[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12456-12484]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. HOLLINGS (for himself, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. 
        Dorgan, and Mr. Kerry):
  S. 2793. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to strengthen 
the limitation on holding and transfer of broadcast licenses to foreign 
persons, and to apply a similar limitation to holding and transfer of 
other telecommunications media by or to foreign governments; to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


               foreign government investment act of 2000

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, in Saturday's Washington Post business 
section there is a headline story: German Phone Giant Seeks U.S. Firm. 
The concluding paragraph:

       But Hedberg stressed that a joint venture will not, under 
     any circumstances, be considered as the means of crafting an 
     offering for multinationals: Deutsche Telekom wants full 
     control of whatever course it pursues.

  Accordingly, on behalf of Senators Inouye, Rockefeller, Dorgan, 
Kerry, and myself, we introduce legislation to clarify the rules 
governing the takeover of U.S. telecommunications providers by overseas 
companies owned by foreign governments. The original rules in this area 
were established by statute in the 1930's, and while the law has not 
changed, the FCC's interpretation of this statute has.
  It is time to revisit this matter to ensure that current policy is 
consistent with efforts to promote vigorous domestic competition, 
maintain a secure communications system for National Security while 
meeting our International Trade Obligations.
  The statute expressly prohibits the transfer of a license to any 
corporation owned 25 percent or more by a foreign government, but 
allows the FCC to waive this prohibition if doing so would be in the 
public interest. Unfortunately, the FCC in previous rulemaking has 
found that the public interest is satisfied solely on the basis of 
whether the foreign government owned company is based in a WTO country. 
If the country is a member of the WTO, the FCC assumes that the public 
interest standard has been met.
  The legislation we introduce today will bar outright the transfer or 
issuance of telecommunications licenses to providers who are more than 
25 percent owned by a foreign government. We would not be alone in 
taking this step. Governments across the globe have prevented 
government owned telecommunications providers from purchasing assets in 
their countries. In the last month, the Spanish government prevented 
KPN, the Dutch provider, from purchasing Telefonica de Espana because 
of the Netherlands government's stake in KPN. They were not alone; the 
Italian and Hong Kong governments have recently thwarted takeover 
attempts by Deutsche Telekom, of Telecom Italia, and Singapore Tel, of 
Hong Kong Telecom, for just such reasons.
  Recent comments by Deutsche Telekom are particularly disturbing. 
During a recent press conference in New York, DT's CEO, Rom Sommer, 
stated ``that the market cap of Deutsche Telekom today vs. any American 
potential acquisition candidate means that nobody is out of reach.'' DT 
is approximately 59 percent government owned, has approximately 100 
million euros in cash and operates essentially from a protected home 
market. NTT, the Japanese Government owned provider and France Telecom, 
the French Government owned provider are similarly situated.
  Since 1984, U.S. telecommunications policy has encouraged vigorous 
domestic competition. The modified final judgment and the 1996 
Telecommunications Act are key examples of our efforts in this area. 
While our efforts to foster competition have benefited consumers, these 
efforts have depressed the earnings and stock prices of U.S. domestic 
providers.
  But in ``Promoting competition'' here at home we may be facilitating 
the ease by which foreign protected players may emerge with key U.S. 
assets. So for example, regulated European monopolists Deutsche Telekom 
and France Telecom, both majority foreign government owned--and subject 
to considerably less domestic competition, are reportedly eyeing U.S. 
companies.
  For more than fifty years, U.S. international trade policy has 
encouraged governments to separate themselves from the private or 
commercial sector. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, the U.S. Government 
encouraged various privatizations of foreign government-owned 
commercial ventures.
  With the end of the Cold War and the rise of global capitalism, we 
can justifiably claim an enormous amount of success in these efforts. 
Unfortunately, these efforts are far from complete. Around the globe, 
some of the world's most important sectors remain shackled with 
government-owned competitors. These government owned companies distort 
competition and undermine the concept of private capitalism.
  To allow these government-owned entities to purchase U.S.-based 
assets would undermine longstanding and successful U.S. policy. 
Moreover, allowing these competitors into the United States could 
potentially undercut our efforts to ensure competition in our domestic 
telecommunications market and in markets abroad.
  Government ownership of commercial assets results in significant 
marketplace distortion. Companies owned by governments have access to 
capital, capital markets and interest rates on more favorable terms 
than companies not affiliated with national governments. Many lenders 
may assume, correctly, that individual governments would not allow 
these companies to fail.
  In addition, companies competing with these providers may suffer from 
increased costs as a result of the entrance of such providers into the 
market. Lenders may conclude that the difficulty in competing with a 
government-owned company will increase the likelihood of failure. As a 
result, the entrance of a government supported provider into a market 
raises troubling anti-competitive issues. Many of these anti-
competitive effects can be relieved merely by the elimination of 
government-owned stakes.
  Finally, with regard to foreign markets, it is troubling to permit 
companies to be regulated by the governments that own them. While there 
is little we can do to effect this situation, we can take care to see 
that it is not exacerbated. These companies may use profits from these 
anticompetitive markets to unfairly subsidize U.S. operations.
  I must raise the national security concerns that trouble me greatly. 
We can all agree that telecommunications services are important for 
national security concerns. To permit a foreign

[[Page 12457]]

government to own such assets would raise too many troubling questions.
  The United States government--for national security purposes--created 
and nurtured the Internet in the 1960s and 1970s to ensure redundancy 
in communications. To permit foreign government owned companies to 
purchase the infrastructure necessary to support the Internet would 
undercut the very success of these efforts.
  This bill is timely for one additional reason. In recent days we have 
seen an increase in European Union antitrust scrutiny in the 
telecommunications area. Much of that activity has focused on two high 
profile proposed mergers, WorldCom-Sprint and Time Warner-AOL, despite 
the limited impact that these mergers will have on the European Union. 
This trend has become so pronounced that it received coverage in last 
weeks Washington Post in a story entitled, ``EU Resists Big U.S. 
mergers.''
  This increased antitrust activity is particularly troublesome because 
competitors to both companies are owned by European governments 
including the German, French and Dutch governments.
  Moreover, several of these government owned companies are widely 
reported to be interested in purchasing the remnants of Sprint that may 
be separated as a result of this investigation. In fact, according to a 
recent Financial Times story, as a result of aggressive antitrust 
enforcement, a strong American competitor--MCI WorldCom may fall prey 
to one of these government owned-competitors.
  For the United States Justice Department to take this step is one 
matter--these mergers involve American companies, primarily doing 
business in the United States. For the EU to take this step--when it is 
likely to assist European Companies owned by its member governments--is 
quite another.
  Moreover, this is not the first time that the EU has intervened in a 
U.S. merger to protect European government owned companies. Several 
years ago, the EU objected to the Boeing-McDonnell Douglas merger in 
order to protect the government owned Airbus consortium.
  In conclusion, this legislation establishes all of the correct 
incentives. It does not prohibit foreign investment; rather, it 
prohibits foreign government investment. Many companies have expressed 
a desire to enter the U.S.; ours is a lucrative market. By encouraging 
additional privatization of the government-owned telecommunications 
providers interested in providing services in the United States we will 
further the ideals of international capitalism.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BAYH (for himself and Mr. Lugar):
  S. 2794. A bill to provide for a temporary Federal district judgeship 
for the southern district of Indiana; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.


                TEMPORARY JUDGESHIP FOR SOUTHERN INDIANA

  Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Richard Lugar to 
introduce the Southern District of Indiana Temporary Judgeship Act. 
This legislation creates an additional temporary judgeship for the 
Southern District of Indiana to help alleviate the strain experienced 
over the past five years as a result of an extremely heavy caseload.
  In the last year alone, the Southern District has seen a higher than 
average number of case filings with 585 filings per judge, compared to 
the national average of 493 filings per judge. The Federal Bureau of 
Prisons ``Death Row'' has recently been located at the United States 
Penitentiary in Terre Haute, Indiana, which is part of the Southern 
District. As a result, the Southern District anticipates a significant 
increase in the number of petitions in death habeas cases. In addition, 
the Southern District of Indiana includes our state capital of 
Indianapolis, the center of government and politics in the Hoosier 
State. The court has experienced an increase in the number of cases 
which raise political and public policy questions. The Southern 
District court is clearly overburdened.
  The legislation I introduce today is critical to ensuring the 
delivery of Justice in the Southern District of Indiana. There is wide 
agreement about the need for this additional judgeship and, in fact, 
the Judicial Conference has called on Congress to add a temporary 
judge. I urge my colleagues to give this legislation their serious 
consideration and support. I thank the President and I yield the floor.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REID:
  S. 2795. A bill to provide for the use and distribution of the funds 
awarded to the Western Shoshone identifiable group under Indian Claims 
Commission Docket Numbers 326-A-1, 326-A-3, 326-K, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.


                western shoshone claims distribution act

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Western 
Shoshone Claims Distribution Act.
  Historically, the Western Shoshone were the residents land in the 
northeastern corner of Nevada and parts of California. For more than a 
hundred years, the Western Shoshone have received no compensation for 
the loss of their tribal lands. In the 1950's, the Indian Lands Claim 
Commission was established to compensate Indians for lands ceded to the 
United States. The commission determined that Western Shoshone land had 
been taken through ``gradual encroachment,'' and awarded the tribe 26 
million dollars. The commission's decision was later approved by the 
United States Supreme Court. However, it was not until 1979 that the 
United States appropriated more than 26 million dollars to reimburse 
the descendants of these tribes for their loss.
  Mr. President, the Western Shoshone are not a wealthy people. A third 
of the tribal members are unemployed; for many of those who do have 
jobs, it is a struggle to live from one paycheck to the next. Wood 
stoves often provide the only source of heat in their aging homes. Like 
other American Indians, the Western Shoshone continue to be 
disproportionately affected by poverty and low educational achievement. 
The high school completion rate for Indian people between the ages of 
20 and 24 is dismally low. American Indians have a drop-out rate 12.5 
percent higher than the rest of the nation. For the majority of the 
Western Shoshone, the money contained in the settlement funds could 
lead to drastic lifestyle improvements.
  Yet twenty years later, those three judgement funds still remain in 
the United States Treasury. The Western Shoshone have not received a 
single penny of the money which is rightfully theirs. In those twenty 
years, the original trust fund has grown to more than 121 million 
dollars. It is long past the time that this money should be delivered 
into the hands of its owners. The Western Shoshone Steering Committee 
has officially requested that Congress enact legislation to affect this 
distribution.
  It has become increasingly apparent in recent years that the vast 
majority of those who qualify to receive these funds support an 
immediate distribution of their money. This Act will provide payments 
to eligible Western Shoshone tribal members and ensure that future 
generations of Western Shoshone will be able to enjoy the benefit of 
the distribution in perpetuity. Through the establishment of a tribally 
controlled grant trust fund, individual members of the Western Shoshone 
will be able to apply for money for education and other needs within 
limits set by a self-appointed committee of tribal members.
  It is clear that the Western Shoshone want the funds from their claim 
distributed with all due haste. Members of the Western Shoshone 
gathered in Fallon and Elko, Nevada in May of 1998. They cast a vote 
overwhelmingly in favor of distributing the funds. 1,230 supported the 
distribution in the statewide vote; only 53 were opposed. I rise today 
in support and recognition of their decision. The final distribution of 
this fund has lingered for more than twenty years and it is clear that 
the best interests of the tribes will not be served by prolonging their 
wait.
  Mr. President, twenty years has been more than long enough.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill 
be printed in the Record.

[[Page 12458]]

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

                                S. 2795

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Western Shoshone Claims 
     Distribution Act''.

     SEC. 2. DISTRIBUTION OF DOCKET 326-K FUNDS.

       The funds appropriated on December 19, 1979, in 
     satisfaction of an award granted to the Western Shoshone 
     Indians in Docket Number 326-K before the Indian Claims 
     Commission, including all earned interest shall be 
     distributed as follows:
       (1) The Secretary shall establish a Western Shoshone 
     Judgment Roll consisting of all Western Shoshones who--
       (A) have at least \1/4\ degree of Western Shoshone Blood;
       (B) are citizens of the United States; and
       (C) are living on the date of enactment of this Act.
       (2) Any individual determined or certified as eligible by 
     the Secretary to receive a per capita payment from any other 
     judgment fund awarded by the Indian Claims Commission, the 
     United States Claims Court, or the United States Court of 
     Federal Claims, that was appropriated on or before the date 
     of enactment of this Act, shall not be eligible for 
     enrollment under this Act.
       (3) The Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register 
     rules and regulations governing the establishment of the 
     Western Shoshone Judgment Roll and shall utilize any 
     documents acceptable to the Secretary in establishing proof 
     of eligibility. The Secretary's determination on all 
     applications for enrollment under this paragraph shall be 
     final.
       (4) Upon completing the Western Shoshone Judgment Roll 
     under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall make a per capita 
     distribution of 100 percent of the funds described in this 
     section, in a sum as equal as possible, to each person listed 
     on the Roll.
       (5)(A) With respect to the distribution of funds under this 
     section, the per capita shares of living competent adults who 
     have reached the age of 19 years on the date of the 
     distribution provided for under paragraph (4), shall be paid 
     directly to them.
       (B) The per capita shares of deceased individuals shall be 
     distributed to their heirs and legatees in accordance with 
     regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
       (C) The shares of legally incompetent individuals shall be 
     administered pursuant to regulations and procedures 
     established by the Secretary under section 3(b)(3) of Public 
     Law 93-134 (25 U.S.C. 1403(b)(3)).
       (D) The shares of minors and individuals who are under the 
     age of 19 years on the date of the distribution provided for 
     under paragraph (4) shall be held by the Secretary in 
     supervised individual Indian money accounts. The funds from 
     such accounts shall be disbursed over a period of 4 years in 
     payments equaling 25 percent of the principal, plus the 
     interest earned on that portion of the per capita share. The 
     first payment shall be disbursed to individuals who have 
     reached the age of 18 years if such individuals are deemed 
     legally competent. Subsequent payments shall be disbursed 
     within 90 days of the individual's following 3 birthdays.
       (6) All funds distributed under this Act are subject to the 
     provisions of section 7 of Public Law 93-134 (25 U.S.C. 
     1407).
       (7) All residual principal and interest funds remaining 
     after the distribution under paragraph (4) is complete shall 
     be added to the principal funds that are held and invested 
     under section 3(1).
       (8) All per capita shares belonging to living competent 
     adults certified as eligible to share in the judgment fund 
     distribution under this section, and the interest earned on 
     those shares, that remain unpaid for a period of 6-years 
     shall be added to the principal funds that are held and 
     invested under section 3(1), except that in the case of a 
     minor, such 6-year period shall not begin to run until the 
     minor reaches the age of majority.
       (9) Receipt of a share of the judgment funds under this 
     section shall not be construed as a waiver of any existing 
     treaty rights pursuant to the ``1863 Treaty of Ruby Valley'' 
     inclusive of all Articles I through VIII and shall not 
     prevent any Western Shoshone Tribe or Band or individual 
     Shoshone Indian from pursuing other rights guaranteed by law.

     SEC. 3. DISTRIBUTION OF DOCKETS 326-A--1 AND 326-A-3.

       The funds appropriated on March 23, 1992, and August 21, 
     1995, in satisfaction of the awards granted to the Western 
     Shoshone Indians in Docket Numbers 326-A-1 and 326-A-2 before 
     the United States Court of Claims, and the funds referred to 
     under section 2, together with all earned interest, shall be 
     distributed as follows:
       (1)(A) Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment 
     of this Act, the Secretary shall establish in the Treasury of 
     the United States a trust fund to be known as the ``Western 
     Shoshone Educational Trust Fund'' for the benefit of the 
     Western Shoshone members. There shall be credited to the 
     Trust Fund the amount described in the matter preceding this 
     paragraph.
       (B) The principal amount in the Trust Fund shall not be 
     expended or disbursed. Other amounts in the Trust Fund shall 
     be invested as provided for in section 1 of the Act of June 
     24, 1938 (25 U.S.C. 162a).
       (C) All accumulated and future interest and income from the 
     Trust Fund shall be distributed as educational and other 
     grants, and as other forms of assistance determined 
     appropriate, to individual Western Shoshone members as 
     required under this Act and to pay the reasonable and 
     necessary expenses of the Administrative Committee 
     established under paragraph (2) (as defined in the written 
     rules and procedures of such Committee). Funds under this 
     paragraph shall not be distributed on a per capita basis.
       (2)(A) An Administrative Committee to oversee the 
     distribution of the education grants authorized under 
     paragraph (1) shall be established as provided for in this 
     paragraph.
       (B) The Administrative Committee shall consist of 1 
     representative from each of the following organizations:
       (i) The Western Shoshone Te-Moak Tribe.
       (ii) The Duckwater Shoshone Tribe.
       (iii) The Yomba Shoshone Tribe.
       (iv) The Ely Shoshone Tribe.
       (v) The Western Shoshone Business Council of the Duck 
     Valley Reservation, Fallon Band of Western Shoshone.
       (vi) The at large community.
       (C) Each member of the Committee shall serve for a term of 
     4-years. If a vacancy remains unfilled in the membership of 
     the Committee for a period in excess of 60 days, the 
     Committee shall appoint a replacement from among qualified 
     members of the organization for which the replacement is 
     being made and such member shall serve until the organization 
     to be represented designates a replacement.
       (D) The Secretary shall consult with the Committee on the 
     management and investment of the funds subject to 
     distribution under this section.
       (E) The Committee shall have the authority to disburse the 
     accumulated interest fund under this Act in accordance with 
     the terms of this Act. The Committee shall be responsible for 
     ensuring that the funds provided through grants under 
     paragraph (1) are utilized in a manner consistent with the 
     terms of this Act. In accordance with paragraph (1)(C), the 
     Committee may use a portion of the interest funds to pay all 
     of the reasonable and necessary expenses of the Committee, 
     including per diem rates for attendance at meetings that are 
     the same as for those paid to Federal employees in the same 
     geographic location.
       (F) The Committee shall develop written rules and 
     procedures that include such matters as operating procedures, 
     rules of conduct, scholarship fund eligibility criteria (such 
     criteria to be consistent with this Act), application 
     selection procedures, appeals procedures, fund disbursement 
     procedures, and fund recoupment procedures. Such rules and 
     procedures shall be subject to the approval of the Secretary. 
     A portion of the interest funds, not to exceed $100,000, 
     under this Act may be used by the Committee to pay the 
     expenses associated with developing such rules and 
     procedures. At the discretion of the Committee, and with the 
     approval of the appropriate tribal governing body, 
     jurisdiction to hear appeals of the Committee's decisions may 
     be exercised by a tribal court, or a court of Indian offenses 
     operated under section 11 of title 25, Code of Federal 
     Regulations.
       (G) The Committee shall employ an independent certified 
     public accountant to prepare an annual financial statement 
     that includes the operating expenses of the Committee and the 
     total amount of scholarship fund disbursements for the fiscal 
     year for which the statement is being prepared under this 
     section. The Committee shall compile a list of names of all 
     individuals approved to receive scholarship funds during such 
     fiscal year. The financial statement and the list shall be 
     distributed to each organization referred to in this section 
     and copies shall be made available to the Western Shoshone 
     members upon request.

     SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (2) Trust fund.--The term ``Trust Fund'' means the Western 
     Shoshone Educational Trust Fund established under section 
     3(1).
       (3) Western shoshone members.--The term ``Western Shoshone 
     members'' means an individual who appears on the Western 
     Shoshone Judgment Roll established under section 2(1), or an 
     individual who is the lineal descendant of an individual 
     appearing on the roll, and who--
       (A) satisfies all eligibility criteria established by the 
     Administrative Committee under section 3;
       (B) fulfills all application requirements established by 
     the Administrative Committee; and
       (C) agrees to utilize tile funds in a manner approved by 
     the Administrative Committee for educational or vocational 
     training purposes.

     SEC. 5. REGULATIONS.

       The Secretary shall prescribe the enrollment regulations 
     necessary to carry out this Act.

[[Page 12459]]


                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. VOINOVICH (for himself, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, and 
        Mr. Baucus):
  S. 2796. A bill 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; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.


                water resources development act of 2000

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today the 
Water Resources Development Act of 2000, and I am pleased that my 
colleagues Senator Bob Smith, Environment and Public Works Committee 
chairman and Senator Max Baucus, ranking member of the Environment and 
Public Works Committee have joined as co-sponsors of this bill.
  The Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (WRDA2000) is the 
culmination of four hearings that the Committee on Environment and 
Public Works has held regarding a number of different water resources 
development issues and projects. The cornerstone of this year's WRDA 
bill will be the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, however, 
the bill that I am introducing today does not contain an Everglades 
Restoration Title. That title will be added as an amendment to this 
bill by Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Bob 
Smith when the full Committee marks-up WRDA 2000 on Wednesday, June 28, 
2000.
  Some of my colleagues may question the need for a water resources 
bill this year since Congress passed a WRDA bill just last year. In 
reality, last year's bill was actually unfinished business from the 
105th Congress, and if Congress is to get back on its two year cycle 
for passage of WRDA legislation, we need to act on a bill this year. 
The two year cycle is important to avoid long delays between the 
planning and execution of projects and to meet Federal commitments to 
state and local governments partners who share the costs of these 
projects with the Federal government.
  While the two year authorization cycle is extremely important in 
maintaining efficient schedules for completion of water resources 
projects, efficient schedules also depend on adequate appropriations. 
The appropriation of funds for the Corps' program has not been adequate 
and, as a result, there is a backlog of over 500 projects that will 
cost the federal government $38 billion to complete.
  I believe these are worthy projects with positive benefit-to-cost 
ratios and capable non-Federal sponsors. Nevertheless, the inability to 
provide adequate funding for these projects means that project 
construction schedules are spread out over a longer period of time, 
resulting in increased construction costs and delays in achieving 
project benefits.
  Mr. President, I recognize that budget allocations and Corps 
appropriations are beyond the purview of the authorization package that 
I am introducing today, but I believe that the backlog issue should 
impact the way we approach WRDA2000 in three very important ways.
  First, we need to control the mission creep of the Corps of 
Engineers. I am not convinced that there is a Corps role in water and 
sewage plant construction, and I am pleased to report that the bill 
that I am introducing today contains no authorizations for 
environmental infrastructure, such as wastewater treatment plants or 
combined sewer overflow systems. Another example is the brownfields 
remediation authority proposed by the White House for the Corps. 
Brownfield remediation is a very important issue. It is a big problem 
in my state of Ohio and I am working to remove federal impediments to 
State cleanups. Having said that, I do not believe this is a mission of 
the Corps of Engineers, and the bill that I am introducing today does 
not contain authority for the Corps to be involved in brownfields 
remediation.
  We need to recognize and address the large unmet national needs 
within the traditional Corps mission areas: needs such as flood 
control, navigation and the emerging mission area of restoration of 
nationally significant environmental resources like the Florida 
Everglades.
  The second thing that we need to do is to make sure that the projects 
Congress authorizes meet the highest standard of engineering, economic 
and environmental analysis. We must be sure that these projects and 
project modifications make maximum net contributions to economic 
development and environmental quality.
  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 before projects are authorized for construction. Thus, WRDA 
2000 only contains projects which have completed feasibility reports.
  Finally, we have to preserve the partnerships and cost sharing 
principles of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. WRDA '86 
established the principle that water resources project should be 
accomplished in partnerships with states and local governments and that 
this partnership should involve significant financial participation by 
the non-federal sponsors. This bill contains no cost share changes.
  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. 
Whether it's 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 must 
not be weakened, and I am pleased to report that they are not in this 
legislation.
  Mr. President, the bill that I am introducing today ensures that we 
only commit to those projects that are properly within the purview of 
the Corps of Engineers, it provides that each project meets the 
necessary criteria for federal involvement and it preserves the cost-
sharing arrangement with state and local sponsors that has been in 
place for more than a decade. It is a responsible approach to meeting 
our nation's water resources needs, and I look forward to working with 
my colleagues to advance the goals of this legislation.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 2000 be printed in the Record 
following my remarks.
  There being no objection, the bill as ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2796

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Water 
     Resources Development Act of 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.

[[Page 12460]]

Sec. 210. Approval of construction of dams and dikes.
Sec. 211. Project deauthorization authority.
Sec. 212. Floodplain management requirements.
Sec. 213. Environmental dredging.

                 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. Morganza, Louisiana.
Sec. 307. Red River Waterway, Louisiana.
Sec. 308. William Jennings Randolph Lake, Maryland.
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. Mines Falls Park, New Hampshire.
Sec. 314. Sagamore Creek, New Hampshire.
Sec. 315. Passaic River Basin flood management, New Jersey.
Sec. 316. Rockaway Inlet to Norton Point, New York.
Sec. 317. John Day Pool, Oregon and Washington.
Sec. 318. Fox Point hurricane barrier, Providence, Rhode Island.
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.

                   TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 501. Visitors centers.
Sec. 502. CALFED Bay-Delta Program assistance, California.
Sec. 503. Conveyance of lighthouse, Ontonagon, Michigan.

     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.
       (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.--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.
       (17) 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.

[[Page 12461]]

       (18) 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.
       (19) 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.
       (20) 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.
       (21) Jackson hole, wyoming.--
       (A) In general.--The project for environmental restoration, 
     Jackson Hole, Wyoming, at a total cost of $100,000,000, with 
     an estimated Federal cost of $65,000,000 and an estimated 
     non-Federal cost of $35,000,000.
       (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.
       (22) Ohio river.--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 $160,000,000 and an 
     estimated non-Federal cost of $40,000,000.

     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 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.

[[Page 12462]]



     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) North hampton, new hampshire.--Project for aquatic 
     ecosystem restoration, Little River Salt Marsh, North 
     Hampton, New Hampshire.
       (11) Highland county, ohio.--Project for aquatic ecosystem 
     restoration, Rocky Fork Lake, Clear Creek floodplain, 
     Highland County, Ohio.
       (12) Hocking county, ohio.--Project for aquatic ecosystem 
     restoration, Long Hollow Mine, Hocking County, Ohio.
       (13) Tuscarawas county, ohio.--Project for aquatic 
     ecosystem restoration, Huff Run, Tuscarawas County, Ohio.
       (14) Central amazon creek, oregon.--Project for aquatic 
     ecosystem restoration, Central Amazon Creek, Oregon.
       (15) Delta ponds, oregon.--Project for aquatic ecosystem 
     restoration, Delta Ponds, Oregon.
       (16) Eugene millrace, oregon.--Project for aquatic 
     ecosystem restoration, Eugene Millrace, Oregon.
       (17) 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;
       ``(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 the Delaware 
     River basin.
       ``(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

[[Page 12463]]

       (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, 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).
       (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

[[Page 12464]]

     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.''.

                 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, at full Federal expense, 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. MORGANZA, LOUISIANA.

       The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of 
     the project costs of the Mississippi River and tributaries, 
     Morganza, Louisiana, to the Gulf of Mexico, project, 
     authorized under section 101(b)(16), 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.

     SEC. 307. 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. 308. WILLIAM JENNINGS RANDOLPH LAKE, MARYLAND.

       The Secretary--
       (1) may provide design and construction assistance for 
     recreational facilities in the

[[Page 12465]]

     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. 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
       (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. MINES FALLS PARK, NEW HAMPSHIRE.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may carry out dredging of 
     Mines Falls Park, New Hampshire.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $1,000,000.

     SEC. 314. SAGAMORE CREEK, NEW HAMPSHIRE.

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

     SEC. 315. 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

[[Page 12466]]

     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 
     cost-effective, 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. 316. 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. 317. 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' file numbers:
       (1) Auditor's File Numbers 101244 and 1234170 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.
       (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. 318. 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.''.

[[Page 12467]]



     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.
       (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.--

[[Page 12468]]

       (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--
       (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

[[Page 12469]]

       (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 rendered 
     acceptable for unrestricted open water disposal or beneficial 
     reuse; 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 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).

[[Page 12470]]

       (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).

                           TITLE IV--STUDIES

     SEC. 401. BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA.

       The Secretary may 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 may 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 may 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 may 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 may 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 may 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 may 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 may 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 may 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 may 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 may 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 may conduct a reconnaissance study to 
     determine the Federal interest in 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 may 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 may 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 may 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 may 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 may 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 may 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 may 
     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 may 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 may 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 may 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 may 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)--
       (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 may 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

[[Page 12471]]

     of Nebraska, county officials, ranchers, sportsmen, other 
     affected parties, and the Indian tribes referred to in 
     subsection (c)(2), the Secretary may 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 may--
       ``(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 may 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 may--
       (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 may 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 may 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 may 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)--
       (A) shall not exceed 25 percent; and
       (B) shall be provided in the form of in-kind contributions.
       (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 may 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 may 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 may 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 may 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 may 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 may 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.

                   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

[[Page 12472]]

     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.

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I am proud to join my 
colleagues, Senators Voinovich and Baucus, in the introduction of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 2000. As many of you know, the 
administration presented a proposal to Congress in April of this year, 
which I introduced by request at that time. The bill we introduce today 
includes a number of the provisions contained in the Administration's 
request, in addition to those Member requests which met the criteria 
agreed to by myself, Senator Voinovich, the chairman of the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee, and Senator Baucus, the 
ranking member of the Committee.
  In responding to questions regarding what projects were included in 
this bill, I remind my colleagues that it has been the policy of the 
Committee to authorize only those construction projects that conform 
with cost-sharing policies established in the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1986, and amended by subsequent WRDAs. In addition, 
it has been the policy of the Committee to require projects to have 
undergone full and final engineering, economic, and environmental 
review by the Chief of Engineers to ensure that the project is indeed 
justified.
  In ensuring the integrity of the WRDA process, that criteria served 
as the base to guide us to where we are today. S. xxxx is a responsible 
bill that provides for the traditional mission of the U.S. Army Corps 
of engineers and which also recognizes the Corps' expanding presence in 
the area of environmental restoration. This bill contains 23 
authorizations for flood control, navigation, shoreline protection, and 
environmental restoration projects for which a Chief's Report is 
expected by the end of the calendar year. In addition, there are 
approximately 31 project-related modifications and provisions, as well 
as 35 feasibility studies. While half of the projects in this bill are 
in the navigation mission, nearly a quarter are dedicated to 
environmental and ecosystem restoration projects, demonstrating this 
chairman's belief that the Corps is moving in the right direction. This 
bill strongly adheres to the fundamental purposes and principles of the 
Army Corps of Engineers.
  This sound bill deserves prompt action by not only the Senate, but 
our counterparts in the House of Representatives, The number of 
legislative days left this year is dwindling. If we are to enact water 
resources legislation prior to adjournment, it will take the full 
cooperation of both Chambers of Congress and our respected leadership. 
I look forward to working with my colleagues to move the WRDA process 
forward as expeditiously as possible.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. 
        Voinovich, Mr. Graham, and Mr. Mack):
  S. 2797. A bill to authorize a comprehensive Everglades restoration 
plan; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.


            restoring the everglades, an american legacy act

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, today is a historic day. I 
am pleased to be joined by Senators Graham, Mack, Voinovich, and 
Baucus, in introducing a measure to restore, preserve and protect one 
of America's unique ecosystems: the Everglades. More than six months 
ago, I went to Florida and made a promise to the people of that state 
and this nation. I promised to make Everglades restoration my top 
priority as the new chairman of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee. I am proud to say that after many months of hard work, 
intense negotiation, and through it all, uncompromising dedication, we 
have before us the bill to restore America's Everglades.
  Our bill not only has the support of the two Senators from Florida, 
the chairman and ranking member of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee and the chairman of the subcommittee of jurisdiction, it has 
the support of the State of Florida and the administration. It truly is 
bipartisan. It truly is historic.
  We all know that the Everglades face grave peril, but such dire 
situations do not always serve to motivate Congress to act, 
particularly in a presidential election year. The truth of the matter 
is that the federal government is partially responsible for the 
condition of the Everglades and it is our obligation to fix what we 
helped break. The Everglades cannot afford for Congress to delay.
  The unintended consequence of the 1948 federal flood control project 
is the too efficient redirection of water from Lake Okeechobee. 
Approximately 1.7 billion gallons of water a day is needlessly directed 
out to sea. 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 thousands 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.
  Well, we are going to recapture that wasted water, store it, and 
redirect it,

[[Page 12473]]

when needed, to the natural system in the South Florida ecosystem. It 
sounds simple, but in actuality, the Comprehensive Everglades 
Restoration Plan is quite complex and will take 30 years to construct. 
Each step in the Plan was carefully chosen and the bill my colleagues 
and I have introduced today represents the first stage of that process.
  A project of this size is not without uncertainties. Our bill 
authorizes four pilot projects to get at some of those unknowns. In 
addition, this bill authorizes an initial suite of ten construction 
projects. These projects 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.
  Our bill goes farther, by authorizing programmatic authority for the 
Corps and the non-federal sponsor to move forward with critical 
projects that will have immediate, independent, and substantial 
benefits to the natural system. Together, these components represent 
the first phase. The rest of the projects will come to Congress for 
authorization as part of the biennial Water Resources Development Act.
  One of my favorite aspects of the Comprehensive Everglades 
Restoration Plan is its inherent flexibility. If we learn something new 
about the ecosystem, perfect our modeling techniques, or just plain see 
that something isn't working right, through the concept of adaptive 
management, we can modify the plan based on the new information on 
hand.
  Is this bill expensive? I suppose that depends on your point of view. 
I am well-known as a fiscal conservative and I certainly do not believe 
in wasting the taxpayers' money. The total cost of implementing the 
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan is $7.8 billion dollars. The 
total cost to the Federal government, however, is $3.9 billion. That's 
right. The State of Florida is picking up fifty percent of the tab. 
$3.9 billion over the number of years that this project will be 
constructed amount to an average of $200 million a year. That is about 
a can of coke, if you can find the right machine, for each American 
each year to restore this national treasure. It should be noted that I 
fully support increasing the budget of the Corps of Engineers so that 
it can comfortably fund not only this project, but the numerous other 
meritorious projects within the Corps mission.
  I hear my colleagues asking: how do we know the natural system is 
going to be the primary beneficiary of the water made available by this 
project? I'll tell you how. Our bill contains painstakingly negotiated 
``assurances language'' that provide the mechanism by which water is 
reserved and allocated for the natural system. The Secretary of the 
Army and Governor of the State of Florida will enter into an up-front, 
binding agreement that will ensure that water available from the plan 
will be available for the natural system. Furthermore, the Secretary of 
the Army, in concurrence with the Governor of the State of Florida and 
the Secretary of the Interior will promulgate programmatic regulations 
to ensure that the goals and purposes of the Comprehensive Everglades 
Restoration Plan are achieved.
  I repeat for the benefit of my colleagues, this bill has the support 
of the State of Florida, the administration, and a bipartisan group of 
co-sponsors. This truly is a remarkable feat that deserves recognition 
by the Senate in the form of swift passage.
  I am afraid too often people forget that the Everglades is a national 
environmental treasure. Restoration benefits not only Floridians, but 
the millions of us who visit Florida each year to behold this unique 
ecosystem. We need to view our efforts as our legacy to future 
generations, as my dear friend and predecessor, the late John Chafee so 
exemplified. Many years from now, I hope that this Congress will be 
remembered for putting aside partisanship, politics, self-interest and 
short-term thinking by answering the call and saving the Everglades 
while we still had the chance.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2797

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Restoring the Everglades, An 
     American Legacy Act''.

     SEC. 2. 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).
       (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

[[Page 12474]]

     (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.
       (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

[[Page 12475]]

     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 treatment.--
       (A) In general.--On completion and evaluation of the 
     wastewater treatment 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 treatment 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 treatment 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;
       (iii) ensure the protection of the natural system 
     consistent with the goals and purposes of the Plan; and
       (iv) include a mechanism for dispute resolution to resolve 
     any conflicts between the Secretary and the non-Federal 
     sponsor.
       (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 12476]]

       (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 
     current 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) 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.
       (j) 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.
       (k) 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 (j) as they relate to socially and 
     economically disadvantaged individuals and individuals with 
     limited English proficiency.

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today I rise with my colleagues, Senator 
Smith of New Hampshire, Senator Baucus, Senator Voinovich, and Senator 
Mack, to introduce legislation to restore America's Everglades. The 
diversity of this group speaks volumes about the national commitment to 
restoring America's Everglades.
  The Everglades is sick. We need to perform the surgery to make it 
well. Since the passage of the Central and South Florida Flood Control 
Project in 1948, nearly half of the original Everglades has been 
drained or otherwise altered. According to the National Parks and 
Conservation Association, the national parks and preserves contained in 
the Everglades are among the ten most endangered in the nation.
  In 1983, when I was Governor, Florida launched an effort--known as 
Save Our Everglades--to revitalize this precious ecosystem. Our goal 
was simple. By the end of our efforts, we wanted the Everglades to look 
and function more like it had in 1900 than it did in 1983. Back then, 
restoring the natural health and function of this precious ecosystem 
seemed like a distant dream. But after seventeen years of bipartisan 
progress in the context of a strong federal-state partnership, we now 
stand on the brink of seeing that dream become reality.
  I want to speak for a moment about that 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, and this legislation 
contains several provisions born out of the respect that sustains this 
marriage.
  For example, it requires that the Federal Government pay half of the 
costs of operations and maintenance. It offers assurances to both the 
Federal and State governments regarding the use and distribution of 
water in the Everglades ecosystem. Everglades restoration can't work 
unless the executive branch, Congress, and State government move 
forward hand-in-hand.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues, the administration, the 
State, and stakeholders in this project to continue that cooperation 
and achieve the historic goal of preserving the Everglades for our 
children and grandchildren.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support for the 
Everglades restoration bill introduced today by my friend, and chairman 
of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Bob Smith. This 
bill represents a tremendous amount of effort and hard work and I am 
grateful to all my colleagues who have joined Senator Graham and me in 
this effort.
  Today is an important day in the nearly twenty-year process of 
restoring America's Everglades. It is important because we are standing 
at last at the historic juncture between planning and action. It is 
important because now--at long last--we have a realistic chance of 
restoring, and protecting for future generations, a unique 
environmental

[[Page 12477]]

treasure that is fractured, starved for water, and locked in a steady 
state of decline. And it is important because the bill we're 
introducing today represents the cumulative efforts of all those who 
did the work on the largest and most significant environmental 
restoration project in our nation's history.
  Why does this bill matter? Why are the Everglades deserving of 
Congress' time and effort? Let me offer a few reasons. This bill 
matters because in the last century a wonderful, pristine natural 
system in the heart of South Florida was systematically robbed of its 
beauty and uniqueness in the name of short-term human interest. This 
bill matters because the America's Everglades is a national treasure, 
unique in the world, and deserving of a better fate than what is 
currently written for it in the laws of this country. Our bill matters 
because we Floridians--after years of acrimony and conflicting goals--
have come together behind a balanced plan that fully reconciles the 
needs of the natural system with those of the existing water users. And 
the restoration matters--to us, as legislators--because past Congresses 
caused this problem, and we in our generation should fix it.
  It has been well documented how the Congress in 1948--acting under 
the pressures of the day--authorized the systematic destruction of the 
Everglades in the name of flood control, urban development, and 
agriculture. That is history and we cannot change that. Instead, we 
must respond to the needs and priorities of our own generation, and 
pass this good bill to restore America's Everglades.
  Let's be clear, Mr. President. Passing this bill, this year, is all 
that remains between the long years of study and the actual restoration 
of America's Everglades. The administration has done their part in 
devoting a tremendous amount of time and effort on the document before 
you. To Governor Bush's credit, the State of Florida has already 
written this plan into Florida's laws and arranged funding for 
Florida's share of the cost. There is only one task remaining: we in 
Congress must pass this plan, this year, and let the work of 
restoration begin.
  I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting the bill we're 
introducing today. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ALLARD:
  S. 2798. A bill to amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to require 
periodic cost-of-living adjustments to the amount of deposit insurance 
coverage available under that Act; to the Committee on Banking, 
Housing, and Urban Affairs.


           deposit and share insurance adjustment act of 2000

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Federal Deposit 
and Share Insurance Adjustment Act of 2000.
  This bill will insure that the value of Federal Deposit and Share 
Insurance is not eroded by inflation and remains at a steady value of 
$100,000. This legislation will help consumers to retain their 
confidence in financial institutions and will provide a constant level 
of security to depositors.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be included in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2798

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Deposit and Share Insurance 
     Adjustment Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. PERIODIC ADJUSTMENTS TO MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF DEPOSIT 
                   INSURANCE COVERAGE.

       Section 11(a)(1) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 
     U.S.C. 1821(a)(1)) is amended, by striking subparagraph (B) 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(B) Net amount of insured deposit.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to the adjustments to be made 
     pursuant to clause (ii), the net amount due to any depositor 
     under this Act at an insured depository institution shall not 
     exceed $100,000, as determined in accordance with this 
     subparagraph and subparagraphs (C) and (D).
       ``(ii) Adjustments.--For the calendar year commencing 
     January 1, 2001, and for each subsequent 3-year period, the 
     maximum net amount due to any depositor at an insured 
     depository institution under clause (i) shall be increased by 
     an amount equal to--

       ``(I) $100,000; multiplied by
       ``(II) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under 
     section 1(f)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, for 
     such calendar year, determined by substituting `calendar year 
     2000' for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof.

       ``(iii) Rounding.--If the amount determined under clause 
     (ii) is not a multiple of $1,000, such amount shall be 
     rounded to the nearest multiple of $1,000.
       ``(iv) Notice.--Not later than January 15 of the first year 
     of each 3-year period referred to in clause (ii), commencing 
     January 15, 2001, the Board of Directors shall cause to be 
     published in the Federal Register the maximum net amount due 
     to any depositor at an insured depository institution for the 
     ensuing 3-year period.''.

     SEC. 3. PERIODIC ADJUSTMENTS TO MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF SHARE 
                   INSURANCE COVERAGE.

       Section 207(k)(1) of the Federal Credit Union Act (12 
     U.S.C. 1787(k)(1)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(1) Subject'' and inserting the 
     following: ``Insured Amounts.--
       ``(1) Definition of `insured account'.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject'';
       (2) by inserting ``, subject to the adjustments made 
     pursuant to subparagraph (B)'' after ``$100,000''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Adjustments.--
       ``(i) In general.--For the calendar year commencing January 
     1, 2001, and for each subsequent 3-year period, the $100,000 
     amount referred to in subparagraph (A) shall be increased by 
     an amount equal to--

       ``(I) $100,000; multiplied by
       ``(II) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under 
     section 1(f)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, for 
     such calendar year, determined by substituting `calendar year 
     2000' for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof.

       ``(ii) Rounding.--If the amount determined under clause (i) 
     is not a multiple of $1,000, such amount shall be rounded to 
     the nearest multiple of $1,000.
       ``(iii) Notice.--Not later than January 15 of the first 
     year of each 3-year period referred to in clause (ii), 
     commencing January 15, 2001, the Board shall cause to be 
     published in the Federal Register the maximum net amount due 
     with respect to any member account at an insured credit union 
     for the ensuing 3-year period.''.

     SEC. 4. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Federal Deposit Insurance Act.--Section 11(a) of the 
     Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1821(a)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)(A), in the matter following clause 
     (v), by striking ``$100,000 per account in an amount not to 
     exceed $100,000 per account'' and inserting ``the amount 
     determined in accordance with paragraph (1)(B) per account''; 
     and
       (2) in paragraph (3)(A)(iii), by striking ``$100,000'' and 
     inserting ``the amount determined in accordance with 
     paragraph (1)(B)''.
       (b) Federal Credit Union Act.--Section 207(k) of the 
     Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C. 1787(k)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)(A), in the matter following clause 
     (v), by striking ``in an amount not to exceed $100,000 per 
     account'' and inserting ``the amount determined in accordance 
     with paragraph (1)(B) per account''; and
       (2) in paragraph (3), by striking ``in the amount of 
     $100,000 per account'' and inserting ``in an amount not to 
     exceed the amount determined in accordance with paragraph 
     (1)(B) per account''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself, Mr. Abraham, and Mr. Campbell):
  S. 2799. A bill to allow a deduction for Federal, State, and local 
taxes on gasoline, diesel fuel, or other motor fuel purchased by 
consumers between July 1, 2000, and December 31, 2000; to the Committee 
on Finance.


                     emergency fuel tax act of 2000

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am joined by Senator Campbell and 
Senator Abraham today in introducing legislation that will ease the 
burden that the American motorist is facing every time he or she fills 
up at the gas pump. Those of us who are going to the gas pumps lately 
know that we are starting to see gas prices at an all-time high. We 
have never had gas prices approaching $1.75, which is the standard 
price for regular gasoline in the United States today.
  Our legislation recognizes that many consumers are facing a gasoline 
emergency. They use their cars to get to work, drive to day care, and 
take their children to summer school. Suddenly they are finding that 
filling up the family car's gas tank is costing $50 to $70 or even $100 
in some parts of the country. And in an America where the Clinton-Gore 
administration has done its best for seven years to increase

[[Page 12478]]

America's dependence on OPEC, the American public was lulled by the 
Administration into believing that gas prices would always remain 
stable and cheap. The result: Nearly 50 percent of all vehicles sold 
are low-mileage sport utility vehicles (SUVs).
  Earlier this year, I co-sponsored legislation that would have 
temporarily repealed the 4.3 cent gas tax increase that was enacted in 
1993 with Vice President Al Gore's tie-breaking vote. Many Senators 
expressed concern that a temporary repeal of the tax would affect the 
highway construction program. Although our legislation resolved that 
problem, all Democrats and a few Republicans rejected providing gas tax 
relief and the measure was defeated.
  This is a new concept in one sense. But it does not establish a 
precedent. The bill I am introducing is to temporarily reduce the 
burden of all gasoline taxes on the American motorist. The bill will 
allow individuals and families to take an above-the-line deduction on 
their income that they pay taxes on for gasoline taxes incurred between 
July 1 and December 31 of the year 2000. This means every taxpayer who 
drives will be able to take advantage of the tax deduction from his or 
her income tax.
  The deduction of gasoline taxes is not a new idea. Up until 1978, 
motorists could deduct the State and local gasoline taxes if they 
itemized those taxes. Legislation I have introduced today goes a step 
further by also permitting the deduction of Federal gasoline taxes, and 
it is an inclusive tax deduction since it will allow itemizers and 
nonitemizers to claim these taxes.
  For example, if we adopt this measure, and a family in my State of 
Alaska has a car that gets 20 miles per gallon and they drive perhaps 
9,000 miles in the next 6 months, they will get a $118 tax deduction; 
the same family in Michigan will get a $195 tax deduction; a family in 
Colorado will receive a $181 tax deduction.
  Some detractors say citizens will have to itemize returns. Most 
people go to self-service gas stations where a receipt is provided. I 
think most Americans would welcome this $195 or $181 tax deduction. I 
don't think it is too much to ask motorists.
  The IRS will surely draft some easy-to-use tables that will list by 
State the total gasoline tax burden. I have an example of what the 
tables look like. I ask unanimous consent that gas tax tables prepared 
by the American Petroleum Institute be printed in the Record.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the average national price of unleaded 
regular gasoline is anywhere from $1.70 to $1.80 today. This weekend 
begins the summer driving season. Gasoline prices could well go above 
$2 a gallon in many parts of the country. As we know, they are already 
over $2.30 in Chicago, Milwaukee, and other areas.
  Our proposal is a modest attempt to help the American family cope 
with these extraordinary price rises. This isn't going to solve the 
problem of high gasoline prices. We could have solved that problem 5 or 
6 years ago if we would have adopted the 1995 budget which permitted 
drilling in America's most promising new oil area, the sliver of the 
Arctic Coastal Plain, but President Clinton vetoed that bill, surely 
with the concurrence of Vice President Gore. So today we are dependent 
as never before on imported oil. The result is the record gasoline 
prices.
  I ask unanimous consent the text of the Emergency Fuel Act of 2000 
and the previously referenced tax tables be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2799

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the Emergency Fuel Tax Act of 
     2000.

     SEC. 2. TEMPORARY INCOME TAX DEDUCTION FOR FEDERAL, STATE, 
                   AND LOCAL FUELS TAXES.

       (a) Allowance of Deduction.--
       (1) In general.--In the case of the retail sale of 
     gasoline, diesel fuel, or other motor fuel after June 30, 
     2000, and before January 1, 2001, there shall be allowed to 
     the purchaser a deduction under section 164 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 in an amount equal to the Federal, 
     State, and local taxes on the sale.
       (2) Deduction allowed to nonitemizers.--The deduction under 
     subsection (a) shall be taken into account in computing 
     adjusted gross income under section 62 of such Code.
       (b) Taxes Imposed Other Than at Retail.--For purposes of 
     subsection (a), any tax on any gasoline, diesel fuel, or 
     other motor fuel which is imposed other than on the retail 
     sale shall be treated as having been imposed on such sale and 
     as having been paid by the purchaser.
       (c) Guidelines.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     establish such procedures (including the publication of 
     tables where appropriate) as are necessary to enable 
     taxpayers to determine the amount of taxes for which a 
     deduction is allowed under subsection (a).
       (d) Motor Fuel.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``motor fuel'' means any motor fuel subject to tax under 
     subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
                                  ____


                   GASOLINE TAXES STATE-BY-STATE, 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Total
                                  State     Other      Total   Federal &
             State               excise     State      State     State
                                 tax \1\  taxes \2\    taxes   taxes \3\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.......................      16.0        3.4      19.4       37.7
Alaska........................       8.0        0         8.0       26.3
Arizona.......................        18        1.0      19.0       37.3
Arkansas......................      18.5        0.2      18.7       37.0
California....................      18.0        9.2      27.2       45.5
Colorado......................      22.0        0        22.0       40.3
Connecticut...................      32.0        3.1      35.1       53.4
Delaware......................      23.0        0        23.0       41.3
Dist. of Columbia.............      20.0        0        20.0       38.3
Florida.......................      13.0       15.1      28.1       46.4
Georgia.......................       7.5        3.4      10.9       29.2
Hawaii........................      16.0       20.4      36.4       54.7
Idaho.........................      25.0        0        25.0       43.3
Illinois......................      19.0        5.2      24.2       42.5
Indiana.......................      15.0        3.6      18.6       36.9
Iowa..........................      20.0        1.0      21.0       39.3
Kansas........................      18.0        1.0      19.0       37.3
Kentucky......................      15.0        1.4      16.4       34.7
Louisiana.....................      20.0        0        20.0       38.3
Maine.........................      19.0        0        19.0       37.3
Maryland......................      23.5        0        23.5       41.8
Massachusetts.................      21.5        0        21.5       39.8
Michigan......................      19.0        6.1      25.1       43.4
Minnesota.....................      20.0        2.0      22.0       40.3
Mississippi...................      18.0        2.4      20.4       38.7
Missouri......................      17.0        0        17.0       35.3
Montana.......................      27.0        0.8      27.8       46.1
Nebraska......................      23.5        0.9      24.4       42.7
Nevada........................      23.0       10.0      33.0       51.3
New Hampshire.................      18.0        1.7      19.7       38.0
New Jersey....................      10.5        4.0      14.5       32.8
New Mexico....................      17.0        1.0      18.0       36.3
New York......................       8.0       22.4      30.4       48.7
North Carolina................      21.6        0.3      21.9       40.2
North Dakota..................      20.0        0        20.0       38.3
Ohio..........................      22.0        0        22.0       40.3
Oklahoma......................      16.0        1.0      17.0       35.3
Oregon........................      24.0        0        24.0       42.3
Pennsylvania..................      12.0       14.3      26.3       44.6
Rhode Island..................      28.0        1.0      29.0       47.3
South Carolina................      16.0        0.8      16.8       35.1
South Dakota..................      21.0        2.0      23.0       41.3
Tennessee.....................      20.0        1.4      21.4       39.7
Texas.........................      20.0        0        20.0       38.3
Utah..........................      24.0        0.5      24.5       42.8
Vermont.......................      19.0        1.0      20.0       38.3
Virginia......................      17.5        0.7      18.2       36.5
Washington....................      23.0        0        23.0       41.3
West Virginia.................      20.5        4.9      25.4       43.7
Wisconsin.....................      25.4        3.0      28.4       46.7
Wyoming.......................      13.0        1.0      14.0       32.3
                               -----------------------------------------
    U.S. averaged \4\.........      17.8        4.8      22.6       40.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ State excise taxes represent rates effective as of July 1998.
\2\ Largely excludes local taxes which are estimated to average
  approximately 2 cents per gallon nationwide. However, some local
  county taxes in Alabama, California, Florida, Hawaii, Nevada, New
  York, and Virginia are included. Includes state sales taxes, gross
  receipts taxes, and underground storage tank taxes. State sales taxes,
  expressed in cents per gallon, are based on selected city average
  retail gasoline prices as of April 1998. See notes to tax tables for
  individual states.
\3\ Includes 18.3 cents per gallon federal excise tax and volume-
  weighted average U.S. total state taxes.
\4\ Represents the average of state tax rates multiplied by state
  gasoline consumption records.
 
Sources: API Field Operations Issues Support, ``State Gasoline and
  Diesel Excise Taxes, July 1998,'' the Federal Highway Administration,
  ``Monthly Motor Fuel Reported by States''; and the U.S. Energy
  Information Administration, ``Motor Gasoline Watch.'' and ``On-Highway
  Diesel Retail Prices.'' American Petroleum Institute.

                     Gasoline taxes ranked by State

                           [Figures by cents]

Hawaii.............................................................54.8
Connecticut........................................................53.5
Nevada.............................................................51.4
New York...........................................................48.8
Rhode Island.......................................................47.4
Wisconsin..........................................................46.8
Florida............................................................46.5
Montana............................................................46.2
California.........................................................45.6
Pennsylvania.......................................................44.7
West Virginia......................................................43.8
Michigan...........................................................43.5
Idaho..............................................................43.4
Utah...............................................................42.9
Nebraska...........................................................42.8
Illinois...........................................................42.6
Oregon.............................................................42.4
Maryland...........................................................41.9
Washington.........................................................41.4
South Dakota.......................................................41.4
Delaware...........................................................41.4
Ohio...............................................................40.4
Minnesota..........................................................40.4
Colorado...........................................................40.4
North Carolina.....................................................40.3
Massachusetts......................................................39.9
Tennessee..........................................................39.8
Iowa...............................................................39.4
Mississippi........................................................38.8
Vermont............................................................38.4
Texas..............................................................38.4
North Dakota.......................................................38.4
Louisiana..........................................................38.4

[[Page 12479]]

Dist. of Columbia..................................................38.4
New Hampshire......................................................38.1
Alabama............................................................37.8
Maine..............................................................37.4
Kansas.............................................................37.4
Arizona............................................................37.4
Arkansas...........................................................37.1
Indiana............................................................37.0
Virginia...........................................................36.6
New Mexico.........................................................36.4
Oklahoma...........................................................35.4
Missouri...........................................................35.4
South Carolina.....................................................35.2
Kentucky...........................................................34.8
New Jersey.........................................................32.9
Wyoming............................................................32.4
Georgia............................................................29.3
Alaska.............................................................26.4
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself and Mr. Crapo):
  S. 2800. A bill to require the Administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency to establish an integrated environmental reporting 
system; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.


THE STREAMLINED ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTING AND POLLUTION PREVENTION ACT OF 
                                  2000

 Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce 
bipartisan legislation, the Streamlined Environmental Reporting and 
Pollution Prevention Act of 2000, with Senator Crapo, my colleague on 
the Environment and Public Works Committee, as an original cosponsor.
  This bill will require the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
to give businesses one point of contact for all federal environmental 
reporting requirements, and to otherwise minimize the administrative 
burdens of environmental reporting. This ``one-stop'' reporting system 
will use a common nomenclature throughout and use language 
understandable to business people, not just to environmental 
specialists. Its electronic version will also provide pollution 
prevention information to the business. The bill will also give each 
State, tribal, or local agency the option of reporting information to 
one point of contact at EPA, which will facilitate their efforts to 
streamline environmental reporting.
  Mr. President, a law streamlining environmental reporting will 
obviously benefit industry. It will be of great environmental benefit 
as well. High-quality environmental information is the foundation of 
environmental policy-making. Unfortunately, there are significant gaps 
and inaccuracies in the environmental information reported by 
businesses today. This is because environmental reporting currently 
involves scouring several different EPA offices for the applicable 
requirements, and then mastering a bewildering variety of reporting 
formats and regulatory nomenclatures. Reducing needless complications, 
as our bill does, will increase compliance with reporting programs and 
improve the accuracy of the information reported.
  In addition to improving environmental information, a law 
streamlining environmental reporting will help businesses prevent 
pollution at the source. Mainstream business decision-makers--those who 
design the business's product, decide how to make it, manufacture it, 
and instruct customers in its use--inadvertently make the vast majority 
of environmental decisions at the business. When a business designs its 
product and the process for manufacturing the product, it is locking in 
its major environmental impacts. Streamlining environmental reporting 
will make it easier for mainstream business decision-makers to 
understand their environmental obligations. This will make it easier to 
incorporate environmental considerations into the design of products 
and production processes, and instructions on their use--that is, 
preventing pollution at the source.
  This bill is endorsed by the National Federation of Independent 
Businesses, the Printing Industries of America, the National 
Association of Metal Finishers, the American Electroplaters and Surface 
Finishers Society, the Metal Finishing Suppliers Association, the U.S. 
Public Interest Research Group, Environmental Defense, the National 
Environmental Trust, and the National Pollution Prevention Roundtable. 
I ask unanimous consent that their statements of support, the text of 
the bill, and a section-by-section summary of the bill be entered into 
the Record.
  Mr. President, this is a bipartisan win-win bill that will be good 
for U.S. industry and good for the environment. I urge my colleagues to 
join Senator Crapo and me in supporting this legislation.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2800

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Streamlined Environmental 
     Reporting and Pollution Prevention Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
       (2) Integrated reporting system.--The term ``integrated 
     reporting system'' means the integrated environmental 
     reporting system established under section 3.
       (3) Person.--The term ``person'' means an individual, 
     trust, firm, joint stock company, corporation, partnership, 
     or association, or a facility owned or operated by the 
     Federal Government or by a State, tribal government, 
     municipality, commission, or political subdivision of a 
     State.
       (4) Reporting requirement.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``reporting requirement'' means--
       (i) a routine, periodic, environmental reporting 
     requirement; and
       (ii) any other reporting requirement that the Administrator 
     may by regulation include within the meaning of the term.
       (B) Exclusions.--The term ``reporting requirement'' does 
     not include--
       (i) the reporting of information relating to an emergency, 
     except for information submitted as part of a routine 
     periodic environmental report, and except for the purpose 
     specified in subparagraph (C); or
       (ii) the reporting of information to the Administrator 
     relating only to business transactions (and not to 
     environmental or regulatory matters) between the 
     Administrator and a person, including information provided--

       (I) in the course of fulfilling a contractual obligation 
     between the Administrator and the reporting person; or
       (II) in the filing of financial claims against the 
     Administrator.

       (C) Certain data standards for reporting of information 
     relating to an emergency.--The Administrator shall implement 
     data standards under section 3(b)(5)(A) for the reporting of 
     information relating to emergencies.

     SEC. 3. INTEGRATED REPORTING SYSTEM.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 4 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall integrate and 
     streamline the reporting requirements established under laws 
     administered by the Administrator for each person subject to 
     those reporting requirements--
       (1) in accordance with subsection (b);
       (2) to the extent not explicitly prohibited by Act of 
     Congress; and
       (3) to the extent consistent with the preservation of the 
     integrity, reliability, and security of the data reported.
       (b) Components of Reporting System.--In establishing the 
     integrated reporting system, to ensure consistency and 
     facilitate use of the system, the Administrator shall--
       (1) allow each person required to submit information to the 
     Administrator under reporting requirements administered by 
     the Administrator to report the information to 1 point of 
     contact--
       (A) using a single electronic system or paper form; and
       (B) in the case of an annual reporting requirement, at 1 
     time during the year;
       (2)(A) allow each State, tribal, or local agency that has 
     been authorized or delegated authority to implement a law 
     administered by the Administrator to report information 
     regarding any person subject to the law, as required under 
     the law (including a regulation), agreement, or other 
     instrument, authorizing or delegating the authority, to 
     report to 1 point of contact--
       (i) using a single electronic system; and
       (ii) in the case of an annual reporting requirement, at 1 
     time during each year; and
       (B) provide each State, tribal, or local agency that 
     reports through the integrated reporting system full access 
     to the data reported to the Administrator through the system;
       (3) provide a reporting person, upon request, full access 
     to information reported by the person to the Administrator, 
     or to any State, tribal, or local agency that was 
     subsequently reported to the Administrator, in a variety of 
     formats that includes a format that the person may modify by 
     incorporating information applicable to the current reporting 
     period and then submit to the Administrator to comply with a 
     current reporting requirement;

[[Page 12480]]

       (4)(A) consult with heads of other Federal agencies to 
     identify environmental or occupational safety or health 
     reporting requirements that are not administered by the 
     Administrator; and
       (B) as part of the electronic version of the integrated 
     reporting system, post information that provides direction to 
     the reporting person in--
       (i) identifying requirements identified under subparagraph 
     (A) to which the person may be subject; and
       (ii) locating sources of information on those requirements;
       (5) in consultation with a committee of representatives of 
     State and tribal governments, reporting persons, 
     environmental groups, information technology experts, and 
     other interested parties (which, at the discretion of the 
     Administrator, may occur through a negotiated rulemaking 
     under subchapter IV of chapter 5 of title 5, United States 
     Code), implement, and update as necessary, in each national 
     information system of the Environmental Protection Agency 
     that contains data reported under the reporting system 
     established under this Act, data standards for--
       (A) the facility site (including a facility registry 
     identifier), geographic coordinates, mailing address, 
     affiliation, organization, environmental interest, industrial 
     classification, and individuals that have management 
     responsibility for environmental matters at the facility 
     site;
       (B) units of measure;
       (C) chemical, pollutant, waste, and biological 
     identification; and
       (D) other items that the Administrator considers to be 
     appropriate;
       (6) in consultation with the committee referred to in 
     paragraph (5), implement, and update as necessary, a 
     nomenclature throughout the integrated reporting system that 
     uses terms that the Administrator believes are understandable 
     to reporting persons that do not have environmental 
     expertise;
       (7) consolidate reporting of data that, but for 
     consolidation under this paragraph, would be required to be 
     reported to the integrated reporting system at more than 1 
     point in the same data submission;
       (8) provide for applicable data formats and submission 
     protocols, including procedures for legally enforceable 
     electronic signature in accordance with the Government 
     Paperwork Elimination Act (44 U.S.C. 3504 note) that, as 
     determined by the Administrator--
       (A) conform, to the maximum extent practicable, with 
     public-domain standards for electronic commerce;
       (B) are accessible to a substantial majority of reporting 
     persons; and
       (C) provide for the integrity and reliability of the data 
     reported sufficient to satisfy the legal requirement of proof 
     beyond a reasonable doubt;
       (9) establish a National Environmental Data Model that 
     describes the major data types, significant attributes, and 
     interrelationships common to activities carried out by the 
     Administrator and by State, tribal, and local agencies 
     (including permitting, compliance, enforcement, budgeting, 
     performance tracking, and collection and analysis of 
     environmental samples and results), which the Administrator 
     shall--
       (A) use as the framework for databases on which the data 
     reported to the Administrator through the integrated system 
     shall be kept; and
       (B) allow other Federal agencies and State, tribal, and 
     local governments to use;
       (10) establish an electronic commerce service center, 
     accessible through the point of contact established under 
     paragraph (1), to provide technical assistance, as necessary 
     and feasible, to each person that elects to submit applicable 
     electronic reports;
       (11) provide each reporting person access, through the 
     point of contact established under paragraph (1), to 
     scientifically sound, publicly available information on 
     pollution prevention technologies and practices;
       (12) at the discretion of the Administrator, develop, 
     within the reporting system, different methods by which the 
     reporting person may electronically provide the required 
     information, in order to facilitate use of the system by 
     different sectors, sizes, and categories of reporting 
     persons;
       (13) provide protection of confidential business 
     information or records as defined under section 552a of title 
     5, United States Code, so that each reported item of data 
     receives protection equivalent to the protection that item of 
     data would receive if the item were reported to the 
     Administrator through means other than the integrated 
     reporting system;
       (14) develop (or cause to be developed), and make available 
     free of charge through the Internet, software for use by the 
     reporting person that, to the maximum extent practicable, 
     assists the person in assembling necessary data, reporting 
     information, and receiving information on pollution 
     prevention technologies and practices as described in 
     paragraph (9); and
       (15) provide a mechanism by which a reporting person may, 
     at the option of the reporting person, electronically 
     transfer information from the data system of the reporting 
     person to the integrated reporting system through the use, in 
     the integrated reporting system, of--
       (A) open data formats (such as the ASCII format); and
       (B) a standard that enables the definition, transmission, 
     validation, and interpretation of data by software 
     applications and by organizations through use of the Internet 
     (such as the XML standard).
       (c) Scope of Data Standards and Nomenclature.--The data 
     standards and nomenclature implemented and updated under 
     paragraphs (5) and (6) of subsection (b) shall not affect any 
     regulatory standard or definition in effect on the date of 
     enactment of this Act, except to the extent that the 
     Administrator amends, by regulation, the standard or 
     definition.
       (d) Use of Reporting System.--Nothing in this Act requires 
     that any person use the integrated reporting system instead 
     of an individual reporting system.

     SEC. 4. INTERAGENCY COORDINATION.

       (a) In General.--At the request of any Federal, State, 
     tribal, or local agency, the Administrator shall coordinate 
     the integration of reporting required under section 3 with 
     similar efforts by the agency that, as determined by the 
     Administrator, are consistent with this Act.
       (b) Integrated Reporting Across Jurisdictions.--Under 
     subsection (a), the Administrator may develop a procedure 
     under which a person that is required to report information 
     under 1 or more laws administered by the Administrator and 1 
     or more laws administered by a State, tribal, or local agency 
     may report all required information--
       (1) through 1 point of contact using a single electronic 
     system or paper form; and
       (2) in the case of an annual reporting requirement, at 1 
     time each year.
       (c) Common Data Format Across Jurisdictions.--To facilitate 
     reporting by persons with facilities in more than 1 State, 
     tribal, or local jurisdiction, the Administrator shall 
     encourage the use of a common data format by any State, 
     tribal, or local agency coordinating with the Administrator 
     under subsection (a).
       (d) Provision of Information.--At the request of the 
     Administrator, the head of a Federal department or agency 
     shall provide to the Administrator information on reporting 
     requirements established under a law administered by the 
     agency.
       (e) Selective Use of Integrated Reporting System.--The 
     Administrator may design the integrated system to allow a 
     reporting person to use the integrated reporting system for 
     some purposes and not for others.

     SEC. 5. REGULATIONS.

       The Administrator may promulgate such regulations as are 
     necessary to carry out this Act.

     SEC. 6. REPORTS.

       Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, if the Administrator determines that 1 or more 
     provisions of law explicitly prohibit or hinder the 
     integration of reporting and other actions required under 
     this Act, the Administrator shall submit to Congress a report 
     identifying those provisions.

     SEC. 7. SAVINGS CLAUSE.

       (a) In General.--Nothing in this Act limits, modifies, 
     affects, amends, or otherwise changes, directly or 
     indirectly, any provision of Federal or State law or the 
     obligation of any person to comply with any provision of law.
       (b) Effect.--Neither this Act nor the integrated reporting 
     system shall alter or affect the obligation of a reporting 
     person to provide the information required under any 
     reporting requirement.
       (c) Reporting.--Nothing in this Act authorizes the 
     Administrator to require the reporting of information that is 
     in addition to, or prohibit the reporting of, information 
     that is reported as of the day before the date of enactment 
     of this Act.
                                  ____



                                                         NFIB,

                                Washington, DC, February 11, 2000.
     Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lautenberg: On behalf of the 600,000 small 
     business owners that make up the National Federation of 
     Independent Business (NFIB), I would like to express support 
     for the ``Streamlined Environmental Reporting and Pollution 
     Prevention Act of 2000.''
       The 1996 Code of Federal Regulations, which is the annual 
     listing of agency regulations, takes up 204 volumes with a 
     total of 132,112 pages. According to research conducted by 
     the Small Business Administration, small businesses bear 63 
     percent of the total regulatory burden. It is no wonder that 
     a 1996 NFIB Education Foundation Study ranked unreasonable 
     government regulations and federal paperwork burdens as two 
     of the top ten problems facing small business.
       Simplying this complex system of regulations is a priority 
     for NFIB. As you know, we set our positions on matters of 
     public policy by regularly polling our membership. When we 
     asked small business owners whether they would support the 
     creation of a short-form reporting system, 81 percent of our 
     members said, ``yes.''
       A group of small business owners that are NFIB members 
     reviewed your proposed legislation and they were particularly 
     pleased with the following:

[[Page 12481]]

       The shift to a one time annual reporting requirement will 
     save valuable time and money.
       The legislation wisely extends the benefits of a simplified 
     reporting system to small business owners that do not have 
     the capability of reporting electronically.
       The requirement that information on new methods and 
     technology be made available to assist in pollution 
     prevention efforts will be helpful to small business owners 
     that do not have direct access to research and development 
     programs.
       The requirement that the U.S. environmental protection 
     Agency (EPA) shift to using common chemical identifiers and a 
     common nomenclature will be helpful.
       Your legislation provides the EPA with a much-needed push 
     towards simpler regulatory requirements. I hope that you find 
     our comments helpful, and I look forward to working with you 
     on this bill and other efforts that will make it easier for 
     small business owners to comply with environmental laws.
           Sincerely,

                                                   Dan Danner,

                                            Senior Vice President,
     Federal Public Policy.
                                  ____



                         Printing Industries of America, Inc.,

                                    Alexandria, VA, March 8, 2000.
     Senator Frank Lautenberg,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lautenberg: On behalf of the Printing 
     Industries of America, we wish to express our support for the 
     ``Streamlined Environmental Reporting and Pollution 
     Prevention Act of 2000.'' We believe that this legislation is 
     a win-win for the environment and the economy, and we look 
     forward to working with you to enact this legislation during 
     the 106th Congress.
       As a trade association representing thousands of small 
     printers, we believe the vast majority of small businesses 
     want to do the right thing by the environment, but often they 
     simply do not know what is required of them. This legislation 
     establishes a mandatory duty on the EPA Administrator to 
     develop a way for businesses to fulfill all of their annual 
     reporting obligation in a single electronic filing. While 
     there are no guarantees, we believe this mandate will set in 
     motion a process that leads to simplified reporting and fewer 
     duplicative request for information. By simplifying reporting 
     requirements, more small businesses will understand their 
     reporting and compliance obligations, and we can achieve our 
     dual goals of easing regulatory burdens and improving the 
     environment.
       The proposed legislation also contains important 
     protections that should address potential concerns 
     stakeholders. For example, statutory impediments to 
     integrated reporting are not repealed, but EPA must identify 
     such provisions within two years of enactment. Businesses who 
     choose to report on paper or under the current system can 
     continue to do so. A state or local agency can maintain its 
     separate reporting requirements, or it can request EPA to 
     collect its data requirements on the EPA reporting system. 
     Existing protections for confidential business information 
     are maintained. Overall, we believe this legislation is 
     carefully tailored to address a real problem, while avoiding 
     unnecessary controversy. We believe this is legislation that 
     can and should be enacted this year.
       Once again, thank you for your leadership in introducing 
     this legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                               Benjamin Y. Cooper,
     Vice-President of Government Affairs.
                                  ____

         National Association of Metal Finishers, American 
           Electro-platers and Surface Finishers Society, Metal 
           Finishing Suppliers Association,
                                                     May 31, 2000.
     Hon. Frank Lautenberg,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lautenberg: This letter is to express our 
     appreciation for your work on environmental reporting issues, 
     and to endorse the bill you plan to introduce with Senator 
     Crapo, the ``Streamlined Environmental Reporting and 
     Pollution Prevention Act.''
       As the three leading trade and professional associations 
     for the nation's surface finishing industry, we work to 
     advance the viability and critical economic contribution of 
     approximately 5000 manufacturing facilities, which range from 
     small ``job shops'' to Fortune 500 companies. The National 
     Association of Metal Finishers (NAMF) represents the 
     interests of finishing companies and owners, the American 
     Electroplaters and Surface Finishers Society (AESF) 
     represents technical, research and scientific personnel 
     associated with the industry, and the Metal Finishing 
     Suppliers Association (MFSA) represents a wide range of 
     vendors of equipment, chemicals and environmental consulting 
     expertise.
       As you know, our work during the '90s with USEPA on the 
     reinvention front has led to better environmental performance 
     for the finishing industry and constructive regulatory 
     change. It remains our view that one of the most significant 
     environmental regulatory challenges in the coming years will 
     be the management of the ever-increasing weight and 
     complexity of reporting burdens, particularly for small 
     business. Your legislation takes sensible, incremental steps 
     to address issues with which the Agency continues to have 
     great difficulty.
       A key project undertaken by our industry and USEPA under 
     the ``Common Sense Initiative'' is the so-called ``RIITE'' 
     study. This effort applied a Business Process Reengineering 
     approach to identify and evaluate environmental reporting 
     burdens across the entire federal system. The results were 
     compelling, and pointed to the overwhelming need for 
     consolidating and streamlining the reporting system. We have 
     strongly encouraged the Agency to attack these issues in the 
     context of its ``Reinventing Environmental Information'' 
     initiative, and agency officials appear to be making an 
     attempt in concert with involvement from the states, 
     including New Jersey. However, discrete and meaningful 
     changes are still on the far horizon.
       Accordingly, we commend your work and that of your staff, 
     Nikki Roy, in advancing sensible discussion on this issue, 
     and look forward to working with you on your legislative 
     effort in the coming months.
           Sincerely,
                                                Christian Richter,
     Director, Federal Relations.
                                  ____

         U.S. Public Interest Research Group, National Association 
           of State PIRGs.
     Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lautenberg: I am writing to express U.S. 
     PIRG's endorsement of your bill, ``The Streamlined 
     Environmental Reporting and Pollution Prevention Act 1999.'' 
     This bill presents an important opportunity to advance 
     environmental protection while reducing the burden associated 
     with environmental reporting requirements.
       The bill will require EPA, within four years, to provide 
     businesses with one point of contact for all federal 
     environmental reporting requirements. This `one-stop' 
     reporting system will use a common nomenclature and language 
     understandable to businesspeople, not just to environmental 
     specialists. Its electronic version will also provide 
     pollution prevention information to businesses.
       By helping businesses identify environmental reporting 
     requirements to which they are subject, this new system will 
     make it easier for businesses to comply both with those 
     requirements and with other environmental laws. Using a 
     common nomenclature and simpler language will also improve 
     the accuracy of the environmental information reported. In 
     addition, by providing information on pollution prevention to 
     businesses as they report their environmental information, 
     this system will promote pollution prevention. These are all 
     objectives for which U.S. PIRG has long advocated.
       Thank you for your leadership in demonstrating once again 
     that government can advance environmental protection while 
     helping business.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Jeremiah Baumann,
     Environmental Advocate.
                                  ____



                                        Environmental Defense,

                                Washington, DC, February 14, 2000.
     Dr. Manik Roy,
     Office of Senator Lautenberg,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Nikki: I am writing in support of the intent and 
     approach of Mr. Lautenberg's draft bill to require the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to 
     establish an integrated environmental reporting system.
       Integrating environmental reporting is a common sense way 
     to make government work better for regulated entities as well 
     as those who seek to use public information to advance 
     environmental protection. When properly structured, these 
     reforms can lessen the administrative burden on reporting 
     entities while using the ``teachable moment'' of reporting to 
     illuminate pollution prevention opportunities.
       With continued careful attention to specific language, 
     Senator Lautenberg's legislation will make good sense for 
     both the environment and the economy.
           Sincerely,

                                                  Kevin Mills,

                                                         Director,
     Pollution Prevention Alliance.
                                  ____



                                 National Environmental Trust,

                                                   Washington, DC.
     Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lautenberg: On behalf of the National 
     Environmental Trust, we wish to thank you for sponsoring 
     ``The Streamlined Environmental Reporting and Pollution 
     Prevention Act of 1999.'' NET will fully support enactment of 
     this legislation because it will improve environmental 
     protection and at the same time reduce the administrative 
     burden associated with environmental reporting.
       This proposed legislation demonstrates that it is possible 
     to achieve a cleaner environment and maintain a strong 
     economy at the same time. If enacted, this legislation

[[Page 12482]]

     will provide business with ``one-stop'' reporting through a 
     single point of contact for all federal environmental 
     reporting requirements, which will reduce redundancies and 
     paperwork. By making it easier to report, compliance should 
     improve. The provisions for pollution prevention ``feedback'' 
     through the new system will assist businesses in achieving 
     cleaner operations.
       We thank you for your leadership in introducing this 
     important legislation which will reduce businesses' costs of 
     environmental reporting and compliance and at the same time 
     result in vast improvement in environmental performance.
           Sincerely,

                                        Patricia G. Kenworthy,

                                                   Vice President,
     Government Affairs.
                                  ____

                                                National Pollution


                                        Prevention Roundtable,

                                                December 22, 1999.
     Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lautenberg: I am writing on behalf of the 
     National Pollution Prevention Roundtable (National 
     Roundtable), to express the National Roundtable's endorsement 
     of your bill, ``the Streamlined Environmental Reporting and 
     Pollution Prevention Act of 1999.'' The bill advances 
     concepts included in the National Roundtable's proposed 
     amendments to strengthen the Pollution Prevention Act of 
     1990.
       The bill will require EPA, within four years, to provide 
     each business with one point of contact for all federal 
     environmental reporting requirements. This ``one-stop'' 
     reporting system will use language understandable to business 
     people, not just to environmental specialists. In addition, 
     the ``one-stop'' reporting system will simplify reporting due 
     to the use of common nomenclature. The electronic version 
     will also provide pollution prevention information to 
     businesses.
       Obviously, a law that streamlines environmental reporting 
     will benefit industry by allowing them to spend less time on 
     reporting and more on actually preventing pollution and other 
     substantive environmental improvements.
       Mainstream business decision-makers--those who design the 
     business's products, decide how to make it, then proceed to 
     produce it and instruct customers on its use and disposal--
     make the vast majority of environmental decisions in our 
     society. Unfortunately, many times such decisions are made 
     without consideration of their environmental consequences. 
     This is largely due to the complexity of environmental 
     regulations, which typically lead businesses to hire 
     environmental specialists, who often act in isolation of 
     product and process designers.
       Streamlining environmental reporting will make it easier 
     for mainstream business decision-makers to understand their 
     environmental obligations and incorporate environmental 
     considerations into the design and production of their 
     products. Streamlined reporting is a critical tool needed to 
     meet the challenging pollution problems of the 21st century.
       If you have any questions about our comments or about the 
     National Roundtable please have your staff contact either 
     Natalie Roy or Michele Russo in our Washington D.C. office at 
     202/466-P2P2. We look forward to working more closely with 
     you on this important piece of legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                               Patricia Gallagher,
     Chair, Board of Directors.
                                  ____


The Streamlined Environmental Reporting and Pollution Prevention Act of 
                             2000--Summary

     Section 1. Short title
       This Act may be cited as the ``Streamlined Environmental 
     Reporting and Pollution Prevention Act of 2000.''
     Sec. 2. Definitions
       Administrator means the Administrator of the U.S. 
     Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
       Integrated reporting system means the system established 
     under section 3 of this Act.
       Person includes both private and government facilities.
       Reporting requirement means a routine, periodic, 
     environmental reporting requirement. The term refers neither 
     to most emergency information, nor to business transaction 
     information (e.g. information submitted by EPA contractors).
     Sec. 3. Integrated environmental reporting
       (a) Within 4 years of enactment, EPA integrates and 
     streamlines its reporting requirements in accordance with 
     subsection (b), to the extend not prohibited by Act of 
     Congress, and in a manner consistent with the preservation of 
     the integrity, reliability, and security of the data 
     reported.
       (b) The integrated reporting system has the following 
     attributes:
       (1) EPA establishes one point of contact through which 
     reporting persons may submit all information required by EPA 
     reporting requirements. The information may be submitted in 
     paper form or through electronic media, such as an EPA 
     webpage. This provision operates at the discretion of the 
     reporting person. (See subsection (c).)
       (2)(A) Each State, tribal, or local agency that receives 
     information on a reporting person which it then must report 
     to EPA (for example, under a delegation agreement) is allowed 
     to submit such information to one point of contact at EPA. 
     This provision operates at the discretion of the State, 
     tribal, or local agency, and facilitates such agencies' 
     efforts to streamline their own reporting requirements. (See 
     Section 5.)
       (2)(B) Each State, tribal, or local agency that reports 
     through the integrated reporting system has full access to 
     the data reported to EPA through the system.
       (3) A reporting person has full access to any information 
     it reports to EPA and to State, tribal, or local agencies 
     that is subsequently reported to EPA. In order to ease future 
     reporting, EPA provides the person the information in a 
     modifiable format, allowing the person to update the 
     information on the form and send it in to comply with a 
     current reporting requirement.
       (4) The reporting system directs the reporting person to 
     information on applicable OSHA reporting requirements and 
     environmental reporting requirements administered by other 
     Federal agencies.
       (5) The reporting system uses consistent units of measure 
     and consistent terms for chemicals, pollutants, waste, and 
     biological material. It also uses a standard method of 
     identifying reporting facilities. EPA develops such ``data 
     standards'' in consultation with State and tribal 
     governments, reporting persons (i.e. industry), environmental 
     groups, and information technology experts. (If EPA prefers, 
     the data standards may be developed through a negotiated 
     rulemaking with the stakeholders.)
       (6) The reporting system uses a nomenclature that uses 
     terms understandable to reporting persons that do not have 
     environmental expertise.
       (7) Information that would otherwise be reported at more 
     than one point in the same data submission is reported only 
     once.
       (8) The reporting system uses protocols consistent with the 
     Government Paperwork Elimination Act and public-domain 
     standards for electronic commerce.
       (9) EPA establishes a National Environmental Data Model to 
     use as the framework for EPA databases on which reported data 
     is kept. The data model is made available for use by other 
     Federal, State, tribal, and local agencies, as their 
     discretion.
       (10) Reporting persons may receive technical assistance 
     from an electronic commerce service center that is accessible 
     through the reporting system.
       (11) Reporting persons may receive scientifically-sound 
     publicly-available information on pollution prevention 
     technologies and practices through the reporting system.
       (12) EPA may develop different ``interfaces'' for the 
     reporting system to facilitate use by different sectors, 
     sizes, and categories of reporting persons.
       (13) Each reported data element receives protection 
     equivalent to that provided under current law to protect 
     confidential business information and privacy.
       (14) EPA develops and disseminates software, to the maximum 
     extent practicable, that helps the reporting person in 
     assembling necessary data, reporting information, and 
     receiving pollution prevention information under paragraph 
     (11).
       (15) The reporting system uses an ``open data format'' 
     (such as ASCII format) that allows persons to download 
     information from their own internal data management systems 
     directly to the integrated reporting system. This provision 
     operates at the discretion of the reporting person.
       (c) Existing regulatory definitions are not modified by the 
     data standards and nomenclature implemented under paragraphs 
     (5) and (6) above unless amended by regulation.
       (d) Nothing in this Act requires any person to use the 
     integrated electronic reporting system instead of an 
     individual reporting system.
     Sec. 4. Interagency coordination
       (a) EPA coordinates with State, tribal and local efforts 
     that EPA believes consistent this Act, at the request of the 
     State, tribal or local agency. (See section 3(b)(2).)
       (b) Under subsection (a), EPA may coordinate with a State, 
     tribal, or local agency to establish a reporting system that 
     integrates reporting to both EPA and the other agency.
       (c) To ease reporting by persons with facilities in several 
     jurisdictions, EPA encourages the use of a common data format 
     by any State, tribal, or local agency coordinating with EPA 
     under subsection (a).
       (d) Other Federal agencies provide EPA information on their 
     reporting requirements.
       (e) EPA may design the integrated reporting system to allow 
     a reporting person to use it to comply with some requirements 
     and not others.
     Sec. 5. Regulations
       EPA may promulgate such regulations as are necessary to 
     carry out this Act.
     Sec. 6. Reports
       Within 2 years of enactment, EPA reports to Congress those 
     provisions of law that prohibit or hinder implementation of 
     this Act.
     Sec. 7. Savings clause
       (a) Nothing in this Act affects any provision of Federal or 
     State law or the obligation of any person to comply with any 
     provision of law.

[[Page 12483]]

       (b) Nothing in this Act affects the obligation of a 
     reporting person to provide the information required under 
     any reporting requirement.
       (c) Nothing in this Act authorizes new reporting 
     requirements or requires the elimination of existing 
     reporting requirements.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SHELBY:
  S. 2801. A bill to prohibit funding of the negotiation of the move of 
the Embassy of the People's Republic of China in the United States 
until the Secretary of State has required the divestiture of property 
purchased by the Xinhua News Agency in violation of the Foreign 
Missions Act; read the first time.


            the chinese news agency divestiture act of 2000

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, the Washington Times reported last week 
that the Chinese Government-owned news agency, Xinhua, had purchased 
property on Arlington Ridge Road in Virginia a location that overlooks 
the Pentagon and has direct line of sight to many of our key Government 
buildings including this Capitol and the White House.
  In fact, the property is so appealing that the East Germans bought it 
in the early 1980s, which led Congress to amend the Foreign Missions 
Act.
  The Secretary of State, through the Foreign Missions Act, has broad 
authority to oversee the purchase of buildings in the United States by 
foreign government entities. Under the Act certain identified 
governments are required to notify the State Department of their intent 
to purchase property in the United States. China is one such country.
  The Secretary of State then has 60 days to review the sale, and 
receive input from the Secretary of Defense and the Director of the 
FBI. She has the option to disapprove the sale during this period.
  None of this occurred--despite the fact that China was notified in 
1985 that its news agency was required to follow these procedures--and 
on June 15 the sale was finalized.
  The Foreign Missions Act provides the Secretary of State with the 
authority to remedy this violation of law. Under section 205 of the 
act, the Secretary may force the news agency to divest itself of the 
property.
  The legislation I am introducing today will ensure that this broad 
authority is used.
  The legislation has two basic requirements: First, it requires the 
Secretary of State to report to the Intelligence and Foreign Relations 
Committees whether she intends to force the news agency to divest 
itself of the property.
  Second, the bill prohibits any State Department funds from being used 
to negotiate with the Chinese on the relocation of the Chinese Embassy 
in Washington until she certifies that she has instituted divestiture 
proceedings and will ensure that any further purchase of property by 
the news agency will be pursuant to the Foreign Missions Act.
  By prohibiting funds for further negotiations until this violation of 
U.S. law is resolved, this second provision will also ensure that this 
issue is handled separately from on-going negotiations to relocate both 
the U.S. Embassy in Beijing and the Chinese Embassy in Washington, DC.
  The potential for this building to be a source of unparalleled 
espionage is not a theoretical matter. While there is nothing new about 
PRC spying, as an emerging economic and military power, China 
increasingly challenges vital U.S. interests around the globe through 
its aggressive security and intelligence service--employing both 
traditional intelligence methods as well as non-traditional methods 
such as open source collection, elicitation, and exploitation of 
scientific and commercial exchanges.
  In December 1999, the Director of Central Intelligence and the 
Director of the FBI reported to the Intelligence Committee, in 
unclassified form, that:

       As the most advanced military power with respect to 
     equipment and strategic capabilities, the United States 
     continues to be the [Military Intelligence Department of the 
     People's Republic of China]'s primary target.

  The DCI went on to report:

       During the past 20 years, China has established a notable 
     intelligence capability in the United States through its 
     commercial presence.

  And added that China's commercial entities play a significant role in 
pursuit of U.S. proprietary information and trade secrets.
  One of China's greatest successes has been its collection against the 
U.S. nuclear weapons labs. As the U.S. Intelligence Community concluded 
last year:

       China obtained by espionage classified U.S. nuclear weapons 
     information, [including] at least basic design information on 
     several modern U.S. nuclear reentry vehicles, including the 
     Trident II (W88).

  The special advisory panel of the President's Foreign Intelligence 
Advisory Board PFIAB concluded:

       [T]he nature of the intelligence-gathering methods used by 
     the People's Republic of China poses a special challenge to 
     the U.S. in general and the [DOE] weapons labs in particular. 
     . . . The Chinese services have become very proficient in the 
     art of seemingly innocuous elicitations of information. This 
     approach has proved very effective against unwitting and ill-
     prepared DOE personnel.

  In another example, an investigation by the Senate Select Committee 
on Intelligence concluded that U.S. officials ``failed to take 
seriously enough the counterintelligence threat'' in launching U.S. 
satellites on PRC rockets. Technology transfers in the course of U.S.-
PRC satellite launches:

       Enable the PRC to improve its present and future space 
     launch vehicle and intercontinental ballistic missile.

  But the Chinese are also active in traditional methods of 
intelligence gathering, which brings us to the subject of my 
legislation. Especially in the wake of U.S. military success in the 
Gulf War, the acquisition of advanced U.S. military technology has been 
a primary thrust of PRC espionage and intelligence collection efforts.
  If you want money, and if you are so inclined, you rob a bank 
because, as a bank robber Willy Sutton famously observed: ``that's 
where the money is.''
  If you want information on the most advanced military power in the 
world, the Pentagon is where the information is.
  I am hopeful that this bill can be taken up and passed quickly by the 
Senate and the House in order to ensure that the divestiture occurs in 
an orderly and speedy manner.
  Mr. President, this is a serious matter.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WELLSTONE:
  S. 2802. A bill to amend the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status 
Act of 1994 to add White Earth Tribal and Community College to the list 
of 1994 Institutions; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.


 designation of white earth tribal & community college as a 1994 land 
                           grant institution

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today 
which will add the White Earth Tribal & Community College of Mahnomen, 
Minnesota to the list of 1994 Land Grant Institutions. Designation as a 
1994 land grant institution would give White Earth Tribal & Community 
College access to critical federal funding and resources made available 
under the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 as well 
as providing eligibility for other programs.
  Tribal colleges provide their students and their communities at-large 
with otherwise non-existent opportunities. They serve as library 
facilities for historical tribal documents--things like the oral 
history of elders that might otherwise be lost in time. They promote 
pride in their shared tribal background, and they provide unique 
opportunities for learning about this background. They are a center of 
learning for the entire community--not only learning about their tribal 
history, but also the basic learning that enables some to continue 
adult education, some to go on to 4-year institutions and some to 
finish graduate school. The colleges also offer a place for alcohol 
abuse workshops, job training seminars, and in some cases even day care 
centers. These colleges can offer benefits for all people in their 
communities, which is why we should offer our help to those tribal 
colleges who demonstrate their ability to serve their students and 
their community in this way.

[[Page 12484]]

  The purpose of the 1994 land-grant act was to enable tribal colleges 
to receive funds to build their programs, enhance their infrastructure, 
and educate their communities. However, new tribal colleges, founded 
since 1994 are not automatically eligible for land grant status, they 
must be so designated by legislation. One such college is the White 
Earth Tribal & Community College in Mahnomen, Minnesota. Founded in 
1997, this college is now the center of learning for approximately 100 
students. Their courses cover a wide range of material including math, 
history, computer science, and business communications. The college is 
currently seeking accreditation and is a member of the American Indian 
Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC). White Earth Tribal & Community 
College is also recognized by its peers as an important place of higher 
learning. Other local colleges, such as Moorhead State University, 
Northwest Technical College, and Northland Community and Technical 
College, accept its transfer credits.
  Mr. President, we should offer this college the opportunity it 
deserves to expand and strengthen its efforts to enhance the lives of 
everyone around it. Giving White Earth Tribal & Community College the 
same federal land-grant status that we gave other tribal colleges in 
1994 is a matter of basic equity. Adoption of this legislation would 
signal a willingness to continue our support of new tribal colleges in 
their efforts to enhance education in their communities.

                          ____________________