Bob Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I now yield back all time on my side on the pending amendment. Before the vote begins, I announce, on behalf of the majority leader, that following this vote on this amendment, there will be no further votes this evening. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the final passage vote for WRDA occur at 4:50 p.m. on Monday, and that paragraph 4 of rule XII be waived.

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

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

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, during the course of the debate on this amendment, I heard several statements made--I am sorry my colleague from Virginia is not on the floor at the moment--about precedent-breaking and about what the law says. We have heard all these representations about the law. I have the law in my hand, and I am going to read from it word for word. This is the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, which has been cited a number of times, that somehow we are breaking precedent, violating law, or not maintaining the law with what we are doing in the Everglades. Section 906(e). There are three criteria mentioned here in terms of construction, and then I will go to O&M: (e) In those cases when the Secretary, as part of any report to Congress, recommends activities to enhance fish and wildlife resources, the first costs of such enhancement-- In this case construction-- shall be a Federal cost when-- (1) such enhancement provides benefits that are determined to be national. . . . Everybody in this Chamber today has called the Everglades a national treasure, including those proponents of this amendment. (2) such enhancement is designed to benefit species that have been listed as threatened or endangered by the Secretary of Interior. . . . We have 68 endangered or threatened species in the Everglades. (3) such activities are located on lands managed as a national wildlife refuge. We have 16 national wildlife refuges in the Everglades ecosystem. Here is the line which is absolutely the opposite of what has been said on the Senate floor all afternoon on this amendment. Listen carefully. This is the O&M portion: When benefits of enhancement do not qualify under the preceding sentence, 25 percent of such first costs of enhancement shall be provided by non-Federal interests under a schedule of reimbursement. . . . The non-Federal share of operation, maintenance . . . of activities to enhance fish and wildlife resources shall be 25 percent. If the non-Federal portion is 25 percent, the Federal portion should be 75 percent. All we are asking for in this legislation is a 50 percent Federal portion. We are not violating any law. We are absolutely following, to Florida's detriment, if one wants to take that position since they could do 75-25; we are doing 50-50. It is very important my colleagues understand. No precedent is being broken. No law is being ignored or violated. We are working within the law under this provision, up to 75 percent Federal share when those three criteria of construction I just mentioned are met. We have met all three of those. We do not even have to meet them all. It is ``or.'' We met all three. As a result of that, we can go up to 75 percent. We have gone to 50 percent in the Federal share. There is a compelling reason to do this. It is fair, and it is within the law. I will conclude with a few more points. If one looks at the so-called normal WRDA legislation, 65 percent Federal--35 percent State on construction--we are doing 50-50 with the Everglades--that is a 15- percent reduction in the Federal cost. If we take that 15-percent reduction--Senator Mack referred to this already--that is about $1.2 billion the Federal Government is saving on the construction portion. The question is, If we take that $1.2 billion and offset it, how much O&M can we get out of that? Senator Mack thought it was around 20 years. So there are 20 years of O&M just from the savings on that particular part of the construction. All my colleagues need to understand, this is a deal-breaking amendment. This amendment would basically take down the entire Everglades proposal, in my view, and WRDA, because to go from the 50-50 position, which has been delicately negotiated and has stayed within the law and stayed within the precedent, contrary to what has been said, would be a deal breaker. That would be a tragedy, in my view, with the greatest respect for the proponents because they feel strongly about this. I do not want to be breaking precedent or violating law and will not. I want, first, my colleagues to know after this project is constructed, it is the responsibility of the non-Federal interests to operate and maintain it. In the Everglades provision, 50-50 O&M--I do not think that is out of the ordinary; it is within the law, as I said. The Federal Government owns and manages about 50 percent of the lands that will benefit from this restoration project. Fifty percent is federally owned. For realizing 50 percent of the benefits, it is not unreasonable we should put up 50 percent of the costs. We could do 75 under the law; we are doing 50. There are four national parks, as I indicated before, 16 national wildlife refuges, 1 national marine sanctuary, and 21 federally managed properties, or 5 million acres of federally owned and managed lands all in the south Florida ecosystem. I do not mean to imply that other projects are not important, but this project has plenty of Federal interest. The level of the investment being put forth by the State is unprecedented, and they put it up early, to their credit. They put money aside right from the beginning. We asked Governor Bush and the legislature to do that. They did it and did it quickly and willingly. The Federal Government was responsible for damaging the Everglades, as has been pointed out. We did it. The Federal Government did it in 1948. That is another aspect of this that needs to be considered. We must look at what we did. We did the damage, not knowingly or not knowing how badly it was going to affect the Everglades, but we did it, and therefore we have an obligation to correct it. That should impact that figure of 50-50. Do we want to ensure our investment in the restoration effort is preserved for future generations? The answer is unequivocally yes. Do we believe the restoration project is an equal partnership between the Federal Government and the State of Florida? The answer is yes, absolutely. Florida does, too. Do we want to impose on Florida the burden for maintaining fresh flows of water in the quality and quantity needed by our Federal trust resources? I do not think so. Our properties are our responsibility, and we should maintain them. That is not unreasonable. The Everglades provision in the managers' amendment is supported by the administration, supported by the State of Florida, supported by two Native American tribes impacted by the restoration, and supported by industry groups and environmentalists, and they do not want to risk fracturing that delicate coalition of support. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Governor Bush of Florida in opposition to this amendment and a letter from several environmental groups in opposition, and also a letter from Dawson Associates, which represents a number of industries, be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I yield such time as he may consume to the Senator from Florida, Mr. Mack. And I thank him for his help and cooperation on this legislation.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished Senator from Florida, Mr. Graham.

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

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, in conclusion, we have an opportunity to rectify a terrible mistake we made. We did it with good intentions. But we made a mistake. This is what we need to do. It is our responsibility now to do that. The Everglades provision in the managers' amendment is supported by these groups. I urge my colleagues to preserve that Federal-State partnership in the Everglades restoration, to preserve this 50-50 O&M, and to reject this amendment because, again, I believe to pass this amendment would break the deal that we have already worked out so delicately among so many groups, No. 1, and, No. 2, it would be unfair. It would not be consistent with the law, WRDA 86, and it would not, in my view, be consistent with the precedent.

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. I move to reconsider the vote.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I thank my colleague from Nevada. We will do our best to work through the process as outlined by the Senator from Arkansas and the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, at this time I renew my unanimous consent request regarding Calendar No. 729, S. 2796, the Water Resources Development Act of 2000.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

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

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. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 10 a.m. on Friday, September 22. I further ask unanimous consent that on Friday and Monday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then begin a period for morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator Hagel, or his designee, 30 minutes; Senator Dorgan, or his designee, 30 minutes.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate convene at 12 noon on Monday and that the Senate be in a period for morning business until 2 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator Durbin, or his designee, in control of the first hour, and Senator Thomas, or his designee, in control of the second hour. Following morning business, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume debate on the motion to proceed to S. 2045, the H-1B visa bill, and at 3:50 p.m., the Senate resume debate on S. 2796, the Water Resources Development Act, for 1 hour equally divided in the usual form.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, when the Senate convenes at 10 a.m. tomorrow, the Senate will be in a period for morning business throughout the day. The Senate may also resume debate on the motion to proceed to S. 2045, the H-1B visa bill, as well as any other items available for action. As previously announced, no votes will occur during tomorrow's session. The next vote will occur at 4:50 p.m. on Monday, September 25, on final passage of the Water Resources Development Act.

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. Senator Smith of New Hampshire has an amendment at the desk.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Peter Washburg, a fellow on the minority staff of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and Rich Worthington, a fellow with Senator Voinovich be granted floor privileges during the consideration of S. 2796, the Water Resources Development Act of 2000.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I understand that S. 3095, introduced earlier today by Senator Kennedy, is at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.