review of feasibility reports.
       (2) Study elements.--In carrying out a contract under 
     paragraph (1), the Academy

[[Page 18907]]

     shall study the practicality and efficacy of the independent 
     peer review of the feasibility reports, including--
       (A) the cost, time requirements, and other considerations 
     relating to the implementation of independent peer review; 
     and
       (B) objective criteria that may be used to determine the 
     most effective application of independent peer review to 
     feasibility reports for water resources project.
       (3) Academy report.--Not later than 1 year after the date 
     of a contract under paragraph (1), the Academy shall submit 
     to the Secretary, the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, and the 
     Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a 
     report that includes--
       (A) the results of the study conducted under paragraphs (1) 
     and (2); and
       (B) in light of the results of the study, specific 
     recommendations, if any, on a program for implementing 
     independent peer review of feasibility reports.
       (4) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $1,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended.
       (c) Independent Peer Review of Methods for Project 
     Analysis.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall contract with the 
     Academy to conduct a study that includes--
       (A) a review of state-of-the-art methods;
       (B) a review of the methods currently used by the 
     Secretary;
       (C) a review of a sample of instances in which the 
     Secretary has applied the methods identified under 
     subparagraph (B) in the analysis of each type of water 
     resources project; and
       (D) a comparative evaluation of the basis and validity of 
     state-of-the-art methods identified under subparagraph (A) 
     and the methods identified under subparagraphs (B) and (C).
       (2) Academy report.--Not later than 1 year after the date 
     of a contract under paragraph (1), the Academy shall submit 
     to the Secretary, the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, and the 
     Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a 
     report that includes--
       (A) the results of the study conducted under paragraph (1); 
     and
       (B) in light of the results of the study, specific 
     recommendations for modifying any of the methods currently 
     used by the Secretary for conducting economic and 
     environmental analyses of water resources projects.
       (3) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $2,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak for a few minutes 
about my amendment in the managers' package to the Water Resources 
Development Act of 2000. My amendment is needed to allow the Army Corps 
of Engineers to continue to work on a feasibility study to alleviate 
the chronic flooding in the Southwest Valley of Albuquerque, New 
Mexico.
  First, I want to thank the committee chairman, Senator Smith, the 
distinguished ranking member, Senator Baucus, and Chairman Voinovich, 
as well as their fine staffs for all their good work on WRDA2000 (S. 
2796).
  For a number of years the Southwest Valley area of Albuquerque in my 
state has been prone to flooding after major rainstorms. The flooding 
has caused damage to irrigation and drainage structures, erosion of 
roadways, pavement, telephone and electrical transmission conduits, 
contaminated water and soil due to overflowing septic tanks, damaged 
homes, businesses, and farms, and presented hazards to automobile 
traffic. In 1997, Bernalillo County approached the Army Corps of 
Engineers to request a reconnaissance study of the chronic flooding 
problems.
  The study area encompassed 17.8 square miles of mostly residential 
neighborhoods along the banks of the Rio Grande in the Southwest Valley 
and the 50 square miles on the West Mesa, including the Isleta Pueblo, 
that drain into the valley. The reconnaissance study began in March 
1998 and is now completed.
  The conclusions of the reconnaissance study define the magnitude of 
the continuing flooding problem in the Southwest Valley. The study also 
established a clear federal interest in the drainage project, found a 
positive cost to benefit ratio for the project, and identified work 
items necessary to begin designing a range of solutions to alleviate 
the chronic flooding problems in the valley.
  In 1999, based on the positive findings of the reconnaissance study, 
the Environment and Public Works Committee authorized the Army Corps of 
Engineers to conduct a full study to determine the feasibility of a 
project for flood damage reduction in Albuquerque's Southwest Valley. 
The authorization is contained in section 433 of the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). I want to thank the EPW 
committee for authorizing this much needed feasibility study. The study 
began in March 1999 and is expected to be completed in February 2002.
  Currently, Bernalillo County, the Albuquerque Metropolitan Arroyo 
Flood Control Authority and the Corps are working cooperatively on the 
feasibility study. Last year, the administration requested, and the 
Congress appropriated, $250,000 in Federal funding for the feasibility 
study. This year, the request was for $330,000. I want to thank the 
Appropriations Committees in the House and Senate for again providing 
the full amount requested.
  Last July I had an opportunity to meet with the engineers from the 
Corps, the County, and AMAFCA to get an update on the study and to tour 
the areas in the Southwest Valley that are subject to chronic flooding. 
At the end of the tour, the Corps indicated to me that based on the 
initial results of the feasibility study, the flooding there was quite 
severe but the project did not seem to meet the Corps' required flow 
criterion of 1800 cubic feet per second for the 100-year flood. These 
flow criteria are outlined in the Engineering Regulations established 
for the Corps. Because of the obvious severity of the flooding, the 
engineers requested a legislative waiver of the regulations. Without a 
waiver, the Corps could not continue as a partner in the project. They 
also indicated the Corps' regulations do not contain any provision to 
waive the peak discharge criterion.
  I'd like to take a few moments to describe briefly the unique 
situation in the Southwest Valley that necessitates a waiver of the 
Corps' standard regulations. The land along the west side of the Rio 
Grande is essentially flat. The river is contained by large earthen 
levees, which were built for flood control. When a river is contained 
this way by levees, the sediment accumulates in the river bed, slowly 
raising the level of the river. Of course, if there were no levees, 
when sediment builds up, the river would simply change course to a 
lower level. However, over the years, as the sediment has continued to 
accumulate in the Rio Grande, the level of the river within the levees 
is now higher than the surrounding land. Thus, when there are heavy 
rains during the monsoon season, the runoff has nowhere to go--it 
simply flows into large pools on the valley floor, flooding homes and 
farms. The water can't flow uphill into the river, so it stays there 
until it either evaporates or is pumped up and hauled away.
  If the flood water sits in large pools and isn't flowing, it clearly 
can't meet any criterion based on the flow rate of water. Indeed, given 
the unique nature of the flooding in the Southwest Valley, most areas 
subject to chronic flood damage do not meet the Corps' peak discharge 
criterion.
  During my visit in July, the three partners in the feasibility study 
specifically asked me for help in obtaining a waiver of the Corps' 
technical requirements to deal with this special situation. My 
amendment provides the necessary waiver the Corps needs to continue to 
work in partnership with the county and AMAFCA on this project.
  This is not a new authorization; Congress authorized this study last 
year. My amendment is a simple technical fix to the existing 
authorization. I do believe the unique situation in Bernalillo County 
warrants a waiver of the Corps' standard regulations, and I thank the 
committee for accepting my amendment.


                     Savings Clause Report Language

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, as part of the manager's amendment we 
amend section (h)(3)(B) of the bill as reported that explains what the 
programmatic regulations should contain. What impact does amending this 
section have on the report language that accompanies this section.

[[Page 18908]]


  Mr. SMITH. I am very glad that you asked that question. First let me 
explain what subsection (h)(3) does. Subsection (h)(3) requires the 
issuance of programmatic regulations to ensure that the goals and 
purposes of the Plan are achieved by guiding the implementation of the 
project implementation reports.
  Confusion was raised due to the wording that we used in the bill as 
reported. In order to clarify section (h)(3)(B)(i), we deleted the 
words ``provide guidance.'' Despite the change in the manager's 
amendment, the report language for this section is still relevant, and 
reflects the committee's interpretation of this section. It is still 
the committee's intent that in developing the programmatic regulations, 
the Federal and State partners should establish interim goals-expressed 
in terms of restoration standards-to provide a means by which the 
restoration success of the plan may be evaluated through the 
implementation process. The restoration standards should be 
quantitative and measurable at specific points in the plan 
implementation.
  Mr. BAUCUS. thank you for the clarification.


               Florida Consumptive Use Permitting Process

  Mr. BAUCUS. In the manager's amendment we modified the agreement 
section of the bill. Am I correct that the purpose of this section is 
to require the State of Florida and the President of the United States 
to enter into a binding agreement requiring Florida to manage its 
consumptive use permitting process in such a manner that the State will 
be able to deliver the water made available by the plan for the natural 
system to ensure restoration.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. That is correct. Furthermore, the plan 
should include an agreemen that the State will not pre-allocate any 
water generated by the plan for consumptive use or otherwise make this 
water unavailable by the State. This agreement is extremely is 
extremely important, as are the programmatic regulations, in ensuring 
that the needs of the natural system are met.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Thank you for the clarification.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendments 
en bloc.
  The amendments (Nos. 4166 through 4173, en bloc) were agreed to.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                  breakenridge flood reduction project

  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished 
chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, in a brief 
colloquy on an extremely important flood reduction project. As the 
Chairman may recall, I have been a strong proponent of the ongoing 
Breckenridge flood reduction project in Breckenridge, Minnesota. I am 
pleased that the Chairman has agreed that this existing flood control 
project should continue to proceed expeditiously. As a result of the 
1997 floods, the city of Breckenridge experienced over $30 million in 
flood related damages. That flood cost the Federal Government millions 
of dollars in expenditures for advanced measures for flood fighting, 
flood emergency actions during the flood, and post-flood cleanup and 
recovery efforts at Breckenridge.
  After the 1997 flood, the city has taken numerous actions to protect 
themselves from future catastrophic flooding. Such actions include the 
acquisition of many flood prone properties; local design and 
construction of new local flood levees at selected areas; initiation of 
a partnership between the Corps of Engineers, the city, and the State 
of Minnesota for a cost-shared Section 205 Feasibility Study to define 
an implementable Federal flood reduction project.
  The city of Wahpeton, North Dakota is located immediately across the 
Red and Bois de Sioux Rivers from Breckenridge and is therefore 
strongly inter-related from a hydraulic and social perspective. 
Wahpeton has also entered into a separate cost-shared Section 205 flood 
reduction study for protecting their city. The flood protection plans 
now formulated for Wahpeton and Breckenridge are interdependent with 
each project relying on flood control features to be implemented by 
their sister city. If Wahpeton moves forward before Breckenridge, then 
Breckenridge could experience even more flooding. The two projects 
should proceed together. Therefore, in order for either project to move 
forward through completion these separate Federal flood reduction 
projects must both be constructed expeditiously. The timing associated 
with construction of each project will affect the implementation 
options and costs for each project.
  I would like to continue to work with the Chairman as this bill goes 
to conference in providing further assurances that this existing flood 
control project be constructed as quickly as possible so that the city 
of Breckenridge can be protected from future flooding.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I want to echo the words of my 
colleague from Minnesota and thank my colleagues, the Chairman and 
ranking members of the Environment and Public Works Committee for their 
attention to the needs of the residents of Breckenridge, Minnesota and 
this much needed flood control project. We have come a long way since 
the floods of 1997, when I visited the community to witness first hand 
the devastation. Since then the city of Breckenridge has been working 
closely with the Army Corps of Engineers and the Minnesota Department 
of Natural Resources to design a comprehensive flood control plan to 
protect the community from future losses. I am pleased that the Senate 
WRDA bill will include authorization for this much needed flood control 
project.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I am pleased to be able to 
accommodate the Senators' request and provide $21 million in authorized 
language for this existing and ongoing flood reduction project. I know 
how important this project is to the citizens of Breckenridge, 
Minnesota, and hope the construction can begin expeditiously.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his assistance.


                   Adaptive Assessment and monitoring

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to speak today about the Adaptive 
Assessment and Monitoring section of this legislation with my 
colleagues from Florida and New Hampshire. This is one of the most 
critical aspects of this legislation which builds in a feedback loop 
for the Army Corps and the South Florida Water Management District and 
ultimately, the Congress, to incorporate new information into Plan 
authorization, design and execution. I would encourage the Corps, under 
the authority and appropriations provided for the Comprehensive 
Everglades Restoration Plan [CERP], to coordinate with appropriately 
qualified outside institutions, both nationally and internationally, to 
conduct independent scientific assessments and monitoring as part of 
the Adaptive Assessment and Monitoring Program. I also believe that one 
of the most important elements of Everglades restoration will be 
technology transfer to other ecosystems. I recommend that the Corps 
continue its partnerships with appropriately qualified outside 
institutions, both nationally and internationally, to distribute 
lessons-learned from this experience.
  Mr. MACK. I echo the sentiments of the Senator from Florida about the 
Adaptive Assessment and Monitoring Program. As this is a long-term plan 
spanning almost 25 years in execution, it stands to reason that 
research will yield new information and technology changes will yield 
new solutions. The Adaptive Assessment and Monitoring Program is 
critical to ensuring that this new information is incorporated into our 
planning process for this project. The type of collaboration described 
by my colleague from Florida will ensure that resources are wisely 
spent by utilizing and expanding monitoring programs already in 
operation.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I thank my colleagues from Florida for 
bringing these issues to my attention, and I agree with my colleagues 
that

[[Page 18909]]

the Corps of Engineers should take advantage of the expertise of 
appropriately qualified outside institutions, both nationally and 
internationally, in the Adaptive Monitoring and Assessment Program 
authorized under this legislation.


                    Indian Trust Doctrine Provision

  Mr. BAUCUS. Section (h)(2)(C) of Title VI of S. 2796 states, ``in 
carrying out his responsibilities under this subsection with respect to 
the restoration of the South Florida ecosystem, the Secretary of the 
Interior shall fulfill his obligations to the Indian trust tribes in 
South Florida under the Indian Trust Doctrine as well as other 
applicable legal obligations.'' Is the intent of this provision to 
ensure that the Secretary of the Interior give full and equal 
consideration to all his legal responsibilities?
  Mr. SMITH. The Senator is correct. The intent of this provision is to 
ensure that the Secretary of the Interior, in carrying out his 
responsibilities as authorized by this Act, shall fully and equally 
consider all of his legal responsibilities including, but not limited 
to the Indian Trust Doctrine, Everglades National Park, Biscayne 
National Park, Big Cypress National Preserve, the National Park System, 
the National Wildlife Refuge System, Migratory Bird Treaty, and the 
Endangered Species Act.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Chairman.


             Clarification of intent of the Savings Clause

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to ask the Chairman of the 
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee to clarify the intent of 
the Savings Clause provision included in subsection (h)(5) section of 
601 of S. 27976, as modified by the manager's amendment.
  Mr. SMITH. I would be happy to clarify.
  Mr. BAUCUS. It is my understanding that the Savings Clause was 
intended to provide that until a new source of water supply of 
comparable quantity and quality is available to replace any water 
supply to be lost as a result of implementation of the Plan, the 
Secretary of the Army and the non-federal sponsor shall not eliminate 
or transfer existing legal sources of water.
  Mr. SMITH. That is my understanding as well.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Am I correct in saying with respect to flood control, the 
Savings Clause was intended to ensure that implementation of the Plan 
will not result in significant adverse impact to any person with an 
existing, legally recognized right to a level of protection against 
flooding, including flood protection for the natural system?
  Mr. SMITH. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Furthermore, I understand that the Savings Clause 
provision was not intended to allow the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to 
redirect to the natural system water from the human environment of 
unsuitable quality or quantity in an effort to provide the flood 
protection guaranteed in the section?
  Mr. SMITH. Yes, that is my understanding of the intent of the Savings 
Clause as well.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Senator for his assistance in clarifying the 
intent of this provision.


                             waterbury dam

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to thank my distinguished 
colleagues, Senators Baucus and Smith, for their hard work on the Water 
Resources Development Act of 2000. I am especially grateful for their 
inclusion of a provision in this bill that will ultimately expand the 
successful federal, state, and local partnerships restoring the highest 
water quality in the Lake Champlain watershed.
  One project that we could not come to full agreement on before this 
bill's passage, however, was authorization for the repair of the 
Waterbury Dam. Our lack of final language was in a large part due to 
the absence of a final Dam Safety Assurance Program Evaluation Report 
from the Army Corps of Engineers, a final draft of which was sent to 
ACE Headquarters for review on August 24, 2000.
  The Waterbury Dam was built by the Army Corps of Engineers in 1935 
and holds 1.23 billion cubic feet of water in its reservoir. Were the 
dam to fail, this volume of water would ultimately submerge and destroy 
the entire corridor of cities and towns downstream in the Winooski 
River valley. Thousands of lives would be lost. Hundreds of thousands 
of acres would be completely devastated.
  Unfortunately, increasingly serious cracks and seepage in Waterbury 
Dam's structure were recently discovered and have heightened concerns 
that the dam could, in fact, fail. The State of Vermont and the Army 
Corps went into action and drew down the water level to alleviate 
pressure on the dam. The Corps carried out an assessment this summer to 
further characterize immediate repair needs. There is strong evidence 
that these cracks are, in fact, the result of initial design flaws and 
the Corps work today follows two previous instances--one in 1956-8 and 
one in 1985--when the Army Corps of Engineers had full authority to 
make needed dam modifications.
  I understand that the Army Corps of Engineers is expediting the 
review of the Dam Safety Assurance Report for the Waterbury Dam. I am 
grateful to Senators Smith and Baucus for their understanding that the 
final report may contain important information relevant for 
authorization of the project.
  I look forward to working with my distinguished colleagues, Senators 
Smith and Baucus, once the report is finalized and is able to guide our 
plans for Waterbury Dam repair.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I realize that Waterbury Dam repair is a 
pressing need for the state of Vermont and will carefully analyze the 
final report when it is released from the Army Corps of Engineers.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I join Chairman Smith in recognizing the need for repairs 
to Waterbury Dam in Vermont.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, there is an issue that needs to be 
addressed in WRDA that is not addressed by this bill. On June 12, 2000, 
the Administration sent us a report on the management of the Corps of 
Engineers' hopper dredge fleet. It says that efforts initiated by 
Congress in WRDA 96 have been successful. That legislation moved more 
of the routine maintenance dredging to the private sector and increased 
the Corps emergency response capability. In their report, the Corps 
recommended a plan that would move a little more work to the private 
sector while rehabilitating the oldest federal hopper dredge for 
emergency response purposes. While it may be questionable whether or 
not the benefit of this federal investment is worth the cost, I am 
willing to implement the Corps recommendations in order to get the 
management and emergency response improvements that are described in 
the report to Congress. After receiving the report, I requested 
legislative language from the Corps that they provided to me. I have 
been attempting to work with interested members to get this language, 
or possibly other compromise language, adopted in this legislation. I 
do not understand why the Corps recommendation is not considered a 
victory by the supporters of this federal dredge. The Corps strongly 
believes that their recommendation is a win-win for the nation's ports 
and the ports along the Delaware River as well as the nation's 
taxpayers. While I am not offering an amendment here today, I want my 
colleagues to know that this is an issue that I am going to pursue. I 
hope that we will be able to work something out in the conference 
committee. Thank you very much. I look forward to working with my 
colleagues on this important national issue.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, there is a clear need for Independent 
Review of Army Corps of Engineers' projects. During debate on this bill 
I was prepared to offer an amendment on Independent Review. It was 
drawn from similar provisions in a larger piece of Corps Reform 
legislation sponsored by my Wisconsin colleague in the other body (Mr. 
Kind). My interest in an Independent Review amendment was shared by the 
Minority Leader (Mr. Daschle) and the Senator from California (Mrs. 
Boxer) and a number of taxpayer and environmental organizations. 
including: the League of Conservation Voters, American Rivers,

[[Page 18910]]

Coast Alliance, Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund, Izaak Walton League of 
America, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club and Taxpayers 
for Common Sense.
  I believe that the Senate should act right now to require Independent 
Review in this Water Resources Development Act, but the Senate is 
apparently not ready to take that step. Nevertheless, in response to my 
initiative, the bill's managers (Senator Smith and Senator Baucus) have 
adopted an amendment as part of their Manager's Package which should 
help get the Authorizing Committee, the Environment and Public Works 
Committee, the additional information it needs to develop and refine 
legislation on this issue through a one year study by the National 
Academy of Sciences (NAS) on peer review. As part of the discussions 
with the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Smith) and the Senator from 
Montana (Mr. Baucus) over the amendment I intended to offer, they have 
agreed that as the NAS conducts its review, they will hold hearings on 
the issue of Corps reform and on a bill which I will introduce next 
Congress that will include Independent Review. I want to make certain 
that an NAS study does not become an excuse not to do anything on Corps 
reform for a year. Therefore, I have not opposed that study, and its 
completion will eliminate one argument against enacting serious Corps 
reform. The managers understand my concern in this regard, and are 
interested in moving forward on reforms, and have agreed to my request 
for hearings. It is my hope that through hearings the NAS study and my 
bill can dovetail nicely so that we have a fully vetted bill which can 
then be fined tuned by the NAS recommendations. The agreement we have 
made provides the best chance to pass a serious reform bill in the next 
year, rather than reach deadlock.
  I appreciate the efforts that the Managers of this bill have taken to 
bring this bill to the floor in the closing days of this Senate. I know 
that many of these Corps projects are extremely important to many of 
our constituents. However, Mr. President, in light of the attention and 
concern that the replacement of the Upper Mississippi locks has had in 
my own home state, I felt it that it was important that the issue of 
establishing additional oversight and review of Corps projects be 
raised in the context of this year's Water Resources bill, and that we 
begin down the road to passage of Corps reform legislation. Today we 
are closer to that goal than we were yesterday.
  As last week's five part series on the Corps of Engineers which ran 
in the Washington Post last week highlighted, the ongoing construction 
and maintenance of Corps dams, navigation channels, and flood control 
structures, and other water development projects dramatically alter the 
nation's landscapes. Michael Grunwald's Sunday, September 10, 2000 
story made this point very clear that the debate over whether the 
Corps:

     . . . should grow or shrink, and how much it should shift its 
     focus from construction projects to restoration project. . 
     .may not be the sexiest of Beltway brawls, but it will have a 
     dramatic effect on America. Corps levees and floodwalls 
     protect millions of homes, farms and businesses. Its coastal 
     ports and barge channels carry 2 billion tons of freight 
     annually. Its dams generate one-fourth of America's 
     hydroelectric power. Its water recreation sites attract more 
     visitors than the National Park Service's. Its land holdings 
     would cover Vermont and New Hampshire. But the Corps may have 
     its greatest impact on nature . . . So the future direction 
     of the Corps will help determine the future health of 
     America's environment.

  Furthermore, this major government program costs federal taxpayers 
billions of dollars each year, and unfortunately, there have been times 
when economically unjustified activities have made it through to 
construction. While there are heartening signs of reform in the Corps 
Civil Works program, Congress should be working to create an 
independent process to help affirm when the Corps gets it right and 
help to provide a means for identifying problems before taxpayer funded 
construction investments are made. Today we begin that work in earnest.
  Mr. President, I feel that requiring independent review of large and 
controversial Corps projects is a practical first step down the road to 
a reformed Corps of Engineers. Independent review would catch mistakes 
by Corps planners, deter any potential bad behavior by Corps officials 
to justify questionable projects, and would provide planners 
desperately needed support against the never ending pressure of project 
boosters. Those boosters, Mr. President, include Congressional 
interests, which is why I believe that this body needs to champion 
reform--to end the perception that Corps projects are all pork and no 
substance. As Mike Grunwald's article on Monday, September 11, 2000 
states:

       Water projects are a traditional coin of the realm on 
     Capitol Hill, offering members of Congress jobs, contracts 
     and other benefits for their constituents and campaign 
     contributors --as well as ribbon cutting opportunities for 
     themselves. In fact, the Corps budget consists almost 
     entirely of projects requested by individual lawmakers, then 
     approved by the Corps; the agency has almost no discretionary 
     funds of its own.

  I wish it were the case, Mr. President, that I could argue that 
additional oversight were not needed, but unfortunately, I see that 
there is need for additional scrutiny. In the Upper Mississippi there 
is troubling evidence of abuse. There is troubling evidence from 
whistleblowers that senior Corps officials, under pressure from barge 
interests, ordered their subordinates to exaggerate demand for barges 
in order to justify new Mississippi River locks. This is a matter which 
is still under investigation, and I hope that no evidence of wrongdoing 
will ultimately be found. Adequate assessment of the environmental 
impacts of barges is also very important. I am also concerned that the 
Corps' assessment of the environmental impacts of additional barges 
does not adequately assess the impacts of barge movements on fish, 
backwaters and aquatic plants. We should not gamble with the 
environmental health of the river. If we allow more barges on the 
Mississippi, we must be sure the environmental impacts of those barges 
are fully mitigated.
  I am raising this issue principally because I believe that Congress 
should act to restore trust in the Corps if we are going to complete an 
unbiased assessment of navigation needs. The first step in restoring 
that trust is restoring the credibility of the Corps' decision-making 
process. We must remove the cloud hanging over the Corps. There is a 
basic conflict of interest here, and Mike Grunwald's story on 
Wednesday, September 11, 2000, again in the Washington Post, makes this 
clear:

       The same agency that evaluates the proposed water projects 
     gets to work on the ones it deems worthwhile. If the analysis 
     concludes that the economic costs of a project outweigh its 
     benefits, or that the ecological damage of a project is too 
     extreme, then the Corps loses a potential job.

  Unfortunately, Mr. President, Congress now finds itself having to 
reset the scales to make economic benefits and environmental 
restoration co-equal goals of project planning. Our rivers serve many 
masters--barge owners as well as bass fisherman--and the Corps' 
planning process should reflect the diverse demands we place on them. I 
want to make sure that future Corps projects no longer fail to produce 
predicted benefits, stop costing more than the Corps estimated, and do 
not have unanticipated environmental impacts. In the future, we must 
monitor the result of projects so that we can learn from our mistakes 
and, when possible, correct them. We should impose a system of peer 
review as soon as possible and consider other comprehensive reforms. In 
a first step toward full evaluation of projects, I have committed 
myself to making Corps reform a priority in the next year and in the 
107th Congress. The agreement we have reached today ensures that this 
Senate will also make it a priority.

                          ____________________