[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 25638-25641]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



       WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2000--CONFERENCE REPORT

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of the conference 
report to accompany S. 2796, the Water Resources Development Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the House to the bill (S. 
     2796), ``to provide for the conservation and development of 
     water and related resources, to authorize the Secretary of 
     the Army to construct various projects for improvements to 
     rivers and harbors of the United States, and for other 
     purposes,'' having met, after full and free conference, have 
     agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective 
     Houses that the Senate recede from its disagreement to the 
     amendment of the House and agree to the same with an 
     amendment signed by a majority of the conferees on the part 
     of both Houses.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senate will proceed to 
the consideration of the conference report.
  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of October 19, 2000.)


                  Export of Water from the Great Lakes

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Water Resources Development Act 
addresses many of the water resource needs of our nation. But it also 
includes a provision relating to the export of water from the Great 
Lakes which needs some clarification. Would the distinguished chairman 
and ranking member be willing to join Senator Abraham and myself to 
clarify a few points about this language?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. president, I would be pleased to offer information 
about this provision to my colleagues.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I am also pleased to discuss this 
provision.
  Mr. LEVIN. First, we need to make it clear that the phrase ``and 
implementation'' in the findings of subsection (a) does not constitute 
a ``pre-approval'' of standards which are being developed by the 
Governors of the Great Lakes States. Would the chairman and ranking 
member concur that it is not the intent of this provision to grant pre-
approval to standards which we have not seen?
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I would concur; it is not the intention 
of the conferees that this provision be interpreted as granting pre-
approval to standards which have not yet been developed and which 
Congress has not reviewed.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I echo the chairman's sentiment.
  Mr. LEVIN. Would the chairman and ranking member also concur that it 
is not the intent of this provision to pre-empt the need for future 
appropriate congressional actions in this area?
  Mr. BAUCUS. I would concur. This language should not be interpreted 
as pre-empting the authority of Congress to approve or disapprove an 
interstate compact, international agreement, or other such mechanisms 
of implementation which properly fall under congressional authority. it 
is simply the intent of the conferees to encourage the States to 
promptly take such actions to implement these standards as fall within 
their authority for management of the water resources of their 
respective states and within the authority vested in them by the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1986 for making decisions regarding 
diversions of Great Lakes water.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I concur with the ranking member's 
interpretation.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. On a second matter, this language uses the phrase 
``resource improvement'' as one principle in encouraging the states to 
develop a common conservation standard. This phrase is intended to 
embody the concept of improvement of the quality of the natural 
resource, not the development of the resource. Is that the 
understanding of the chairman and ranking member?
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Yes, as use din this section, the term 
resource improvement is intended to convey the concept of an 
improvement to the natural resource. The alternative interpretation 
would not be consistent with the parallel directive that the standard 
embody the principles of water conservation.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I concur with this interpretation.
  Mr. LEVIN. I also wish to thank my colleague from Michigan for 
joining in the effort to clarify the intent of this provision. I still 
have reservations as to whether this provision represents the best 
approach to addressing the issue of water diversion and export which 
faces the Great Lakes region today, but these clarifications of the 
intent of the provision relieve some of my concern.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I thank the chairman, ranking member, and my colleague 
from Michigan. Mr. President, Senator Levin has been a leader in the 
effort to protect the Great Lakes on a wide variety of fronts. Clearly 
today's work will not completely guarantee the protection of this great 
resource, but I believe it is a big step in the right direction. I want 
to thank Senator Levin for his help in this matter, particularly for 
his work to eliminate the likelihood of unintended consequences from 
this legislation. I look forward to working with him in the future as 
we fight to protect this great resource.


         the ten- and fifteen-mile bayous flood control project

  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, as we complete work on the Water 
Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2000, I would like to bring the 
Senate's attention to a project that is very important to a group of my 
constituents in Arkansas: the Ten and Fifteen Mile Bayou project. The 
Ten and Fifteen Mile Bayou project would provide flood control to a 
poor, rural area in the Mississippi Delta that is oftentimes overlooked 
while other projects in more affluent, urban areas move forward. The 
Delta's small farming communities and poor minorities are the 
constituencies most affected by the constant flooding that this project 
seeks to prevent. It is vitally important to the future of this Delta 
region to alleviate these flooding concerns.
  I have worked with the St. Francis Levee Board on this important 
project since my days in the House of Representatives. Unfortunately, 
the resources of this community are extremely limited and they are 
unable to meet the cost share requirements of any federal program. Can 
the distinguished Senator from Montana please explain section 204 of 
the current WRDA bill dealing with ``the ability to pay'' provision? 
Specifically, I am interested in hearing how this provision might help 
projects, like Ten and Fifteen Mile Bayou, that are needed but simply 
can not meet the cost share requirements.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I appreciate your concern about flooding in the Saint

[[Page 25639]]

Frances River Basin and your frustration with efforts to address this 
situation. Many communities across the nation simply do not have the 
financial ability to provide the cost share for Corps studies and 
projects. Because of this, Congress added an ``Ability to Pay'' 
provision to the Water Resources Development Act in 1986. This 
provision, which establishes procedures for reducing the non-federal 
share of water resource development project costs for distressed 
communities, has been amended several times subsequently. These 
procedures, which are set by the Corps through regulation, take into 
consideration local economic and financial conditions.
  This year, the administration's Water Resources Development Act 
legislative proposal contained an update to the Ability to Pay 
provision which included expanding its applicability to feasibility 
studies and additional project types. The Senate Environment and Public 
Works Committee further expanded the project types eligible and this 
amendment to the Ability to Pay provision is contained in the 
Conference Report.
  Our intention is that these changes will result in the Ability to Pay 
provision being used more frequently by the Corps and providing greater 
relief to communities that cannot meet ``standard'' Corps cost-share 
requirements. While I am not familiar enough with specifics of the Ten 
and Fifteen Mile Bayou project to judge the application of the Ability 
to Pay provision, I would encourage the Corps to pay particular 
attention to the applicability of the provision to this flood control 
project.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I also appreciate the financial hardships 
faced by communities in West Memphis as well as in many other areas of 
the country. I also expect that the amendments to the Ability to Pay 
provision contained in this Conference Reports will increase the Corps' 
use of this provision and, thereby, the relief provided to communities 
with financial hardships.
  In addition, it is important for Congress to monitor the 
implementation of the Ability of Pay provision. To accomplish this, the 
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, of which I am the 
chairman and Senator Baucus is the ranking member, will hold oversight 
hearings next year on the Corps' historical and current performance as 
it relates to the application of Ability to Pay provisions of the Water 
Resource Development Act.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. I thank my colleagues for their comments and I look 
forward to working with them on this important matter.


                        programmatic regulations

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from 
Florida to clarify one section of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 2000. Section 2(h)(3)(C)(ii) includes language from the House 
clarifying the applicability of programmatic regulations. One of the 
most important elements of the formula for success which brings us to 
the floor of the Senate with this conference report today is the open 
process used by the Corps of Engineers to develop consensus positions 
on a course of action. I want to clarify my colleague's views on the 
language in this section. Do you believe that this language will limit 
the public's ability to participate and comment on the development of 
project implementation reports, project cooperation agreements, 
operating manuals, and any other documents relating to the development, 
implementation, and management of individual features of the Plan?
  Mr. MACK. This language is not intended to affect the public's 
ability to participate and comment on the development of project 
implementation reports, project cooperation agreements, operating 
manuals, and any other documents relating to the development, 
implementation, and management of individual features of the plan. In 
addition, this language is not intended to expand any one federal 
agency's authority. I share your view that the Corps' open process is 
one of the most important aspects in building the consensus which makes 
this Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan strong.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, Members of the 106th Congress, thank you 
for this opportunity to stand before you today as a proud Member of 
this body. We are on the verge of passing historic, comprehensive 
legislation to restore America's Everglades.
  This is a dream I have had since early childhood when I lived on the 
edge of the Everglades in a coral rock house. I witnessed the 
manipulation of the Everglades from a serene, river of grass into a 
funnel built for human purposes.
  Over the decades, I joined other Floridians in finding that moment of 
truth--the moment when we realized that our actions were destroying 
this ecosystem which is the very heart of Florida. I was proud to start 
the ``Save Our Everglades'' program in Florida during my tenure as 
Governor.
  I thank everyone who took that giant leap with me in 1983 to begin to 
do what appeared to be impossible--to make the Everglades look more 
like it had in 1900 than it did in 1983 by the year 2000.
  We have taken several first steps.
  In 1992 the Kissimmee River restoration project demonstrated that we 
can, in fact, restore portions of a damaged ecosystem.
  In 1996 the critical projects authorization allowed us to begin on 
projects with an immediate benefit to the environment. That same year, 
we began the ``restudy'' of America's Everglades.
  I offer my thanks again to the people of Florida who toiled endlessly 
to produce the consensus document, the Comprehensive Everglades 
Restoration Plan which is the basis for the legislation we will pass 
today.
  Names like Colonel Joe Miller, Dick Pettigrew, Stu Appelbaum, and Tom 
Teets and will ring in Florida's history as people who sacrificed 
personal gain for the future of this project, people who built 
consensus where none could even be visualized, and people whose 
expertise built the very foundation of our plan to restore the 
Everglades.
  Today, we are ending one chapter and beginning another in the history 
of America's Everglades.
  We are officially ending the chain of events that we began in 1948 
with the authorization of the Central and Southern Florida Flood 
Control Project which, according to the National Parks and Conservation 
Association, brought the parks and preserves of the Everglades to a 
prominent spot on the list of the 10 most endangered in the country.
  We are beginning the chapter of restoration.
  After 17 years of bipartisan progress in the context of a strong 
Federal-State partnership, we are seeing the dream that many of us 
shared in 1983 become reality.
  I want to speak for a moment about this unprecedented Federal-State 
partnership. I often compare this unique partnership to a marriage.
  If both partners respect each other, and pledge to work through any 
challenges together, the marriage will be strong and successful. Today, 
we are again celebrating the strength of that marriage.
  This legislation contains several provisions born out of the respect 
that sustains this marriage.
  It offers assurances to both the Federal and State governments on the 
use and distribution of water in the Everglades ecosystem.
  It requires that the State government pay half the costs of 
construction.
  It requires that the Federal Government pay half of the costs of 
operations and maintenance. Everglades restoration can't work unless 
the executive branch, Congress, and State government move forward hand-
in-hand. The legislation before us today accomplishes this goal.
  With the vote we are about to take--to pass the Water Resources 
Development Act of 2000--we are truly making history.
  We will be one step closer to restoring the damage done when 
humankind had the arrogance to second-guess nature.
  With this project we are doing nothing less than turning back time, 
returning this dying place to the wild splendor of its past and in 
doing so, ensuring its future.

[[Page 25640]]

  If we accomplish the historic goal of restoring America's Everglades 
then today will be one our children and grandchildren will remember.
  They will look back on this as the day that our generation had the 
courage and the foresight to make a commitment to restoring one of 
America's richest national treasures.
  In the words of President Lyndon B. Johnson:

       If future generations are to remember us with gratitude 
     rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the 
     miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the 
     world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got 
     through with it.

  Today is the day we will make the choice to leave a glimpse of 
America's Everglades as they were when we first found them for future 
generations--an undisturbed river of grass, unmatched in serenity and 
beauty.
  Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. President, I rise to join Senator Smith in supporting 
the conference report on S. 2796, the Water Resources Development Act 
of 2000.
  This conference report authorizes projects for flood control, 
navigation, shore protection, environmental restoration, water supply 
storage, and recreation. The bill also modifies existing projects and 
directs the Corps to study other proposed projects. All projects in 
this bill have the support of a local sponsor who is willing to share 
the cost of the project.
  Even a brief review of the projects demonstrates the importance of 
passing this conference report.
  A number of the projects are needed to protect our shorelines, along 
oceans, lakes, and rivers.
  Several of the navigation projects will ensure that our ports remain 
competitive in the increasingly global marketplace.
  Furthermore, the studies authorized in the bill will help us make 
informed decisions about the future use and management of our water 
resources.
  Let me mention two projects that are very important for my state of 
Montana.
  First, the authorization for design and construction of a fish 
hatchery at Fort Peck. This fish hatchery will make good on a long 
awaited promise of the Fort Peck project; namely, more recreational and 
economic opportunities for the folks in eastern Montana.
  Fort Peck Lake is one of the greatest resources in our state. It not 
only plays a major role in power production and water supply, but it is 
an increasingly important center for recreation. People from around the 
state--as well as from around the world--come to Fort Peak for our 
annual walleye tournaments.
  The local community really puts a lot of effort into these 
tournaments. And they've put a lot of effort into the Fort Peck 
hatchery. Communities across eastern Montana have raised funds for the 
matching share of the project's feasibility study.
  And the state legislature has contributed as well. It passed a 
special warm water fishery stamp to help provide additional financial 
support for the hatchery.
  The fish hatchery will help to ensure the continued development of 
opportunities at Fort Peck Lake. And it will also represent a major 
source of jobs and economic development for this part of the state.
  I would also like to point out the bill's provision relating to the 
exchange of cabin sites leased by private individuals on federal land 
at Fort Peck Lake.
  The lake is surrounded by the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife 
Refuge. Yet, there are many private in holdings in the refuge.
  This provision will allow the cabin leases to be exchanged for other 
private land within the refuge that has higher value for fish, 
wildlife, and recreation. By consolidating management of the refuge 
lands, the provision will reduce costs to the Corps associated with 
managing these cabin sites. It will also enhance public access to the 
refuge.
  This exchange is modeled on a similar project near Helena, Montana, 
which Congress authorized in 1998. It represents a win-win-win for the 
public, the wildlife, and the cabin site owners.
  Mr. President, let me further mention a truly landmark provision in 
this conference report. In addition to the usual project authorizations 
contained in a water resource development act, this report represents 
Congress with a historic opportunity. Title VI of this report contains 
the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan.
  Restoration of the Everglades has been many years in the making. In 
the 1970s, the State of Florida became concerned that the previously 
authorized Central and South Florida project was doing too good a job 
at draining the swampy areas of the state. In fact, it was draining the 
life out of the Everglades.
  Our colleague from Florida, Senator Graham, who was then Governor 
Graham, began the effort to restore the Everglades by establishing the 
``Save Our Everglades'' program. And Senator Graham has worked 
tirelessly to achieve restoration ever since. The comprehensive plan to 
restore this invaluable ecosystem that is contained in the conference 
report before us is the culmination of his work.
  In closing, I would like to thank the chairman of the Environment and 
Public Works Committee, Senator Smith, for his unwavering commitment to 
making this Water Resource Development Act a reality. Further, I would 
like to thank him for the personal investment he made in keeping this 
conference report focused on projects central to the mission of the 
Corps.
  I know he was under tremendous pressure to open this report up to any 
number of inappropriate provisions, but he remained steadfast in his 
opposition and he should be commended for this. So, too, should his 
staff. They worked tirelessly to craft a Water Resources Development 
Act of which they can be proud.
  Finally, I would like to thank Jo-Ellen Darcy and Peter Washburn of 
my staff for their dedication to this legislation. A tremendous amount 
of work goes into a Water Resources Development Act. So, I particularly 
acknowledge and commend the effort that Jo-Ellen and Peter devoted to 
making this conference report such a success.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, at this time, I ask 
unanimous consent that the conference report be adopted, the motion to 
reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to 
this measure be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I wish to make a couple of 
comments on the legislation that we just adopted. This has been a long 
time coming. It is a culmination of some--actually, the Everglades 
portion of this legislation took a year of work. We had a hearing in 
January at the Everglades. This is a very exciting time for those of us 
who have worked on this. I want to briefly give a quick overview of 
that and recognize a few people who have been involved.
  This is a good bill. I am proud that we passed it. It is fiscally 
responsible. It recognizes our obligation to preserve one of the most 
important and endangered ecosystems in the Nation, if not the world: 
America's Everglades.
  I thank the Senate conferees--Senators Warner, Voinovich, Baucus, and 
Graham--for their hard work and dedication.
  I thank Chairman Shuster and the House conferees for their 
cooperation as well.
  I am proud of this bill. This is not a bill that includes numerous 
unnecessary projects. The committee established some tough criteria, 
and we stuck to those criteria.
  I am proud that the conference agreement on WRDA 2000 does not 
contain any environmental infrastructure projects. As those who 
requested such projects know, the committee has a longstanding 
opposition to including environmental infrastructure projects in WRDA.
  Unlike what has happened in the past, the Senate conferees were able 
to hold firm, and the House accepted our position, for which we are 
grateful.
  These types of projects, in my view, should be funded through the 
State revolving loan funds and not by the Army Corps of Engineers.

[[Page 25641]]

  From the time this WRDA process began, the committee received 
requests to authorize more than 300 new projects. By holding firm to 
our criteria--the conference report to WRDA--we were able to authorize 
30 new projects, 57 new feasibility studies, and a number of other 
project-related provisions.
  As I said before, Senator Baucus and I are committed to examining 
next year the infrastructure issue, and other issues, relating to the 
operation and management of the Corps. This will include hearings on 
the Corps reform.
  Let me talk specifically for a moment on the Everglades. There is an 
important element that separates this WRDA bill from all others and is 
what makes it so historic.
  This bill includes our landmark Everglades bill, S. 2797, the 
Restoring the Everglades, an American Legacy Act. It has been clearly 
demonstrated that the Everglades are in great peril. Without acting 
now, we could lose what is left of the Everglades in this generation. 
But Congress is prepared to move forward and make good on a problem the 
Federal Government greatly contributed to causing.
  It has been clearly demonstrated that the Everglades is a Federal 
responsibility. Lands owned or managed by the Federal Government--four 
national parks and 16 national wildlife refuges--compromise half of the 
remaining Everglades and will receive the benefits of restoration.
  The State of Florida has stepped up to the plate thanks to Gov. Jeb 
Bush and his legislature in Florida, on a bipartisan basis.
  The Everglades portion of WRDA has broad bipartisan support. Every 
major constituency involved in Everglades restoration supports our 
bill. These bipartisan and wide-ranging supporters include the Clinton 
administration, Florida Governor Jeb Bush, the Seminole Tribe of 
Florida; industry groups, including Florida Citrus Mutual; Florida Farm 
Bureau, the American Water Works Association; Florida Chamber of 
Commerce; 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 many environmental groups. To name just a few: 
National Audubon, 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. It is 
pretty unusual to bring the support of that many people on a major 
environmental bill to the Senate. I am proud to do it.
  The Everglades bill is a great model for environmental policy 
development. It is cooperative. It is not prescriptive. It is 
bipartisan, and it is flexible and adaptive. We can change things. If 
we don't like what is going on, if something isn't working, we pull 
back and try something new. It establishes a partnership between the 
Federal Government and the State and many other private groups as well.
  Our colleagues in the House suggested improvements to the Everglades 
piece, and we made those. While it didn't always look promising, we 
will see this bill become law before we go home, in the very near 
future, when the House passes it and the President signs it.
  Last June, Bruce Babbitt called this ``the most important 
environmental legislation in a generation.'' I agree. It took a lot of 
courage to work this through. This passed the Senate 85-1. It has broad 
support. And it will pass overwhelmingly in the House very shortly.
  It is almost dangerous to mention anyone because once you mention 
one, you are sure to omit some very important contributors. So with 
apologies to anybody I miss, I thank the late Senator John Chafee 
because he started this committee's efforts on the Everglades. I went 
to Florida in January. I told the folks in Florida this would be my 
highest priority and there wouldn't be much difference between John 
Chafee and Bob Smith on saving the Everglades. I kept my word.
  I thank the Senate conferees: subcommittee Chairman George Voinovich, 
Senator John Warner, ranking member Senator Max Baucus, Senator Bob 
Graham from Florida.
  I also thank Senator Connie Mack and Governor Jeb Bush of Florida for 
their unrelenting efforts on the Everglades. Time and again we talked 
with them. We kept working with them throughout.
  From the administration, Carol Browner has been very helpful 
throughout this affair.
  I thank Mary Doyle and Peter Umhofer, Department of Interior; Joe 
Westphal, Michael Davis, and Jim Smythe from the Department of the 
Army; Gary Guzy from EPA; Stu Applebaum, Larry Prather, Gary Campbell 
and many others from the Corps of Engineers; and Bill Leary from CEQ.
  From the State of Florida, I thank David Struhs, Leslie Palmer, and 
Ernie Barnett from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection; 
Kathy Copeland from the South Florida Water Management District.
  I thank the Senate legislative counsel: Janine Johnson, Darcy 
Tomasallo, and Tim Trushel.
  I thank the following staff members: from Senator Graham's staff, 
Catharine Cyr Ranson and Kasey Gillette; Senator Mack's staff, C.K. 
Lee; Senator Voinovich's staff, Ellen Stein and Rich Worthington; 
Senator Warner's staff, Ann Loomis; Senator Baucus' staff, Tom Sliter, 
Jo-Ellen Darcy, Peter Washburn, and Mike Evans; and my staff, Dave 
Conover, Ann Klee, Angie Giancarlo, Chelsea Henderson Maxwell, 
Stephanie Daigle, Tom Gibson, and Jeff Miles.
  It was a great bipartisan effort. In spite of many roadblocks over 
the past several months, we were able to work this bill through in a 
bipartisan manner. I am truly grateful to everyone on both sides of the 
aisle for their tremendous support through a very difficult effort. 
There were literally hundreds of projects that the staff had to pore 
through, and we did it.
  When we look back on our careers, when we leave here and look back 
and say, What did I accomplish? I think we will be very proud of the 
vote to save the Everglades. I guarantee it. It will be right up there 
at the top. Once those Everglades are safe, we can say, when the time 
came to stand up and make a difference, we did.
  When I became chairman, I promised to make the Everglades my highest 
priority. I did. I also said we needed to look forward to the next 
generation, rather than the next election, in environmental policy.
  We are now poised to send the President a conference report on WRDA 
that has the support of every major south Florida stakeholder, the 
State of Florida, and the administration. Restoration of the Everglades 
is not a partisan issue. We proved it. The effort has been bipartisan 
from the start.
  I congratulate my colleagues for daring to take the risk to support 
this noble effort to save a national treasure. We need to view our 
efforts as our legacy to future generations, and this will be this 
Senate's legacy to future generations.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.

                          ____________________