Bob Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, this is the first major piece of environmental legislation debated on the floor since I assumed the chairmanship of this committee nearly 1 year ago. I am proud to bring the Water Resources Development Act before the Senate, of which a major portion is the Everglades which I will talk about in a moment. This is a good bill. I am very proud of it. It is fiscally responsible. At the same time, it recognizes our obligation to preserve one of the most important and endangered ecosystems in the Nation, if not the world--America's Everglades. This bill gets us back on track toward regular biennial Water Resources Development Act bills. The committee produced a so-called WRDA bill last year, but that bill was 1 year late. I am proud of the WRDA portion of this bill. This is not a bill that includes numerous unnecessary projects. The committee established some tough criteria on which we worked very closely. We evaluated the old criteria and put in new criteria. We scrupulously followed this criteria in an effort to not let projects make their way into this bill that did not belong there. As I noted in my opening statement a few days ago, the committee received requests to authorize more than 300 new projects. By holding firm on our criteria in this WRDA bill, we only authorized 23 new projects. We authorize 40 feasibility studies, and the bill contains 65 project-related provisions or modifications that affect existing projects. I remain very concerned about clearing the backlog of previously authorized projects that will not or should not be constructed. Along with Senator Voinovich, we are working very hard to clear that backlog. Called the deauthorization process, this will be an element of the committee's efforts to reform the Corps and to get those projects deauthorized that should not be there. This bill tightens that process by shortening the length of time that an authorized project can stay on the books without actual funding. It is not the full answer, but it is a good answer, and it is a good beginning. During floor consideration of the bill last week, we accepted an amendment that requires the National Academy of Sciences to perform two studies relating to independent peer review of the analyses performed by the Corps of Engineers. I would like to make a few points about that amendment because it was a very important amendment. We certainly have read a lot about Corps reform in the local newspapers, specifically the Washington Post, over the last few months. The stories raised very legitimate issues about the economic modeling used to justify some of these water resources projects. However, it is important to understand that a series of articles in a newspaper is no substitute for careful consideration of the facts and of the issues by the Congress. We have the oversight responsibility for the Army Corps, not the Washington Post. Some Senators, such as Senator Feingold, have proposed reforms that focus on one element in the Corps reform--whether or not to impose a requirement that the feasibility reports for certain water resources projects be subject to peer review. Others, such as Senator Daschle, introduced more comprehensive bills that would examine a number of the Corps reform issues, including peer review. The committee needs more information before we can proceed with any bill that would impose peer review on the lengthy project development process that is already in place. We need to know the benefits of peer review and its impacts before starting down that road. Senator Baucus and I are committed to examining this issue and other issues related to the operation and management of the Corps of Engineers next year. This will include hearings on Corps reform. The hearings will take comments on the NAS study--the National Academy of Sciences study--the bills that have been introduced, as well as the issue in general. I was very encouraged that the nominee to be the next Chief of Engineers, General Flowers, is receptive to working with the Congress on a wide range of reform-related issues. I want to speak specifically about one major element in this legislation, the Everglades. There is an important element that separates this WRDA bill from all others, something that makes this WRDA truly historic. This WRDA bill includes our landmark Everglades bill, S. 2797, the Restoring of the Everglades, an American Legacy Act, very carefully named because it is an American legacy. We do have to restore it. That is what we have done. We have begun the process. So many have asked--especially some of my conservative friends--why should the Federal Government, why should this Congress take on this long-term expensive effort? The answers really are not that difficult, if you look at them. First, the Everglades is in real trouble, deep trouble. We could lose what is left of the Everglades in this very generation. Secondly, the Federal Government, despite the best of intentions, is largely responsible for the damage that was done to the Everglades. The Congress told the Corps of Engineers to drain that swamp in 1948--and drain it they did, all too well. Finally, the lands owned or managed by the Federal Government--four national parks and 16 national wildlife refuges which comprise half of the remaining Everglades--will receive the benefits of the restoration. So there is a lot of Federal involvement here. This is a Federal responsibility. There is a compelling Federal interest. The State of Florida, to its credit, has already stepped up and committed $2 billion to the effort. And Congress needs to respond to that pledge. Let's be clear on one thing right now: This plan is not without risks. This comprehensive plan is based on the best science we have. Because of the very nature of the plan, and the additional requirements in the bill, we are certain we will know more about the Everglades and the success of the plan in the future. To those of you who want guarantees, who want to be absolutely certain every dime we spend is going to be spent in a way that is going to restore the Everglades, then I say to you you probably should not support us because I cannot make that guarantee. But what I can say to you is, if we do nothing we lose the Everglades. So if you want to restore this precious national treasure, then you have to be willing to take the risk. And we are cutting that risk dramatically by the way we are doing this. But we take risks all the time. We take risks every time we invest in a new weapons program for the Defense Department or when we invest in cancer research. I am sure there would be no Senator who would come to the floor and say: We have not yet found a cure for cancer; therefore, we should not risk any more money. We need to take this risk to save this precious ecosystem. It is well worth it. We have cut the odds. Because of the nature of this plan, and the additional requirements in our bill, we are certain we are going to know much more about the Everglades in the future; and we are going to be able, through the process of adaptive management, to change every year or so. If something is not going right, we can pull back, try something new, so we do not waste a lot of dollars doing things that we do not want to do. We acknowledge uncertainty. The plan acknowledges uncertainty. So when my colleagues come down and say there is some uncertainty about this, we know that. We anticipate that this plan will change as we gain more knowledge, while we implement it over the next 36 years. This is a 36-year plan that is going to spend in the vicinity of $8 billion, split equally between the State of Florida and the Federal Government. It works out to a can of Coke per U.S. citizen per year. That is not a bad investment to be able to save the wading birds and the alligators and this precious river of grass of which we are all so proud. I am confident, because of the time I have spent on this issue, that adaptive assessment or adaptive management--whatever you want to call it--will succeed, even if the plan is modified based on the new information that we get in the future. The Everglades portion of WRDA has broad bipartisan support. Every major constituency involved in the Everglades restoration supports this bill--every one of them. Is it perfect? Did everybody get exactly what they wanted? No. But everybody is on board. It is bipartisan and it is wide ranging. It goes from the liberal side of the equation to the conservative side. It includes the administration. It includes both Presidential candidates: Vice President Gore and Gov. George Bush. It includes the Florida Governor, Jeb Bush. It includes the Florida Legislature, both sides of the aisle unanimously. It includes the Seminole Tribe of Florida and the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians in Florida. It includes major industry groups, such as the Florida Citrus Mutual, Florida Farm Bureau, Florida Home Builders, The American Water Works Association, Florida Chamber of Commerce, Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association, Southeast Florida Utility Council, Gulf Citrus Growers Association, Florida Sugar Cane League, Florida Water Environmental Utility Council, Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida, Florida Fertilizer and Agri-chemical Association; and environmental groups as well, including the National Audubon Society, National Wildlife Federation, World Wildlife Fund, Center for Marine Conservation, Defenders of Wildlife, National Parks Conservation Association, The Everglades Foundation, The Everglades Trust, Audubon of Florida, 1000 Friends of Florida, Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense, and the Sierra Club. I think it is pretty unusual to bring a major environmental bill to the Senate floor with that breadth of support. Support for the bill, as it stands today, is even broader than the support that existed for the administration's comprehensive plan. We have taken a good product and have made it better. How have we made it better? It is more fiscally responsible. We defer decisions on some of the riskiest new technologies until we have more information from the pilot projects, which will help us to understand whether these projects should be continued. It has ground-breaking provisions to assure that the plan attains its restoration goals. It has the creation of a true partnership between the Federal Government and the State. This type of partnership--State concurrence in all important decisions and regulations--has no precedent in our environmental statutes. It has more detailed and meaningful reports to Congress on the progress of the plan, almost on a yearly basis. The Everglades bill is a great model for environmental policy development, a model I endorse, a model I have worked hard to implement since I have been the chairman. It is cooperative. It is not confrontational. It is bipartisan. It is flexible. It is adaptive. It establishes a partnership between the Federal Government and the State. Already, there is support for this bill in the House. Congressman Clay Shaw introduced this bill as H.R. 5121 on September 7. He deserves credit for his leadership in that regard. Many others in the House on both sides of the aisle are ready to join the effort. I am asking my colleagues to join with me in support of this major piece of legislation. I see my colleague and good friend from the State of Florida, Senator Graham, is on the floor at this time. I will yield the floor in just a moment so he may speak. Before doing so, I thank him, as well as Senator Mack, for his absolute and resolute involvement in this project. I went to Florida in early January at the request of Senator Graham and Senator Mack to see for myself what the situation was. I spent several days there. We had a hearing in Florida. We listened to the people who were speaking on this issue. I made a promise at that hearing that I would bring this bill to the Senate floor before the end of the year. With the help of good people such as Senator Bob Graham of Florida and Senator Mack, Senator Baucus, and others, we have made that happen. I thank Senator Graham publicly and personally for that. His cooperation has been splendid. Without him, we would not be here. I yield the floor so my colleague from Florida may have a chance to address this issue that is so important to his State and to the Nation.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, what is the pending business before the Senate?

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I ask unanimous consent we move to the managers' amendment, accept it, and it be considered original text for the purpose of further amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Florida.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I say to my colleagues that there are amendments under the unanimous-consent agreement by Senators Torricelli, Warner, Voinovich, and Feingold. I say to my colleagues who have those amendments, if they could proceed to the floor, the intention would be to try to get these amendments offered as soon as possible, knowing that Members do have airplanes to catch. We are hoping to yield back some of the debate time in order to get out a bit earlier. That will take the cooperation of all Members, especially those Members who are offering amendments or who have asked for time to debate other matters within this timeframe. With the cooperation of Members, we could wrap it up hopefully by 6 o'clock or 7 o'clock. Without the cooperation of Members, it will go longer. It will be up to the leader as to how he will proceed with any votes. I am very pleased to bring before the Senate the Water Resources Development Act of 2000. Amendment No. 4164 (Purpose: To provide a complete substitute)

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. The committee has worked very diligently to reach this point. It was quite a challenge: 99 Senators and me. We had a lot of projects. We had a lot of differences of opinion and a lot of things to work through. We worked very hard personally, wherever possible, wherever I needed to, with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, to try to get accommodation for this bill. As it has been done since the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, the committee used a strict set of criteria to determine whether or not these projects would be included. Only those projects that met those criteria were included in this bill. As we know from many of the hearings we had over the last year or so, there is a backlog of Corps projects which, with the help of Senator Voinovich, Senator Baucus, and others, we are trying to clear. We stuck to our criteria. We received over 300 requests on harbor dredging, environmental restoration, flood control, a number of items in which the Army Corps would be involved. My colleagues and I drafted a bill that authorizes 22 new projects, containing 65 project-related provisions or modifications, and authorizes 40 feasibility studies--very complex, time consuming, a lot of detail, a lot of work at the staff and Member level to get there. I appreciate the cooperation of Senator Baucus and his staff throughout this process, as well as Senator Voinovich on our side. Not even one-third of those 300 projects made the cut. I am proud of that. It is a reflection of the strength of the criteria that we worked so hard to keep in the bill and include in the bill, to stick to those criteria, trying not to make exceptions, because once you make exceptions, it opens the door to more and more projects which are not significant or important. Our bill does not contain cost share waivers, environmental infrastructure projects, or authorized projects that are not technically sound, environmentally acceptable, or economically justified. Those are the criteria. I am very proud of that. We stuck to those criteria. We took some heat from some Members, but we thought we were fair to everyone by sticking to the criteria. I commend Senators Voinovich and Baucus for their hard work, and their staffs, and, in addition to Senators Voinovich and Baucus, Senator Mack and Senator Graham. Senator Graham, of course, is a member of our committee. Senator Mack is not. But we treated Senator Mack as if he were a member of the committee. They had full input because of the Everglades issue which is such an important part of this bill. It was a pleasure to work with all of them in putting this bill together. It was very, very difficult. This was a freestanding bill, the water 2000 provision, to restore America's Everglades. I introduced it with my colleagues, Senators Baucus, Voinovich, Graham, and Mack, on June 27, 2000. The committee favorably reported out our Everglades bill by a bipartisan vote of 17- 1, with an amendment to include the Everglades. It was an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote. I think we worked through this process in a bipartisan manner both at the staff level and at the Member level. In January of this year in south Florida at the Everglades, I made a promise to the people of that State and to the Nation, with Senator Graham by my side, as well as Senator Voinovich, that Everglades restoration would be the top priority of this committee. Speaking for myself, it would be my top priority as the chairman. It certainly has been Senator Baucus' top priority as he has worked with me throughout this process. Since that markup, the committee, the State of Florida, the administration, industry groups, environmental groups, and two Indian tribes impacted by the Everglades restoration have all worked diligently on the managers' amendment that we all can support. I am pleased to report that S. 2796 with the managers' amendment is strongly supported by all vital interests. It is truly bipartisan. It is truly historic. A few moments ago, Senator Byrd spoke on the floor about some of the partisanship. It is out there. We all do it. There is a time and place for it. But we didn't have it in this bill. Whatever differences we had with individual Members, they had nothing to do with what somebody had next to their name. I will briefly comment on the Everglades issue and then turn it over to my ranking member, Senator Baucus. We might ask, Why is Everglades restoration necessary? The Everglades is the biggest part of this water resources development bill, and that has been controversial because other Members did not get as much as Florida. But Florida has a special issue. The Everglades are very special. It is a very environmentally sensitive region of the country. It clearly is a treasure. I want my colleagues to understand why we believe time is of the essence. This is a national treasure. It is a vast freshwater marsh which once was connected by the flow of water, a sheet of water, a river of water, flowing south from Lake Okeechobee all the way into the Gulf of Mexico, and once covered 18,000 square miles. It is the heart of a unique biologically productive ecosystem. But now the Everglades is in peril. It is half the size it used to be. What happened? In 1948, we had a Federal flood control project, and 1.7 billion gallons of water a day as a result of that project are now flowing into the sea, totally lost. We asked the Army Corps to do this because we had flooding. We basically created a dam. On one side of that dam is the dammed-up water; on the other side essentially is a desert. That is not what the Everglades ecosystem was designed to be. So we needed to correct it. The Federal Government, the Congress, and the administration's direction at the time, in 1948, urged us to do it. They spent the money to do it. Now I think it is the Federal Government's responsibility, in conjunction with Florida, to correct it. That is exactly what this bill does. The original Central and Southern Florida Project was done with the best of intentions--the Federal Government simply had to act when devastating floods took thousand of lives prior to the project's construction. Unfortunately, the very success of the Central and Southern Florida Project disrupted the natural sheet flow of water through the so-called ``River of Grass,'' altering or destroying the habitat for many species of native plants, mammals, reptiles, fish, and wading birds. We are going to recapture that wasted water, store it, and redirect it, when needed, to the natural system in the South Florida ecosystem. On July 1, 1999, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers submitted to Congress a ``Restudy'' of the Central and Southern Florida Project. Called the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, this blueprint provides the details and layout of the 30-year restoration project. The bipartisan Everglades legislation approves the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan as the overall framework to restore the ecological health of the Florida Everglades. The bill also includes authorization of the initial projects necessary to get restoration underway. Specifically, the bill includes authorization of 10 construction projects. These projects, which employ already proven, standard technologies, were carefully selected by the Army Corps of Engineers and the South Florida Water Management District and included in the plan as the projects that would, once constructed, have immediate benefits to the natural system. Almost right away, the plan gets at restoring the natural sheet flow that years of human interference has interrupted. If anybody has been in south Florida, been to the Everglades, you know what the Tamiami Trail is. Basically, that is a dam that blocks the flow of that water. We will begin the process of punching holes in that dam and allowing that sheet of water to flow once again. The bill includes authorization of four pilot projects to test new and innovative technologies that may be employed in future restoration projects. There is a requirement that future components of the plan must have a favorable Project Implementation Reports [PIR] from the Secretary of the Army, similar to a Chief of Engineer's report. Future projects will be authorized through the biennial Water Resources Development Act. Adaptive management and assessment. One of my favorite aspects of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan is its inherent flexibility. If we learn something new about the ecosystem, perfect our modeling techniques, or just plain see that something is not working right, through the concept of adaptive management and assessment, we can modify the plan as new technologies and new methods become available. Much is made of this and much more will be made of this issue in the debate. This is a 36-year plan. This is a risk. It is not a sure thing. We take risks all the time in the money we spend, whether it is for a weapons system or cancer research. I am sure we would not say we haven't found a cure for cancer so therefore let's not risk any more money in research. We are saying if we do not do something to save the Everglades, we will lose the Everglades. So we have to try. We believe, on the best science we can find, that we have reasonable expectations here to invest approximately $4 billion over 36 years. That is a can of Coke a year for every American. That is not a lot of investment. I think we would be willing to do that so our grandchildren can see alligators and wading birds and enjoy the Everglades as I have with my children on many, many occasions. So we have adaptive management. It is a great concept. If it doesn't work, we stop and we try something else. We are not locked into something for the next 36 years. We are going to perfect our techniques. If something isn't working right, we are going to modify it. We have ``assurances'' that the environment will be the primary beneficiary of the water made available through CERP. The overarching object of the Plan is to restore, preserve, and protect the south Florida ecosystem, while meeting the water supply, flood protection, and agricultural needs of the region. These assurances also protect existing water users, such as the Seminole Tribe of Florida's water compact. This bill has unprecedented broad, bipartisan support. My colleague Senator Graham has compared our feat to achieving peace between the Hatfields and the McCoys. This truly is a remarkable accomplishment that deserves recognition by the Senate in the form of swift passage. Every major constituency involved in Everglades restoration has written us a letter of support and I will later ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the Record. Also, in addition to the bipartisanship, I think we should give a lot of credit to the State of Florida. The State of Florida certainly, along with the legislature, in a bipartisan unanimous vote set aside money for this project. Gov. Jeb Bush has been fantastic in his support, as has Senator Graham and Senator Mack, and the entire congressional delegation. Presidential candidates Gore and Bush have also been supportive and expressed their support. I think there is an understanding here, that this is a huge treasure that we must do something quickly to protect and preserve. In addition to Senators Voinovich, Baucus, Graham, and Mack; the administration; Florida Gov. Jeb Bush--I already mentioned them--the Seminole Tribe of Florida and the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians support this, as do Industry Groups: Florida Citrus Mutual; Florida Farm Bureau; Florida Home Builders; The American Water Works Association; Florida Chamber; Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association; Southeast Florida Utility Council; Gulf Citrus Growers Association; Florida Sugar Cane League; Florida Water Environmental Utility Council; Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida; Florida Fertilizer and Agri-chemical Association; and Environmental Groups: National Audubon Society; National Wildlife Federation; World Wildlife Fund; Center for Marine Conservation; Defenders of Wildlife; National Parks Conservation Association; the Everglades Foundation; the Everglades Trust; Audubon of Florida; 1000 Friends of Florida; Natural Resources Defense Council; Environmental Defense; and the Sierra Club. I also have a set of colloquies and I will later ask unanimous consent that these colloquies be printed in the Record. Garnering the support of these vast interests was not easy. Long hours of intense negotiations since the time the committee reported this bill has resulted in this broad coalition of supporters. They are not the only ones who recognize a good, effective bill when they see it. Newspaper editorial boards across the country have called for Congress to swiftly enact Everglades restoration legislation this year. On September 13, the New York Times ran an editorial, ``Congress's Obligation to Nature.'' This editorial calls on Congress to approve two vital conservation bills, one of those being the Everglades bill. The New York Times had run an initial editorial in support of our Everglades bill on July 13, 2000. On July 7, 2000, the Washington Post ran an editorial lauding restoration of the Everglades. Just last week, on September 6, the Baltimore Sun ran an editorial, as well which summed up what we face now: absent action, the unique ecosystem will be lost. Numerous Florida-based papers have also voiced strong support for the Everglades bill. On September 7, a Miami Herald editorial, ``Pass the `glades bill,'' so correctly states: more delay serves no interest--not federal, state, tribal, regional, or local. Let this Congress authorize restoration . . .'' On July 23, a Tampa Tribune-Times editorial titled, ``Noble effort to rescue Everglades'' recognizes that: the long-term survival of the Everglades National Park, which belongs to all Americans, depends upon restoring a natural flow to the Glades . . . Congress should adopt this noble plan to rescue one of the nation's genuine natural wonders. On June 30, the Sun Sentinel ran an editorial, ``Restoring the Everglades: Bill on the right track'' which stated that: Everglades restoration will require a massive, sustained commitment . . . but it is worth it. And if I could indulge in one more, on June 28th, the Palm Beach Post editorial, ``Give Florida a lifeline'' summed it up: Florida and the feds need to get started. It is clear that these major national and Florida newspapers agree: the bill is strong and the time is now. This Senate, this Congress and this administration must pass Everglades restoration before the conclusion of the 106th Congress. If you care about the environment, if you care about this national treasure, you must join me, Senators Voinovich, Baucus, Mack, and Graham, and help us move WRDA, with Everglades, forward. The Everglades cannot afford to wait. We have worked too hard to build this coalition of support and the Everglades has waited too long for Congress to notice and act upon its demise. Each day that we are delayed, we jeopardize the chances of realizing restoration. Each day that we are delayed, we come closer to losing this unique ecosystem. Each day that we are delayed, vital habitat is lost and we threaten the species that are already in peril. Each day that we are delayed, the Everglades come closer to sure extinction. I am afraid too often people forget that the Everglades is a national environmental treasure. We need to view our efforts as our legacy to future generations. Many years from now, I hope that this Congress will be remembered for answering the call and saving the Everglades while we still had the chance. Mr. President, I strongly encourage my colleagues to support passage of the WRDA, with the Everglades title intact. With that, I will only add that I hope we can finish this bill expeditiously.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I thank my colleague for those remarks. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Montana.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I yield whatever time he may consume to my colleague, the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Voinovich.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. That is correct.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate today has unanimously passed S. 522, the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act of 2000 and H.R. 999, the Beaches Environmental Awareness, Cleanup, and Health Act of 1999. These bills reflect what we can do when we work together cooperatively, and on a bipartisan basis to protect the environment. Most importantly, they will result in significant environmental benefits on the ground-- cleaner and safer beaches for all Americans. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Senate version of this legislation, S. 522. I want to thank Congressman Bilbray for taking the lead on this Beach legislation over the years and for all his hard work in making sure we pass this legislation. Without his hard work and determination over the years we would not have passed this legislation today. I also would like to recognize Senator Lautenberg for his leadership on this issue in the Senate. Every year, over 180 million people visit coastal waters for recreational purposes. Over half of the population of the United States lives near a coastal area and traditionally a great majority of Americans visit coastal areas every year to swim, fish, hunt, dive, bike, view wildlife and learn. For many states, this tourism provides significant economic benefits. In fact, coastal recreation and the tourism industry are the second largest employers in the nation, and supporting 28.3 million jobs. In New Hampshire, for example, the seacoast region is one of the most popular tourism spots in the State. Rye Beach and Hampton Beach, to name a couple, provide beautiful vacation spots for those of us in New Hampshire and many of our friends in neighboring states. Unfortunately, pathogens found in sewage spills, storm water runoff, and combined sewer overflows are impairing water quality and threatening the health of the public who visit our nation's beaches. While some States have strong programs for monitoring and informing the public of the presence of pathogens that are harmful to human health, others do not. In response to the need for consistency among the States in monitoring and public notification of pathogens in coastal recreation waters, Representative Bilbray and Senator Lautenberg introduced their Beach bills. The bills require all states with coastal recreation waters to adopt water quality criteria that protect public health and welfare, consistent with EPA criteria guidance for pathogens and pathogen indicators. The legislation requires the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, in cooperation with State and local governments, to publish performance criteria that provide guidance for state monitoring and assessment, and public notification programs that protect human health. The performance criteria will be used by the States as guidance to improve upon existing monitoring and notification programs or, in some States to establish monitoring and notification programs. In the case of New Hampshire, which as an extensive monitoring and notification program, these performance criteria will provide further guidance to improve upon our program. The bills provides $30 million over 5 years in grants to States and local communities for the implementation and development of these monitoring and notification programs. In certain situations, such as the early stage of a program, EPA will be able to award as a grant a large percentage, up to 100 percent, of the costs of developing a program to some states. This provides those few States without monitoring and notification programs a great incentive through grant funding to develop and implement this comprehensive program. Improving water quality at our nation's beaches, as well as implementing monitoring and public notification programs, will benefit all Americans who have a right to expect that they can safely swim in the water. The Committee filed the Report on S. 522 (Rept. No. 106-366) on August 25, 2000. The Committee Report and the text of S. 522, as amended in Committee, reflected a number of changes negotiated by the Committee and the two principle sponsors of the House and Senate bills, Congressman Brian Bilbray of California and Senator Frank Lautenberg. Over the past few months, I have worked with my colleagues on the Committee, particularly Senators Lautenberg and Baucus, and with Congressman Bilbray to continue to improve the language of this legislation. Together, we have crafted a comprehensive Manager's Amendment that I believe provides States with needed flexibility and enhances environmental protection. As the manager of the bill, and a cosponsor of the Senate bill, I am pleased that the Senate passed this Manager's Amendment as a substitute to the text of both H.R. 999 and S. 522. Both bills, as passed by the Senate, reflect the agreements and principles set forth in Senate Report No. 106-366. I thank Senator Baucus and my other Committee colleagues, as well as Senators Lott and Daschle, for helping us continue the tradition of bipartisan action on environmental matters.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 607, S. 2046.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I ask unanimous consent the amendment be agreed to.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, Senators Frist and Rockefeller have an amendment at the desk. I ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I ask unanimous consent the committee substitute be agreed to, the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, the amendment to the title be agreed to, and any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 787, S. 1810.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration of the following nominations and that they be placed on the Calendar: Luis J. Lauredo, of Florida, to be Permanent Representative of the United States to the Organization of American States with the rank of Ambassador, to which position he was appointed during the last recess of the Senate; and Mark L. Schneider, of California, to be Director of the Peace Corps, vice Mark D. Gearan, resigned, to which position he was appointed during the last recess of the Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent there be a period for the transaction of routine morning business, with Senators permitted to speak up to 10 minutes each.