Connie Mack

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate concur in the amendment of the House with a further amendment which is at the desk.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 922, H.R. 4435.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask that the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House to accompany S. 835, ``An Act to encourage the restoration of estuary habitat through more efficient project financing and enhanced coordination of Federal and non-Federal restoration programs, and for other purposes.'' The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives: Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 835) entitled ``An Act to encourage the restoration of estuary habitat through more efficient project financing and enhanced coordination of Federal and non-Federal restoration programs, and for other purposes'', do pass with the following amendment: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate disagree with the amendment of the House, agree to the request for a conference, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I understand that H.R. 4292 is at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I understand S. 3173 is at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. MACK. I now ask for its second reading, and I object to my own request.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to, the bill be read a third time and passed, as amended, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I understand S. 3165 is at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of Coptic Christians in Egypt who have been persecuted because of their religious beliefs. According to reports by both the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights and Freedom House in the United States, up to 1,200 Coptic Christians in Al-Kosheh, Egypt, were detained, interrogated, and subjected to police brutality in relation to the murders of two other Coptic Christians in 1998. After weeks of reported torture, these accounts suggest that confessions were obtained under duress that identified Shaiboub William Arsel as the murderer. Mr. Arsel was subsequently sentenced to 15 years of hard labor. Over the last two years I have met with officials from the Egyptian government, including President Hosni Mubarak on several occasions in an attempt to address this issue quietly. Unfortunately, these discussions have failed to produce sufficient action on the part of the government of Egypt. As a result, I rise today to submit a resolution urging the President to encourage the Egyptian government to provide Shaiboub William Arsel with a timely and open appeal that would include international observers, and furthermore to complete an independent investigation of the police brutality in Al-Kosheh.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration, en bloc, of the following reported calendar items by the Energy Committee: Calendar No. 636, S. 2478; Calendar No. 637, S. 2485; Calendar No. 640, H.R. 3201; Calendar No. 665, S. 1670; Calendar No. 668, H.R. 2879; Calendar No. 713, H.R. 2833; Calendar No. 749, S. 134; Calendar No. 753, S. 1972; Calendar No. 755, S. 2300; Calendar No. 757, S. 2499; Calendar No. 768, H.R. 468; Calendar No. 770, H.R. 1695; Calendar No. 790, S. 1925; Calendar No. 792, S. 2069; Calendar No. 799, H.R. 3632; Calendar No. 811, H.R. 4226; Calendar No. 833, H.R. 4613; Calendar No. 835, H.R. 3745; Calendar No. 852, S. 2942; Calendar No. 854, S. 3000; Calendar No. 886, S. 2749; Calendar No. 887, S. 2865; Calendar No. 892, H.R. 4285; Calendar No. 897, S. 2757; Calendar No. 901, S. 2977; Calendar No. 903, S. 2885; Calendar No. 907, H.R. 4275; Calendar No. 925, S. 2111; Calendar No. 928, S. 2547; Calendar No. 931, H. Con. Res. 89; and Calendar No. 936, S. 1756. I ask unanimous consent that any committee amendments, where appropriate, be agreed to, the bills, as amended, if amended, be read a third time and passed, as amended, if amended, any title amendments be agreed to, the resolution be agreed to, and the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to any of the bills and the resolution be printed in the Record, with the above occurring en bloc.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration, en bloc, of the following reported by the Energy Committee: Calendar No. 470, H.R. 1725; Calendar No. 632, S. 1367; Calendar No. 795, S. 2439; Calendar No. 827, S. 2950; Calendar No. 850, S. 2691; Calendar No. 885, S. 2345; and Calendar No. 926, S. 2331. I further ask unanimous consent that any committee amendments be agreed to, where appropriate, and the following amendments at the desk: amendment No. 4290 to H.R. 1725; amendment No. 4291 to S. 1367; amendment No. 4292 to S. 2439; amendment No. 4293 to S. 2950; amendment No. 4294 to S. 2691; amendment No. 4295 to S. 2345; and amendment No. 4296 to S. 2331 be agreed to, the bills, as amended, be read the third time, passed, and any title amendment be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action, and that any statements thereto be printed in the Record.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, as a co-sponsor of the Community Renewal and New Markets Act of 2000, I want to commend Chairman Roth for his usual fine work in assembling a bill that garners the support of such a large number of our Finance Committee colleagues. I am pleased that a number of items in this bill are provisions that are extremely important to me, and I would like to speak briefly concerning them. But I also want to draw attention to some provisions in this bill that I do not favor. As this bill stands in the place of what would have been a bill reported out of the Committee on Finance, it reflects the compromises that are inherent in the committee process. Unlike typical bills, of which it is reasonable to assume that every provision is supported by every co-sponsor, probably every co-sponsor of this bill can find provisions contained in it that he does not support. Of many, there are two that I find most troubling: the ``new markets tax credit,'' and the ``individual development accounts.'' These two provisions are appropriations masquerading as tax cuts. Under the new markets tax credit, the Secretary of the Treasury would annually pay dividends to investors in ``community development entities,'' which must be certified by the Treasury Department and which must have as their primary mission investing in low-income people or communities. This proposal is premised on the belief that an entity that lacks a profit-motive, under federal bureaucratic supervision, will be an attractive investment for people if dividends are guaranteed. It is the sort of scheme that could only be dreamed up by people who have spent their entire careers in government. A simpler way to direct capital to investment-starved pockets is by eliminating the tax on capital gains--this is the decentralized, market-oriented approach. The ``individual development accounts'' would launder government- matching funds for low income savers through financial institutions. This new entitlement cannot be justified. It is true that, by some measures, the savings rate in the United States appears low. Simple logic dictates that the savings rate have been lowered due to federal tax policies, which impose several layers of taxation upon income that is saved. It is one thing to address this problem at the source, by removing the extra taxation on savings--a we do to the extent that people can make deductible contributions to traditional IRAs and contributions to Roth IRAs. But to give people money to reward them for saving is pure income redistribution, a misuse of the taxpayers' money. Despite my disagreement with some of the provisions of this bill, I am pleased that the bill contains several initiatives that I have proposed over the past few Congresses. The Low Income Housing Tax Credit is boosted to make up for over a decade's worth of inflation, and is indexed to prevent this problem from reoccurring. The First-Time Homebuyer Tax Credit for the District of Columbia is extended and the marriage penalty in the credit is eliminated. Section 1706 of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which discriminates against high technology workers and the companies that hire them, is repealed. Not-for-hire disaster insurance funds, in my state of Florida and several others, are made tax-exempt entities. I am most encouraged by the extension of my zero percent capital gains tax rate proposal to businesses in the entire District of Columbia, and to businesses in all empowerment and renewal zones. Although I am concerned that the lengthy, five-year holding period is unwise and undermines the power of the proposal, I am nevertheless pleased that the idea is spreading and people are coming to see capitalism as the only true cure for poverty.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, as a co-sponsor of the Community Renewal and New Markets Act of 2000, I want to commend Chairman Roth for his usual fine work in assembling a bill that garners the support of such a large number of our Finance Committee colleagues. I am pleased that a number of items in this bill are provisions that are extremely important to me, and I would like to speak briefly concerning them. But I also want to draw attention to some provisions in this bill that I do not favor. As this bill stands in the place of what would have been a bill reported out of the Committee on Finance, it reflects the compromises that are inherent in the committee process. Unlike typical bills, of which it is reasonable to assume that every provision is supported by every co-sponsor, probably every co-sponsor of this bill can find provisions contained in it that he does not support. Of many, there are two that I find most troubling: the ``new markets tax credit,'' and the ``individual development accounts.'' These two provisions are appropriations masquerading as tax cuts. Under the new markets tax credit, the Secretary of the Treasury would annually pay dividends to investors in ``community development entities,'' which must be certified by the Treasury Department and which must have as their primary mission investing in low-income people or communities. This proposal is premised on the belief that an entity that lacks a profit-motive, under federal bureaucratic supervision, will be an attractive investment for people if dividends are guaranteed. It is the sort of scheme that could only be dreamed up by people who have spent their entire careers in government. A simpler way to direct capital to investment-starved pockets is by eliminating the tax on capital gains--this is the decentralized, market-oriented approach. The ``individual development accounts'' would launder government- matching funds for low income savers through financial institutions. This new entitlement cannot be justified. It is true that, by some measures, the savings rate in the United States appears low. Simple logic dictates that the savings rate have been lowered due to federal tax policies, which impose several layers of taxation upon income that is saved. It is one thing to address this problem at the source, by removing the extra taxation on savings--a we do to the extent that people can make deductible contributions to traditional IRAs and contributions to Roth IRAs. But to give people money to reward them for saving is pure income redistribution, a misuse of the taxpayers' money. Despite my disagreement with some of the provisions of this bill, I am pleased that the bill contains several initiatives that I have proposed over the past few Congresses. The Low Income Housing Tax Credit is boosted to make up for over a decade's worth of inflation, and is indexed to prevent this problem from reoccurring. The First-Time Homebuyer Tax Credit for the District of Columbia is extended and the marriage penalty in the credit is eliminated. Section 1706 of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which discriminates against high technology workers and the companies that hire them, is repealed. Not-for-hire disaster insurance funds, in my state of Florida and several others, are made tax-exempt entities. I am most encouraged by the extension of my zero percent capital gains tax rate proposal to businesses in the entire District of Columbia, and to businesses in all empowerment and renewal zones. Although I am concerned that the lengthy, five-year holding period is unwise and undermines the power of the proposal, I am nevertheless pleased that the idea is spreading and people are coming to see capitalism as the only true cure for poverty.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. I appreciate the comments of my colleague and yield the floor. secton 211, project deauthorization

Mr. MACK. Madam President, I rise today to engage my colleague from Florida in a colloquy. Specifically, I want to clarify our understanding of the portion of the legislation we're considering today to restore, preserve and protect the Everglades ecosystem. My understanding is that the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan authorized by this bill create a balance between state and federal interests in ensuring that the predicted Plan benefits--including benefits to both state and federal lands--are attained. It is my view that this bill is intended to recognize and maintain the State's interest in preserving the sovereignty, in State law, over the reservation and allocation of water within the State's boundaries. It is my further understanding that the Agreement called for between the President and the Governor of Florida will not result in a federalization of State water law. Florida water law requires that all reasonable beneficial water uses and natural system demands are subject to a public interest balancing test. Implementation of the Plan will rely upon State law and processes for reserving and allocating water for all users, according to the principles set out in the legislation before us. It is not the intent of this Act, or the President/Governor Agreement required by this Act, to create a procedure where all of the new water made available by the Plan will be allocated to the natural system leaving nothing for other water users. Rather, the agreement will simply ensure that water for the natural system is reserved first, and any remaining water may be allocated among other users according to the provisions of State water law. I yield to my colleague from Florida, Senator Graham.

Mr. MACK. Madam President, I rise today to call the Senate's attention to a provision of the bill before us expressing the sense of the Senate concerning Homestead Air Force Base in Florida. I want to take a moment of the Senate's time today to express my understanding of this resolution and my own intent in agreeing to its inclusion in the bill before us today. As my colleagues are aware, this Air Force base is currently in the disposal process set forth by Congress when it established a fair and impartial system for closing military facilities around the country. Since Hurricane Andrew devastated the region in 1992, the citizens of South Florida have waited for a disposal decision from the federal government. It is anticipated the property could provide a stable economic platform for a community that is in need of jobs and economic development. Clearly, it is my intent that whatever use to which the property is ultimately put be accomplished in a manner that does not adversely impact the surrounding environment or the Everglades restoration plan we're considering today. But let me be clear, Mr. President. It is emphatically not my intent that this resolution be read by the United States Air Force to mean they should add to, alter, or amend the existing process for disposing the property at Homestead Air Force Base. It is my strong view that the process for conveying surplus military property is clearly set forth in the law and that process should be followed until the final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on the property is completed and the Air Force disposes the property.

Mr. MACK. Yes.

Mr. MACK. Madam President, I will only take a moment of the Senate's time today--prior to the vote on the Water Resources Development Act-- to acknowledge the importance of this moment and the action the Senate will take today to restore and preserve America's Everglades. My colleague, Senator Graham, and I have worked for eight years to bring this bill to the floor and it gives me great satisfaction that today it will be approved by the Senate. I want especially to thank Chairman Smith for his dedication to this effort over the past few months. He has worked side-by-side with us to develop the consensus product we're voting on today. As we developed this legislation, he and his staff provided valuable input into the process and we appreciate the long hours they put in on our behalf. Further, I want to--once again--acknowledge my colleague, Senator Graham. He has worked on Everglades issues for years--even prior to his time in the Senate--and it has been a pleasure to work with him over the years as we worked on the legislation before us. The Corps of Engineers, the Department of Interior, and the Council on Environmental Quality have worked long hours to turn this bill into reality. I appreciate the support of these agencies throughout the process and for the proof--once again--that saving the Everglades is not a partisan issue. And finally, I want to acknowledge the hard work and steadfast support of Governor Bush. The State of Florida is a full partner with us in this restoration effort, and I believe the work we've put in together in writing this bill bodes well for a lasting partnership on behalf of the Everglades. The Everglades is an American treasure. Today we in the Senate will take a major step forward in passing a restoration plan that is rooted in good science, common sense, and consensus. I thank everyone who participated in this process for their hard work and dedication to the effort.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. I wanted to respond to the question.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I want to say to my dear friend, the Senator from Virginia, I thoroughly enjoyed listening to his presentation. And I say this with all good humor. It was a great performance. It reminded me a little of Chicken Little in ``The Sky is Falling'' when I listened to equating $86 million in operating expenses to a $1.4 billion budget. The $86 million will be the cost of operating and maintaining this new system 25 or 30 years from now. I think it might be appropriate to try to figure out what the Corps' budget might be 25 or 30 years from now. I think that would bring a more significant understanding of the impact of the operating and maintenance costs to the Federal Government. The second point I will make is that we are already spending more than that now on the Everglades. I suggest that on this project we are proposing today--and I believe strongly that it will pass--we will probably seek a reduction in the long run as a part of the Corps' budget. But, again, I appreciate the fervor with which my colleague presented his argument.

Mr. MACK. I am sure we will. Mr. President, I am in strong opposition to the amendment offered by my friend from Virginia. This amendment, if passed, will put an end to the unprecedented partnership developed between the Federal Government and the State of Florida in an effort to restore and protect America's Everglades. While I am sure my colleague from Virginia has the best of intentions in offering his amendment, I caution my colleagues that one- size-fits-all solutions can be extremely harmful to something as sensitive and as difficult as Everglades restoration. It may be useful to take a few minutes today to help highlight the Everglades provision in the water resources bill before us and explain how the amendment of the Senator from Virginia will impact our longstanding efforts to restore and protect this unique ecosystem. Let me begin by stating that the legislation before us today is a consensus product supported by a full spectrum of environmental groups and economic stakeholders. It is supported by Florida's two Indian tribes, Gov. Jeb Bush of the State of Florida, and it is supported by the Clinton administration. Nine months ago, my colleague from Florida, Senator Graham, and I set out to write a balanced Everglades bill that addressed the needs of south Florida's environment and its citizens. This was no small task. We asked individuals and groups who have long been divided to set aside their differences and work together with us. We asked them to help us restore this vibrant, natural system to its former glory. With the steady leadership of Chairman Bob Smith and Senator Baucus, we have accomplished our goal. The bill we bring to the floor today is something of which all Americans, and I believe all Senators, can be proud. In the bill we are considering today, we authorize a comprehensive plan to undo the harm done by 50 years of Federal efforts to control flooding in south Florida, without consideration for damage done to south Florida's environment. This comprehensive plan was developed over the past 8 years by the Corps of Engineers, with input from economic and environmental stakeholders, local governments, scientists, restoration engineers, the people of south Florida, and the Congress. It is recognized throughout south Florida and the Nation as a fair and balanced plan to provide for the water-related needs of the region while, for the first time, ensuring that the needs of the Everglades will be met as well. It is terribly important that we do this. Without this plan, the Everglades will die and water, the lifeblood of south Florida's economy, will continue to be siphoned off into the sea without benefiting the environment or the people who live and work in the region. Let me take a moment to share with you some of the principles Senator Graham and I have used to guide our efforts this year in drafting this bill. We wanted to be sensitive to the legitimate concerns and needs of all citizens and interests who have a stake in how the plan is implemented, we wanted to be true to the restoration mandate and ensure that the Everglades got the first benefit of any new water generated by the plan, and we wanted to affirm and establish in law the true partnership we share with the State of Florida in achieving the plan's restoration goal. The cooperation between the State agencies charged with managing this effort and the Federal Government over the years has been truly unprecedented. The State shared the cost of developing the plan we are considering today. The Corps of Engineers has benefited greatly from the engineering talent at the South Florida Water Management District. Florida has been our full partner in bearing half of the cost of the restoration projects already underway in the Everglades. The State has committed to split evenly the cost of implementing the plan once it is authorized. The reason for this partnership is simple. Both the State and Federal Government have a vital interest in the restoration of the Everglades. Both the State and the Federal Government should pay for the cost of operating and maintaining the restoration project once it is built. I say this to provide background for the debate on the amendment before us. This partnership we have established is vital to our efforts, and if this amendment passes, it will be very difficult to accomplish our restoration goals. I have a letter from Gov. Jeb Bush expressing his opposition to the amendment of the Senator from Virginia. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, a key part of this partnership has been the commitment by the State of Florida--already enshrined in a bill approved by Governor Bush earlier this year--to pay fully half the $7.8 billion cost of implementing the Everglades restoration plan. This is a significantly greater cost share than the local sponsor typically pays to construct a Corps project. Many Corps projects have a local cost share of as little as 20 percent of the total project and few pay more than 35 percent. In fact, if the State were paying 35 percent, rather than the 50 percent it has committed to, it would increase the burden of the Federal taxpayer by almost $1.2 billion. Let me repeat that. The State has committed to a greater-than-average cost share for constructing the restoration project and will save the Federal taxpayers almost $1.2 billion. I believe the good faith demonstrated by the State's offer--not to mention the resulting savings of the Federal Government--clearly refutes any argument that the State is somehow unduly benefiting from the operation and maintenance cost share proposed in the bill before us today. While I cannot stress enough the damage this amendment will do to our relationship with the State of Florida, I remind my colleagues about the significant Federal investment we are making in the Everglades and the important Federal interest in ensuring this project is operated and maintained properly. Within the boundaries of the proposed restoration area, there are four national parks, including Everglades National Park, one of the crown jewels of our National Park System. There is a national marine sanctuary and many other national interests. All of these important environmental assets are dependent upon the successful operation of the restoration plan. If the project is not operated properly--if the water is not right-- these important Federal holdings in south Florida will continue to suffer the same fate they are suffering today. If we and the State of Florida are to come together behind a restoration plan and spend $7.8 billion to implement that plan, it seems we also have the responsibility and obligation to stay in Florida and help with the successful operation and maintenance of the project. That is a reasonable position. I add that the operation and maintenance cost share in this bill is fully consistent with prior central and southern Florida project authorizations. In fact, the Federal Government pays the full cost of operating and maintaining the levees, channels, locks, and control works of the St. Lucie Canal, Lake Okeechobee, and the Caloosahatchee River. The Federal Government pays the full cost--not 50-50, but the full cost--of operating the levees, channels, locks, and control works of the St. Lucie Canal, Lake Okeechobee, and the Caloosahatchee River. All of these areas that I have mentioned are in this restoration area. It pays the full cost of operating and maintaining the main spillways in the system's water conservation area. Further, the Flood Control Act of 1968 provided that the project costs of providing water delivery to Everglades National Park is considered a federal responsibility and on that basis the federal government would share in the operation and maintenance of projects that serve that area of the system. The federal government is also required, under a 1989 law, to participate in the cost share for the modified water deliveries project. And, finally, the water resources bill of 1996 provides that the cost of operating and maintaining water deliveries to Taylor Slough and Everglades National Park be shared between the State and federal governments. That is my argument to this constant mention of the fact that for 14 years we have had this precedent. I have just stated the whole series of issues related to the Everglades in which there is a whole range of the sharing of costs and maintaining the Everglades system. There appears to be ample precedent for a shared cost between the State and federal governments on projects related to the Everglades and Everglades restoration. What the Senator from Virginia is advocating is something far different. He would have the federal government pack up and leave when the restoration project is completed--essentially abandoning precedent and abandoning a national treasure after an unprecedented effort to save it. His amendment would have the federal government abdicate its responsibility, to both the environment and the taxpayer, to protect the substantial investment we're making on their behalf in the Everglades. I would remind my colleagues, the Everglades is a dynamic system. It is dependent on the steady, reliable supply of fresh water this restoration project will provide over the years. It is not like a levee, or a bridge, which the federal government can construct and turn over to the local authorities. This is an enormously complex restoration project managing the water flow over and through 18,000 square miles of subtropical uplands, wetlands and coral reefs. The area covered by this project spans from Lake Okeechobee to Key West; from Fort Myers on the gulf to Fort Pierce on the Atlantic. This is not an investment we can afford to abandon, Mr. President. The investment is too great and the stakes are too high. I would urge my colleagues to defeat the amendment. Exhibit 1 Governor of the State of Florida, September 19, 2000. Hon. Connie Mack, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Mack: Florida awaits with much anticipation Congress' authorization of the plan to restore America's Everglades. Our optimism is derived in large measure from the demonstrated leadership in the Senate, particularly your efforts and those of Senator Smith and Senator Trent Lott and his leadership team. We are also hopeful that, with time running out, the White House will hold together the bipartisan nature of this effort by encouraging minority members to keep focused on the historic nature of the opportunity before them. Clearly, with just a few legislative days remaining, a key to success will be limiting efforts to revisit some of the fundamental agreements that have now carried us so far. Among these agreements is the unprecedented equal cost sharing arrangement between the federal government and our state. This true and equal partnership creates all of the right incentives for making wise, cost-effective decisions as the project proceeds through construction, operation and maintenance. An equal and shared interest between the state and federal governments ensures that cost control remains a shared goal, and that design and construction decisions are made based on what will provide the greatest long-term efficiencies. No party will benefit from attempting to shift costs forwards or backward for short-term advantage. Everybody, most importantly the taxpayers, wins if there is mutual benefit in controlling overall costs for the life of the project. The current 50-50 cost sharing formula for construction, operation and maintenance of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan is far superior to the conventional funding formulas used for more typical Water Resources Development Act projects. Florida, by paying half of the project construction costs, will save the federal treasury nearly $2 billion. This up front savings to the federal government is equivalent to more than 20 years of the projected operation and maintenance costs. Beyond the sound fiscal arguments for an equal partnership, there are also important practical and management benefits. All of the diverse interests that have rallied around the bill that is now before the Congress recognize the delicate political balance that has been struck regarding the management and allocation of water resources in the South Florida ecosystem after the construction project is complete. Clearly the maintenance of this balance is best protected if there are equal commitments from the state and the federal government for the ongoing operation and maintenance of the project. I respectfully urge you to remain alert to the importance of this full and equal partnership between the state and federal governments. Not only is this partnership formula fiscally and politically prudent, it is also critical to maintaining the diverse and broad-based support that the bill before you has earned. Please let me know if you believe that this agreement is ever in jeopardy in the critical days ahead as this Congress prepares to make environmental history. Sincerely, Jeb Bush.

Mr. MACK. This will be a brief response. I apologize to my colleagues for trying to hop in here, but the Senator raised a question I thought should be responded to: What makes us different? In the State of Florida, in 1994, we passed the Everglades Forever Act which provides for local payment of water cleanup costs. The Federal Government's share in the cost of cleaning up the water that directly benefits Federal areas such as the Everglades National Park-- the fact is that the local communities are paying for the cleanup of the waters that the Senator has suggested. The second point I make, I think there is something unique about what we have come up with. The Senator says the uniqueness is the 50-50 cost sharing. The uniqueness that I see--and I don't think there is a Member who has traveled to the State of Florida and become involved and knowledgeable about the Everglades Project, who is not amazed by the partnerships that have been developed--is the various interests in our State that have come together and who have said not only do they support but they are willing to put money into it. As the Senator knows, the State of Florida, during this past legislative session, in fact, put up I believe almost $200 million towards this project. Again, to answer the question directly, the cities are, in fact, paying. The State of Florida anticipated that question in 1994 and passed the act that I referred to a few moments ago. I thank the Senator for yielding.