Bob Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, by now everyone knows of the damage that the gasoline additive, MTBE, has done to our nation's drinking water supply, including in the state of New Hampshire. MTBE has been a component of our fuel supply for two decades. In 1990, the Clean Air Act was amended to include a clean gasoline program. That program mandated the use of an oxygenate in our fuel, MTBE was one of two options to be used. The problem with MTBE is its ability to migrate through the ground very quickly and into the water table. Several states have had gasoline leaks or spills lead to the closure of wells because of MTBE. MTBE is not a proven carcinogen, but its smell and taste does render water unusable. Many homes in New Hampshire and across the nation have lost use of their water supply because of MTBE contamination. Today I am introducing a bill with my friend Senator Reid, who is the Ranking Member on the committee that I chair, the Environment & Public Works Committee. This bill addresses the problems associated with MTBE, but will not reduce any environmental benefits of the Clean Air program. Briefly, this bill will: Authorize $400 million out of the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Fund (LUST Fund) to help the states clean up MTBE contamination, address the integrity of Underground Storage Tanks and the program; Ban MTBE four years after enactment of this bill; Allow Governors to waive the gasoline oxygenate requirement of the Clean Air Act; Preserve environmental benefits on air toxics, and; Provide funds to help transition from MTBE to other clean, safe fuels. The funding for cleanup and transition is provided out of a sense of fairness. Since a Federal mandate caused the pollution, it would be irresponsible for the Federal Government not to bear some of the financial burden associated with the clean up and the transition to a less destructive alternative fuel. This is a very complex issue that the Environment and Public Works Committee has struggled with for months. It has always been my intent to craft a solution that was direct and balanced. There are many competing interests and a number of solutions have been offered. Most of the competing interests are based on regional differences and preferences. Some prefer a simple ban of MTBE, this approach would make gas dramatically more expansive and more dirty. Some would like a stand alone mandate of Ethanol, that too has many problems associated with it. Ethanol would bring with it both cost and smog concerns, particularly in states like New Hampshire. Simply eliminating the RFG mandate does not work either. Under this scenario, MTBE would continue to be used and wells would continue to be contaminated. I am also very pleased that this bill is consistent with the President's National Energy Policy because it will reduce the intra- regional patchwork of what are known as ``boutique'' fuels. This bill will allow for the use of one fuel blend to meet RFG requirement in many regions that currently require multiple boutique fuels. This will ease the burden on refineries and fuel supply, which in turn will reduce the risk of increased gas prices for the consumer. The fuel suppliers recognize this benefit and I am very pleased that this bill has the support of the American Petroleum Institute. While they have raised some minor technical concerns that I am committed to addressing prior to passage, I am pleased to have their support. I believe that this bill provides for a workable solution to both our MTBE problem as well as addressing the ``boutique'' fuels problems in this country. We will clean up our nation's drinking water and preserve the environmental benefits of RFG without undue added cost to the consumers. I am convinced this is the right approach. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the Reverend Mark J. Hurley, the former bishop of the Catholic Diocese of Santa Rosa, California. Bishop Hurley passed away on Monday, February 5, 2001, after undergoing surgery for an aneurysm. Mark Hurley was one of two priests born to a proud Irish Catholic family. His brother, Francis Hurley, is the Archbishop of Anchorage, Alaska. I had the great fortune to make the acquaintance of Mark Hurley several years ago while traveling in California. He was a deeply religious man, as you would expect, and a very learned individual and the author of several books. He lectured about the tragedy of abortion and wrote extensively about medical and genetic research and individual privacy. But he will be remembered most of all for his extraordinary work as the bishop of the six-county North Coast diocese from 1969- 1986. Pope Paul VI appointed Mark Hurley second bishop of the Santa Rosa diocese in 1969. Prior to his appointment, he was a teacher and administrator for Catholic high schools in San Francisco, Marin and Oakland and served as vicar general of the Archdiocese of San Francisco. He would become Santa Rosa's longest-serving bishop since the diocese was created. Most importantly, Bishop Hurley was credited with saving the diocese from financial ruin. When he took office the diocese was over $12 million in debt, including $7 million owed to parishes and other organizations within the diocese. By imposing strict spending limits, a building moratorium and other cutbacks he was able to orchestrate the financial recovery that was so desperately needed. After his tenure, Pope John Paul II rewarded Reverend Hurley's efforts by transferring him to the Vatican where he was consular to the Sacred Congregation for Catholic Education and a member of the Secretariat for Non-Believers. He returned to the United States and retired in San Francisco, the same city in which he was born on December 13, 1919. He was acknowledged by many as an intellectual and a world leader on religious matters, but it was his successful tenure as bishop of Santa Rosa for which he will be remembered most. Santa Rosa's current bishop, Daniel Walsh, said of Mark Hurley, ``I believe his most esteemed role and responsibility was that of Bishop of Santa Rosa. He labored here from November 1969 to April 1986. He made a great impact on the diocese and we are all beneficiaries of his ministry here.'' With the death of bishop Hurley the Lord has lost a dutiful servant, the Catholic faith has lost a pillar of virtue and our nation has lost a loving soul that quietly touched and improved the lives of many. I know I speak for all my colleagues in extending our condolences to his brother, Bishop Francis Hurley, his sister Phyllis Porter of San Francisco and to the rest of his family and friends. May he rest in peace.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, by now everyone knows of the damage that the gasoline additive, MTBE, has done to our nation's drinking water supply, including in the state of New Hampshire. MTBE has been a component of our fuel supply for two decades. In 1990, the Clean Air Act was amended to include a clean gasoline program. That program mandated the use of an oxygenate in our fuel, MTBE was one of two options to be used. The problem with MTBE is its ability to migrate through the ground very quickly and into the water table. Several states have had gasoline leaks or spills lead to the closure of wells because of MTBE. MTBE is not a proven carcinogen, but its smell and taste does render water unusable. Many homes in New Hampshire and across the nation have lost use of their water supply because of MTBE contamination. Today I am introducing a bill with my friend Senator Reid, who is the Ranking Member on the committee that I chair, the Environment & Public Works Committee. This bill addresses the problems associated with MTBE, but will not reduce any environmental benefits of the Clean Air program. Briefly, this bill will: Authorize $400 million out of the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Fund (LUST Fund) to help the states clean up MTBE contamination, address the integrity of Underground Storage Tanks and the program; Ban MTBE four years after enactment of this bill; Allow Governors to waive the gasoline oxygenate requirement of the Clean Air Act; Preserve environmental benefits on air toxics, and; Provide funds to help transition from MTBE to other clean, safe fuels. The funding for cleanup and transition is provided out of a sense of fairness. Since a Federal mandate caused the pollution, it would be irresponsible for the Federal Government not to bear some of the financial burden associated with the clean up and the transition to a less destructive alternative fuel. This is a very complex issue that the Environment and Public Works Committee has struggled with for months. It has always been my intent to craft a solution that was direct and balanced. There are many competing interests and a number of solutions have been offered. Most of the competing interests are based on regional differences and preferences. Some prefer a simple ban of MTBE, this approach would make gas dramatically more expansive and more dirty. Some would like a stand alone mandate of Ethanol, that too has many problems associated with it. Ethanol would bring with it both cost and smog concerns, particularly in states like New Hampshire. Simply eliminating the RFG mandate does not work either. Under this scenario, MTBE would continue to be used and wells would continue to be contaminated. I am also very pleased that this bill is consistent with the President's National Energy Policy because it will reduce the intra- regional patchwork of what are known as ``boutique'' fuels. This bill will allow for the use of one fuel blend to meet RFG requirement in many regions that currently require multiple boutique fuels. This will ease the burden on refineries and fuel supply, which in turn will reduce the risk of increased gas prices for the consumer. The fuel suppliers recognize this benefit and I am very pleased that this bill has the support of the American Petroleum Institute. While they have raised some minor technical concerns that I am committed to addressing prior to passage, I am pleased to have their support. I believe that this bill provides for a workable solution to both our MTBE problem as well as addressing the ``boutique'' fuels problems in this country. We will clean up our nation's drinking water and preserve the environmental benefits of RFG without undue added cost to the consumers. I am convinced this is the right approach. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Charles W. Keller of Meredith, New Hampshire, for the honor of receiving the 2001 New Hampshire Small Business Person of the Year Award from the Small Business Administration. Charles is the president and CEO of C.W. Keller & Associates, Inc., of Plaistow, New Hampshire. His firm manufactures high-end retail display fixtures and executive office furnishings. He started his business in his garage in the early 1970's as a one- person business. Since then, his firm has experienced steady growth and now employs 35 people, grosses more than $5 million annually, and has expanded its operation projects in Boston, New York, Washington, Los Angeles and the Middle East. Charles has been recognized by the Small Business Administration as an outstanding business owner who has worked diligently and successfully at building his firm. His talented staff and quality products have attributed to the success of C.W.Keller & Associates, Inc. Charles has been a strong supporter of the community at large and has served as a director with the New England Chapter of the Architectural Woodwork Institute, for five years. He is also a member of the National Association of Store Fixture Manufacturers. His company contributes to many charitable organizations including the American Cancer Society and the Diabetes Foundation. Charles Keller has served the citizens of New Hampshire with dedication and charity. I commend him for his success in his business and for his generosity to the charitable organizations in our state. It is an honor and a privilege to represent him in the United States Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Fred Kocher of Portsmouth, New Hampshire, on being honored as the 2001 Journalist of the Year by the Small Business Administration. Fred has been the host of New Hampshire's Business for eight years. Every week he reports on the local, regional and national business environment analyzing companies, business trends and economic indicators. Fred has enhanced the awareness of the issues that face business owners in our state, region and country. He has worked diligently to benefit the business community and has also been a strong advocate on behalf of small business entrepreneurs in New Hampshire. He is a former small business owner who helped create the New Hampshire International Trade Resource Center in Portsmouth. Fred is currently the Director of Corporate Communications and Investor Relations for NEON Communications, Inc. Fred has been a contributor to his community serving as president of the New Hampshire High Technology Council and he also served as president of the New Hampshire International Trade Association. Fred is the creator and chairman of the ``Politics & Eggs'' statewide breakfast series that allows members of the business community to hear directly from presidential candidates every four years. Fred Kocher has served the citizens of New Hampshire with selfless dedication. I commend him for his contributions to the business community of our state. It is an honor and a privilege to represent him in the United States Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Marie Meunier-Bouchard of Conway, New Hampshire, on being honored as the 2001 Small Business Exporter of the Year by the Small Business Administration. Marie is the owner of Wild Things, Inc. which designs and manufactures state-of-the-art lightweight climbing equipment and clothing for expedition and mountain climbing. The business sells its products domestically and has also increased export sales to over $3 million. The largest overseas accounts for Wild Things, Inc. includes companies in Korea, Singapore and Hong Kong. Marie has worked with selfless dedication to the success of her business. She has provided quality products to both the domestic and international markets resulting in impressive financial achievement for the company. She is a native of France and graduate of the University of Geneva in Switzerland, and is an accomplished mountain climber. Her company was founded in 1981 and sales have grown to $4 million in 2001. Wild Things, Inc. has 15 employees in North Conway and Gorham, and contracts other manufacturing jobs in Chatham and Silver Lake, New Hampshire. Marie is a proven business leader in the New Hampshire community. I commend her for her selfless dedication to the betterment of her company and the business community in our state. It is an honor and a privilege to represent her in the United States Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Robert H. Foster of Dover, NH, publisher of the distinguished New Hampshire newspapers Foster's Daily Democrat and the Laconia Citizen, and a number of other papers, in honor of his 80th birthday which he celebrated on May 17. The newspaper is the longest continually managed and owned periodical by direct descendants of its founder with the family name in its banner. I have known Bob for nearly 20 years. He is man of impeccable character, commitment to his community, and devotion to his family. His dedication to journalistic excellence has won him the respect of many politicians in the Granite State, no matter what philosophy or party affiliation. Robert Foster is known for his fairness, and for impressing upon his writers and editors that ``integrity matters.'' Robert and his wife, Terri, have been the driving force behind the success of the newspaper. Foster's Daily Democrat is rich in history dating back to the founding father of the newspaper, Joshua Lane Foster. On June 18, 1873, Joshua published the first edition of the Dover area newspaper. Robert assumed ownership of the newspaper upon the death of his father, Frederick Foster, on November 7, 1956. Robert has worked diligently to ensure that the newspaper continually maintains a standard of professionalism. Today, as in 1873, Robert understands the importance of keeping the citizens of his community abreast of information which affects the quality of life in the Seacoast and the Lakes Region. Robert and Foster's Daily Democrat are a mainstay in the community, providing the latest news and information to their readers. As members of the greater Dover community, Robert and Terri have been generous benefactors. Among other accolades, they have been honored as ``Citizens of the Year'' in Dover. Robert, a World War II and Korean conflict veteran, has also served on the Board of Governors with the New England Newspaper Association and is a former Trustee at the University of New Hampshire. Bob and Terri have three children: Catherine Hayward, Patrice Foster and Robert F. Foster. They are also proud grandparents of Catherine and Gregg Hayward and Samuel and Joshua Foster. I commend Robert Foster for his numerous contributions to his community and our state. He is an exemplary leader who has gained the respect of those who know him. It is an honor and a privilege to represent him in the U.S. Senate, and I am proud to call him my friend.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, on May 18th, yet another grave terrorist attack occurred in Netanya, the fifth such attack this year. Six Israelis were killed and over one hundred wounded in the bombing. The target of the attack was innocent civilians, targeted solely because they were Israelis. The recent bludgeoning to death of 14-year old Jewish boys in a cave demonstrates a new level of barbarism and inhumanity. The Palestinian Authority is obligated, according to agreements it concluded with the State of Israel, to prevent terrorism and to cease incitement in the areas under its jurisdiction. Regrettably, the Palestinian Authority has abandoned its obligations and is committing acts of terrorism and inciting violence against Israelis, both in Palestinian controlled media and in the curriculum taught to its school-age children. With such hatred and venom spewed by Palestinian Government organs, it is hard to imagine there is any true desire for peace, rather, there appears to be a deliberate attempt to destroy any foundation for peace that is necessary among the Palestinian people. The Israeli Government has made a renewal of peace negotiations with the Palestinians its foremost goal. But negotiations cannot take place until there is a cessation of the violence. The Government of Israel has repeated its desire to move forward in accordance with the four phases detailed in the recent report of the Mitchell Fact Finding Committee: A. A complete cessation of violence; B. A substantial cooling-off period, accompanied by confidence building measures--together with proof on the part of the PA that it intends to maintain the calm (arresting terrorists, ending incitement, etc.); C. The implementation of signed agreements; D. The conduct of negotiations on all outstanding issues. As Secretary Powell and the U.S. State Department prepare to re-enter the difficult world of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, we can make a few observations about the recent brutality and violence by the PA. First, the attack puts the lie to the claim that Palestinian violence is directed against so-called Israeli ``occupation.'' Second, we can question the effectiveness of peace negotiations with a group that embraces terrorism--and which belies the U.S. policy, that is, policy for the United States, that we do not negotiate with terrorists, while the Palestinian Authority was removed from the annual U.S. list of terrorists, it continues to commit acts of terrorism and we have helped to reinvent the PA as a ``negotiating partner'' for the Israelis. This looks hypocritical, dishonest and unrealistic. Secretary Powell and the Department of State have an enormous undertaking in trying to find common ground between Israelis and Palestinians. The conflict appears intractable, and peace, despite decades of efforts, remains elusive. Yet we can only keep trying-- trying to stop the bloodshed that seems synonymous with the Middle East and trying to seek stability in such an important and strategic part of the world.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 680.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. What is the pending business before the Senate?

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

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, there is no more noble calling than for those who choose to put their lives on the line every day to serve and protect our families. On November 29, 1989, about 12 years ago, New Hampshire State Trooper Gary P. Parker from Wolfeboro, NH, was tragically killed in the line of duty. He left behind his wife Amy, a 16- month-old son Gregory, and a daughter Lindsay, who was to be born just 10 weeks after Trooper Parker lost his life. Amy Parker is now alone with her grief and was faced with raising both her son and daughter alone, something that I can certainly understand since my father died in the Second World War when I was 3. I was raised by my mother, with my brother, without a dad. But, fortunately, because her husband had prepared for the unthinkable, both children were left with a small survivor benefit pension. Believe it or not, they were forced to hand over a large portion of those benefits in taxes to the Federal Government, leaving the family very little on which to live. In 1996, Congress recognized the unfairness of this provision and rightly corrected the oversight. However, the correction only applied to those who died after 1997, leaving all of those families who were currently living with the grief and hardship of a tragic death with that additional burden still there. This amendment that I am offering, amendment No. 680, is a very simple amendment. I hope I will have the support of my colleagues. It will correct this oversight and bring relief to all the families of law enforcement officers who have lost their lives in the line of duty and are currently living under this inequity in the law. This is an important amendment that will send a message to our law enforcement community and their families that we hold them in the highest esteem, and we honor them for their service and sacrifice. We ought not have the Tax Code of the United States of America discriminate against them. I hope we will correct this inequity by adopting my amendment. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that following the two previously scheduled votes that will begin at approximately 6:08 this evening, the Senate proceed to votes in relation to the pending amendments in the order in which they were offered. I ask consent that there be 2 minutes equally divided for debate between the votes.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. On behalf of Senator McCain, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to ask for the yeas and nays on the McCain amendment and on the McCain motion to commit.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I yield back.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I ask for the yeas and nays on the McCain amendment and the McCain motion to commit. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to be a sufficient second.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, before yielding the floor, I send a second-degree amendment to the desk and ask for the yeas and nays on that.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, this amendment will permanently extend the current moratorium on the imposition of taxes on the Internet. It will also stop those who wish to establish a national sales tax from doing so. In May of last year, the House overwhelming passed this legislation, and the American people strongly oppose taxing the Internet and they vehemently oppose a national sales tax. Mr. President, let us not forget, as a result of leaving the Internet to its own device, we have seen an explosion in Internet trade, commerce and information available to consumers. Numerous organizations have backed my amendment to extend the moratorium on Internet taxes, including the Association of Concerned Taxpayers, U.S. Business and Industrial Council, and United Seniors Association. Now some have argued that it is not a level playing field because Internet companies don't pay taxes. Well, this is absolutely not true. Every business and every person is required to pay all tax demanded by their state and local government, and just about every business does. And those that don't can expect the tax man to come a knock'n. Mr. President, my amendment would only continue the current moratorium. It does not abolish any sales or use tax nor does it prevent any government from taking or even increasing sales or use taxes on its own residents. And it also prohibits local or state government in one state from imposing a tax on businesses or people in another state without a proper nexus--nor could they impose a national sales tax. If we don't pass this legislation, businesses will not only be subject to the state and local governments from which they reside, but could be open to nearly 30,000 state, local, and municipal cities and towns looking to squeeze businesses and individuals for a few extra dollars. Indeed, the vast array of federal, state, and even international bureaucrats needed to implement these programs and regulations would add on enormous amount of cost, paperwork and redtape which would not only hinder commerce and growth, but will crush small businesses. Local governments argue that if they can require so-called brick and mortar businesses to pay sales taxes on main street, then they should be allowed to force business men and women in other states to collect these taxes as well. Well, I disagree. And the Supreme Court disagrees as well. In National Bellas Hess v. Illinois (1967), Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady 333 (1977), and the Supreme Court's ruling (in Quill v. North Dakota, 1992) held that states attempting to tax out-of-state commerce without a proper nexus was unconstitutional. By allowing states to tax businesses and people in another state, and if we establish a national sales tax, we do this at our own peril. Mr. President, we must say ``no'' to those who want to raise taxes-- we must say ``no'' to those who want to tax the Internet--and we must say ``no'' to those who want a national sales tax. Mr. President, I urge passage of my amendment. Mr. President, I renew my request for the yeas and nays on the second degree.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I move to waive the Budget Act and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I state for the record I am perfectly willing to not have a recorded vote, but I am told others want a recorded vote. I don't want to get the blame for having a recorded vote.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, my second-degree amendment is really quite simple. It extends the moratorium on the Internet tax, and that is the extent of it. If my colleagues want to continue taxing the Internet or tax the Internet further, then they vote against me. But if they do not favor the Internet tax and would like to extend the moratorium against that tax, then vote with me. Mr. President, I urge the adoption of my amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. The amendment numbered 680 is the law enforcement survivor benefits. In 1997, Congress passed legislation to take care of not taxing the benefits to children whose fathers died in the line of duty as law enforcement officers. Unfortunately, there was a period of about 13 years and these children were not taken out of that; therefore, families were faced with a tragedy--children were paying taxes on the benefits. This amendment clarifies that. So for all of those children whose fathers or mothers died in the line of duty, those benefits will not be taxed. I believe the yeas and nays have been ordered.