Summary:

All articles in Senate section

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
(Senate - June 27, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S5884-S5911] 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 [[Page S5885]] 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 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 [[Page S5886]] 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. 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, [[Page S5887]] 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. ______ 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 [[Page S5888]] 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. 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. [[Page S5889]] 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. (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. [[Page S5890]] (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. 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; [[Page S5891]] ``(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

Major Actions:

All articles in Senate section

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
(Senate - June 27, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S5884-S5911] 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 [[Page S5885]] 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 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 [[Page S5886]] 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. 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, [[Page S5887]] 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. ______ 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 [[Page S5888]] 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. 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. [[Page S5889]] 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. (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. [[Page S5890]] (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. 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; [[Page S5891]] ``(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 India

Summary:

All articles in Senate section

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
(Senate - June 27, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S5884-S5911] 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 [[Page S5885]] 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 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 [[Page S5886]] 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. 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, [[Page S5887]] 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. ______ 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 [[Page S5888]] 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. 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. [[Page S5889]] 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. (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. [[Page S5890]] (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. 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; [[Page S5891]] ``(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

Major Actions:

All articles in Senate section

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
(Senate - June 27, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S5884-S5911] 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 [[Page S5885]] 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 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 [[Page S5886]] 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. 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, [[Page S5887]] 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. ______ 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 [[Page S5888]] 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. 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. [[Page S5889]] 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. (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. [[Page S5890]] (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. 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; [[Page S5891]] ``(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 India