Bob Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, my understanding is the pending business is the Wellstone amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, along with my colleagues Senators Tim Hutchinson and Jesse Helms, to introduce the Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act. This bill, introduced by my friend Congressman Walter B. Jones of North Carolina, H.R. 2357, enjoys broad support on the House side with 128 bipartisan cosponsors. This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code to permit a church to participate or intervene in a political campaign and maintain its tax- exempt status as long as such participation is not a substantial parts of its activities. The bill replaces the absolute ban on political intervention with the ``no substantial part of the activities'' test currently used in the lobbying context. This bill would give clergy the freedom to speak out on moral and political issues of our day and to fully educate their congregation on where the candidates stand on the issues without the threat of losing their tax exempt status. Senator Lyndon Johnson inserted the ban on political speech in 1954 as a floor amendment in order to hamstring certain anticommunist organizations that were opposing him in the Democratic Party. No hearings took place nor was any congressional record developed in order to explain the reasons for the ban. There is no indication that Senator Johnson intended to target churches. Before 1954, pastors and members of many churches spoke freely about candidates and political issues. The slavery abolitionist organizations and the civil rights movement are great examples of church inspired political success. Had the current law been enforced earlier in American history, William Lloyd Garrison could not have spoken out against slavery, nor could Martin Luther King, Jr. have spoken out against segregation. Currently, the ban on political speech has a dramatic chilling effect on the ability of houses of worship to speak out on moral and political issues, since under Section 501(C)(3), houses of worship may not engage in even a single activity that might be regarded as participating in, or intervening in a campaign on behalf of or in opposition to a candidate for public office. Thus ultimately restricts the clergy's freedom of speech by threatening to revoke the church's tax-exempt status if they dare to speak out on moral and political questions of our day. Additionally, the bill seeks to shift the burden of proof from houses of worship to the IRS. Rather than require the house of worship to prove that its activities are not political at all, this bill will force the IRS to prove that its activities are in fact substantially political. Nothing in this bill ``makes'' a church speak on political issues; it merely gives them the freedom to do so if they choose to. Since so many of the issues that are debated in the halls of Congress have a moral or religious aspect to them, those who ask for help from a higher power should not be absent from the political process. America is a religious nation. Religion affects every aspect of our culture, and yes, even our government. The views of our church-going members and their clergy are vital to a well-rounded debate on the important issues of our day. This substantial portion of the American people who consider themselves religious and practice that religion should not be shut out of the process. I hope more of my colleagues will join us and cosponsor this important legislation.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, along with my colleagues Senators Tim Hutchinson and Jesse Helms, to introduce the Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act. This bill, introduced by my friend Congressman Walter B. Jones of North Carolina, H.R. 2357, enjoys broad support on the House side with 128 bipartisan cosponsors. This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code to permit a church to participate or intervene in a political campaign and maintain its tax- exempt status as long as such participation is not a substantial parts of its activities. The bill replaces the absolute ban on political intervention with the ``no substantial part of the activities'' test currently used in the lobbying context. This bill would give clergy the freedom to speak out on moral and political issues of our day and to fully educate their congregation on where the candidates stand on the issues without the threat of losing their tax exempt status. Senator Lyndon Johnson inserted the ban on political speech in 1954 as a floor amendment in order to hamstring certain anticommunist organizations that were opposing him in the Democratic Party. No hearings took place nor was any congressional record developed in order to explain the reasons for the ban. There is no indication that Senator Johnson intended to target churches. Before 1954, pastors and members of many churches spoke freely about candidates and political issues. The slavery abolitionist organizations and the civil rights movement are great examples of church inspired political success. Had the current law been enforced earlier in American history, William Lloyd Garrison could not have spoken out against slavery, nor could Martin Luther King, Jr. have spoken out against segregation. Currently, the ban on political speech has a dramatic chilling effect on the ability of houses of worship to speak out on moral and political issues, since under Section 501(C)(3), houses of worship may not engage in even a single activity that might be regarded as participating in, or intervening in a campaign on behalf of or in opposition to a candidate for public office. Thus ultimately restricts the clergy's freedom of speech by threatening to revoke the church's tax-exempt status if they dare to speak out on moral and political questions of our day. Additionally, the bill seeks to shift the burden of proof from houses of worship to the IRS. Rather than require the house of worship to prove that its activities are not political at all, this bill will force the IRS to prove that its activities are in fact substantially political. Nothing in this bill ``makes'' a church speak on political issues; it merely gives them the freedom to do so if they choose to. Since so many of the issues that are debated in the halls of Congress have a moral or religious aspect to them, those who ask for help from a higher power should not be absent from the political process. America is a religious nation. Religion affects every aspect of our culture, and yes, even our government. The views of our church-going members and their clergy are vital to a well-rounded debate on the important issues of our day. This substantial portion of the American people who consider themselves religious and practice that religion should not be shut out of the process. I hope more of my colleagues will join us and cosponsor this important legislation.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to commend and congratulate Roger Gendron, who is retiring as the Marketing Business Manager at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. Roger began his career at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in 1967, as an Industrial Engineer Technician. In 1970, Roger became a Computer Technician/Computer Systems Analyst, and in 1979, served as a Management Analyst until 1986, when he ascended to his current position as Marketing Business Manager. As Marketing Business Manager, Roger has forged strong community and business relations through an aggressive, pro-active marketing strategy and outreach programs. He has been an instrumental leader in guiding the Yard through the challenges of downsizing, reduced budgets, and balancing manpower/workload equations. Through his vision for the future, Roger was fundamental in developing the Shipyard's MilCon Projects Priority List, which included the construction of the Dry Dock #2 Complex; a state-of-the-art Los Angeles Class refueling complex. During Roger's distinguished career, he has exhibited extraordinary knowledge and leadership, helping to steer Portsmouth Naval Shipyard successfully through two Base Realignment and Closure processes. Roger's progressive planning contributed significantly to the establishment of Partnering, Out leasing, Regional Maintenance, SMART Base, and Technology Transfer programs within the Navy and shipyard community. For several years, I have had the privilege to work with Roger in innovating and improving Portsmouth Naval Shipyard's ability to maintain America's Los Angeles Class nuclear submarines, a vital component in America's national defense. Throughout these challenges, Roger has focused continuously upon achieving the most efficient use of the shipyard's industrial infrastructure and resources. Roger's expert counsel and vast institutional knowledge has contributed greatly to Portsmouth Naval Shipyard and to the defense of this great nation. Roger has been a dedicated and professional leader in his many years of service with Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. He will be sorely missed by all of us who have had the honor of working with him. Roger, I wish you fair winds and following seas. It has been an honor to represent you in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate twelve outstanding women of New Hampshire, Kathy Eneguess, Jane Difley, Lauri Ostrander Klefos, Hannah Hardway, Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, Maryann Mroczka, Cathy Bedor, Judy Sprague Sabanek, Natalie Woodroofe, Joan Goshgarian, Anne Zachos, and Alyson Pitman Giles. Every year New Hampshire Magazine conducts a contest to seek out twelve remarkable women in New Hampshire. In recognizing that women's exceptionality comes in many forms, the magazine chooses twelve separate areas of talent from which to award accomplished women of the community. Candidates, and ultimately winners, are chosen through a number of sources including community and business acquaintances, friends and family. I would like to briefly mention a little about each of the women, the category for which they were recognized and something of their character and achievement. In the category of Leadership, Kathy Eneguess received recognition for her amazing networking abilities and community involvement in the area of leadership. Kathy is lead policy staffer for legislative and regulatory issues at the New Hampshire Business and Industry Association. Jane Difley was recognized for her service to the Environment and was granted the award in the category of Environment for her continued dedication to protecting the forests of New Hampshire. Jane has a Masters degree in forest management and was the first woman ever to be elected as president of the Society of American Foresters. She currently holds the top position at the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests. Lauri Ostrander Klefos was recognized for her excellence in the area of government. Lauri has served in a number of state agencies and in 2000 was confirmed by the Governor and executive council as the first appointed director of the Division of Travel and Tourism Development. She currently holds a position as chair of the New England State Travel Directors. Hannah Hardaway was recognized for her achievements in sports. Hannah was a member of the 2002 U.S. Olympic Ski Team that competed in Salt Lake City. She began her amazing ski career at seven years of age, joined the U.S. Ski Team in 1996, became Junior World Champion in 1997, and looks forward to competing in the Olympics again in 2006 in Italy. In her spare time, Hannah is continuing her education at Cornell University and endorsing major companies like Sprint and Solomon. Laurel Thatcher Ulrich was recognized for her excellence in the area of education. Laurel's career in education began with a simple guide- book she wrote for a church-sponsored Relief Society. Since then, Laurel has taught at the University of Maryland and, most recently, at Harvard University as a professor and director of American History Studies. Laurel has also maintained a degree of success from her writing including, ``Good Wives, Images and Reality in the Lives of Women in Northern New England,'' her newest, ``The Age of Homespun: Objects and Stories in the Making of an American Myth,'' and ``A Midwife's Tale: The Life of Martha Ballad,'' for which she won the Pulitzer Prize for History in 1991. Maryann Mroczka was recognized for her extraordinary work in the field of media. Maryann has moved from New Hampshire Public Television to transforming the University of New Hampshire's video department to being sought after by WMUR-TV. Along the way, Maryann has won numerous awards including two Emmy's and three Medals from New York International Film Festivals. Maryann currently maintains her busy schedule in television as well as a new family at home. Cathy Bedor was recognized for her accomplishments in the area of hospitality. After Cathy, her husband, and three other local families purchased The Mount Washington Hotel and Resort, Cathy's skills in hospitality began to shine as they spent the next two years restoring and preserving the Historic Landmark. The hotel is now open year-round for the first time in its history and Cathy had been there every step of the way. Cathy is truly an expert in her field serving on many boards in the state including the New England Innkeepers Association, the White Mountains Attraction Association, and the New Hampshire Historical Society. Judy Sabanek was recognized for her accomplishments as President and CEO. Judy and her husband began Keepsake Quilting as a mail order business and they are now co-owners of what has turned into one of the largest quilting catalog businesses in the nation. Recently the couple had to open a retail store in Center Harbor because of the enormous number of people wanting to come and see the fabrics. The company, and its now 100 employees, had just been acquired by an investment firm. This may give Judy and her husband more time to spend with their two- year old Portuguese Water Dog mascot, Cisco. Natalie Woodroofe was recognized for her work in the field of Entrepreneurship. Natalie has spent her life as an advocate and role model for women and children in the North County and has received a number of awards for her work in this area. Natalie is the visionary and backbone to WREN, the Women's rural Entrepreneurial Network, the largest and fastest growing non-profit in the State of New Hampshire. Her organization offers a number of workshops that teach women skills from technology training to networking. Natalie describes her work as, ``Economic development, personal passions, giving back, connecting with others, making a silk purse from pig's ears, hope and magic.'' Joan Goshgarian was recognized for her contributions to the field of art. Joan began as a teacher of art and soon developed an art therapy program for institutionalized adolescents who were developmentally and physically challenged. In 1985, Joan became founder and executive director of the New Hampshire Business Committee for the Arts. Using this medium, Joan has been able to broaden support for the arts and collaborate with different organizations in an effort to do this. Joan is also on many boards around the state including the Granite State Association of Non-Profits and the Commission on Charitable Giving. Anne Zachos was recognized for her excellence in the area of philanthropy. Anne learned the importance of giving to the community from her parents when she was a child. When Anne was able to become involved she started with volunteer work for her children's schools, church, the Girl Scouts, and the League of Women Voters. Since then, Anne has been involved in more community work than is able to be honored. Anne has had significant involvement with the New Hampshire Charitable Foundation, as a board member for the Manchester Regional Community Foundation and for ``Arts Build Communities.'' Anne has received an honorary doctorate from Notre Dame College, the Granite State Award for Public Service from the University of New Hampshire, and the Pastoral Counseling Community Service Award. Alyson Pitman Giles was recognized for her accomplishments in the field of health care. Alyson has quickly and successfully moved herself up through the ranks since her beginnings as an occupational therapist. After only one year as an O.T. at Virginia Hospital, Alyson became director of occupational therapy at a Tennessee health care center. She took a post two years later in New Hampshire and has lived there with her husband and four children ever since. Alyson received her masters degree and now serves as President and CEO of Catholic Medical Center. Alyson also finds time to serve on several boards including the Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce. I would like to commend each of these women for their exceptional contributions to the State of New Hampshire and for being role models to young women everywhere. Thank you for all you do. It has been an honor to represent you in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise to say a few words about human cloning as the Senate will soon be recessing for the month of August. Not only has the Senate failed to ban human cloning altogether, we have not had a meaningful debate on this critical issue. Let me begin my remarks with an insightful and profound line in the movie ``Jurassic Park,'' delivered by a mathematician played by Jeff Goldblum. AS the creator of the park is praising his scientific team for taking science into uncharted waters, Goldblum's character interrupts him. ``Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.'' The Senate needs to stop and think if it should. In my remarks today, I will outline five reasons why the Senate should vote for the Brownback-Landrieu bill which bans all human cloning. Let me start by saying that there has been a lot of talk about ``the two different kinds of cloning''--that is, reproductive and therapeutic. But let me be clear: All human cloning is reproductive, in the sense that it creates--reproduces--a new developing human intended to be genetically identical to the cloned subject. The difference is that one is intended to be carried to term and the other is intended to be deliberately killed for its cells. Therapeutic cloning is when scientists clone an embryo solely to utilize its stem cells either to create large ``control groups'' or to attempt mass production of genetically matched stem sells for treatment of diseases. Many of my colleagues believe that only reproductive cloning is immoral, but they are in favor of therapeutic cloning. They say that therapeutic cloning is beneficial because it has the potential to help people with diseases. They don't want a cloned embryo to be implanted in a woman's womb and begin to grow, but they support creating the embryo and then plucking its stem cells until it dies. The first reason my colleagues should vote to ban all human cloning is that the human embryo is a human life with a soul, whether it is cloned or is conceived naturally, and should be destroyed for any reason. There is not one person in the Senate or on the face of the Earth who did not begin their life as a human embryo. If we allow the creation of embryos solely for their destruction, we will effectively be discriminating against an entire class of human beings by saying to them: I will destroy your life for the sake of someone else's or my own. If we accept the notion that some lives have more value than others, if we allow scientists or doctors or politicians to play God and determine which lives have value and which do not, then we have demolished the very foundation upon which we have built our freedom. Human embryos are not machines to be used for spare parts, all in the name of ``medical progress.'' We cannot view human life as an exploitable natural resource, ripe for the harvest. Some base their passion for so-called therapeutic cloning upon the false premise that what is created in the lab is not a human embryo. The facts dispute these unsupported claims. Dr. John Gearhart of Johns Hopkins University, one of the discoverers of human embryonic stem cells, told the President's Council on Bioethics on April 25, 2002, that he thinks the product of cloning is and should be called an ``embryo.'' He said: ``I know that you are grappling with this question of whether a cloned embryo created in the lab is the same thing as an embryo produced by egg and sperm, and whether we should call it an `embryo', but anything that you construct at this point in time that has the properties of those structures to me is an embryo, and we should not be changing vocabulary at this point in time.'' Even the American Medical Association believes that the clone is fully human. The Senate should also listen to the House of Representatives and the American public. The House passed a strong prohibition on human cloning last summer, and poll after poll shows that the vast majority of American citizens are opposed to all human cloning. The second reason to ban all human cloning is that there are better and more ethical ways to discover cures for diseases that do not involve the destruction of a human embryo, especially in light of the fact that cloning may not even work! Almost weekly we read of amazing breakthroughs in the scientific and medical communities using adult stem cells and other noncontroversial tissues and cells to treat human conditions. Adult stem cells are used with success in more than 45 human clinical trials, while embryonic stem cells and stem cells from human clones have not helped a single person. Here are just a few examples of the successes of adult stem cells: Last July, the Harvard University Gazette reported that mice with Type 1 diabetes were completely cured of their disease using adult stem cells. Additionally, University of Florida scientists reported recently that adult rat liver stem cells can evolve into insulin- producing pancreatic cells, a finding that has implications for the future of diabetes research. On June 15 of last year, the Globe and Mail reported that Israeli doctors injected a paraplegic with her own white blood cells, and she regained the ability to move her toes and control her bladder. In December of last year, Tissue Engineering, a medical journal, reported that researchers believe they will be able to use stem cells found in fat to rebuild bone. If this research works, people with osteoporosis and other degenerative bone conditions could benefit significantly. A researcher at the University of Minnesota has discovered what is being called the ultimate stem cell. The stem cells found in adult bone marrow have passed every test by proving that they can form every single tissue in the body, can be grown in culture indefinitely with no signs of aging, can be isolated from humans, and do not form cancerous masses when injected into adults. Scientists from Celmed BioSciences reported that adult neural stem cells taken from a patient's own central nervous system have been successfully used to treat Parkinson's disease. Their research suggests this method of using adult stem cells may possibly be useful in treating a variety of other neurological conditions. Scientists reported success last week in converting skin cells into immune cells. This development has great promise for treating diseases such as diabetes, immune deficiencies, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and spinal cord injuries. When using cells from the patient's own body, the risk of rejection is overcome. Researchers found that intravenous injections of cells from human umbilical cord blood improved the neurological and motor function of rats recovering from severe traumatic brain injury. The study appears in the June 6 issue of the journal Cell Transplantation, a special issue that focuses on emerging approaches in neural transplantation and brain repair. In fact, these ethical approaches to stem cell research are also safer for patients than embryonic stem cell research because embryonic stem cells may cause tumors in patients, and the body may reject embryonic tissues in the same way the immune system rejects transplanted organs. As President Bush has stated: ``the benefits of research cloning are highly speculative. Advocates of research cloning argue that stem cells obtained from cloned embryos would be injected into a genetically identical individual without risk of tissue rejection. But there is evidence, based on animal studies, that cells derived from cloned embryos may indeed be rejected.'' Embryonic stem cells have never been used successfully in a human trial. The haven't even been used to completely cure disease in a rat or a mouse. With the success of adult stem cells, you do not need to clone human beings. Let's invest in medical research that the entire Senate can support. There is also increasing evidence to indicate that human cloning may not even work! You may disagree with my moral or ethical arguments, and you may not care how successful adult stem cell therapies have been, but I hope you will at least pay attention to this important point. Let me repeat it: There is convincing evidence that human cloning may not even work. The April 5, 2001, issue of Nature reports that cloning human embryos to harvest their stem cells is being abandoned by many researchers as inefficient, costly, and unnecessary. The article says that ``many researchers have come to doubt whether therapeutic cloning will ever be efficient enough to be commercially viable.'' Noting the short supply of human eggs and the expense and inefficiency of cloning, the article concludes that the prospects for therapeutic cloning have ``dimmed'' and those who still favor it are taking a ``minority view.'' Dr. Stuart Newman of NY Medical College noted in his March 5 Senate testimony that genetically matched cells from cloning may well be useless in treating conditions with a genetic basis such as juvenile diabetes--because these cells will have the same genetic defect that caused the problem in the first place. Due to these factors, as well as advances in genetically tailoring cells without using cloning, many experts do not now expect therapeutic cloning to have a large clinical impact. In fact, this whole approach is said to be ``falling from favor'' among both British and American researchers. Last December, Michael West of Advanced Cell Technology predicted that within 6 months, his company would be ready to create `magic'' cells that would save 3,000 lives per day because he would be able to clone a human embryo. However, it was later revealed that West was unable to garner stem cells from his cloned embryos. Scientists quickly pronounced West's cloning experiment a failure. Dr. Donald Kennedy summarized the study this way: ``This scientific effort did not succeed by any measure.'' Thomas Okarma, the chief executive of Geron Corp., a cell therapy company, has no interest in using cloned embryos to produce customized treatments for disease. According to the L.A. Times, he said the odds favoring success ``are vanishing small,'' and the costs are daunting. He also said that it would take ``thousands of [human] eggs on an assembly line'' to produce a custom therapy for a single person. ``The process is a nonstarter, commercially,'' he said. Let's review the headlines of what the experts say about cloning: ``Did not succeed'', ``Falling from favor'', ``may well be useless'', ``prospects have dimmed'', ``vanishing small'', ``did not succeed'', and ``nonstarter''. If I were a cloning advocate, I wouldn't want this to be made public. Writer Wesley J. Smith says human cloning is indeed immoral. But that isn't the reason it will eventually be rejected. He says ``there is increasing evidence that therapies based on cloned embro cells would be so difficult and expensive to develop and so utterly impractical to bring to the bedside, that the pie-in-the-sky promises which fuel the pro-cloning side of the debate are unlikely to materialize. Not only is human cloning immoral but it may have negative utility--in other words, attempting to develop human cloning technologies for therapeutic use may drain resources and personnel from more useful and practical therapies.'' I want to briefly mention another form of hype that ties into the notion of human cloning and its ``boundless potential.'' Let's talk about the much ballyhooed fetal tissue transplantation experiments. It was originally thought of as the ``ultimate cure of the future'' and that interfering with these experiments was to interfere with saving countless lives. Now, after 13 years of private and publicly funded trials, some of the worse case scenarios have come to pass, while nothing of scientific value has been accomplished. Today there is a thriving market in the sale of baby body parts, which I brought to light a couple of years ago. Also, the methods and timing of abortions are being changed to garner better tissue for research, and the most comprehensive study on the use of fetal tissue to treat Parkinson's showed no overall health benefit. Research described side effects of the treatment as ``absolutely devastating.'' Patients implanted with fetal tissue chewed constantly, writhed and twisted, and one patient had to be put on a feeding tube because his spasms were too severe. Dr. Paul Greene says it best: ``no more fetal transplants.'' Some panacea. Gene therapy is another example of hype that not only as yielded no results, but is has also been responsible for the deaths of many people and over 1,000 serious adverse effects. A patient's group advocate noted: ``It's hardly gotten anywhere. I have been very disappointed.'' The only thing cloning will do is ``clone'' all the similar hype that has gone before it. Additionally, trials in animal cloning indicate that 95 to 99 percent of the embryos produced by cloning will die; of those that survive until late in pregnancy, most will be stillborn or die shortly after birth. The rest may survive with unpredictable but devastating health problems. In fact, a review of all the world's cloned animals suggests every one of them is genetically and physically defective. Four years ago, it took about 270 attempts to clone Dolly, the sheep. Is the Senate willing to go on record to sacrifice 270 human lives in order to successfully produce 1 cloned human being? The third point I would like to drive home to you is the slippery slope argument. It is interesting to see how this debate has evolved, especially when one considers last year's debate, which was about whether to condone the dissection of embryos that would be destroyed anyway. This year's debate is about whether to destroy embryos that wouldn't have been created otherwise. One of my colleagues, on the subject of killing embryos, had this to say: ``Private companies are creating embryos specifically for stem cells, and I think that's a very bad idea.'' However, he is now sponsoring a bill that would allow what he once opposed: the creation of embryos specifically for stem cell research. If the debate alone has evolved and is subjective and prone to change and charging down a slippery slope, how much more so the issue of medical experimentation with human beings? Many clonings supporters scoff at the slippery slope argument, but let's look at what is happening with animal experimentation. Already scientists have taken cloned cow embryos past the blastocyst stage, allowed them to develop into fetuses, and reimplanted their tissue back into the donor animal. If we allow for therapeutic cloning--again, this is cloning where you grow a cloned embryo simply to utilize its cells for medical research-- why not allow cloned embryos to further develop until their organs can be harvested for transplantation? If a cloned baby could save or improve the lives of many people, why not sacrifice its organs for the sake of many other people's quality of life? The only distinction, if morality and ethics are not a consideration, is a few months of time to wait for the embryos to develop. It is no secret that our society wants to live forever. What would stop a person with financial means from cloning little versions of themselves so that when they get old, they could pluck out a younger version of a failing organ from their clone? If we are willing to use cloned human embryos to save human lives, why shouldn't we consider sacrificing other ``less important'' people for our own gain? For example, how about taking healthy organs from persons who are in a permanent vegetative state? What about plucking parts from the terminally ill, mentally retarded, or ``old'' people past the age of 60. I know this may sound far-fetched to my colleagues, but let us ask ourselves what the Senators standing in this Chamber a mere 25 years ago would have thought of a debate such as the one we are having here today on human cloning. They would have thought predictions of deliberation on such matters were far-fetched as well. Once we start down the slippery slope of creating life for utilitarian purposes, there is no definitive line that separates what we ought and ought not to do. There are no ethical boundaries that will keep scientists in check once we accept the premise that the goal of curing diseases outweighs the ethical or moral value of human life. But once we accept the ``anything goes'' philosophy, then ``everything goes.'' When we begin to decide who should live and who should not, we effectively remove God from every area of our lives and our Nation. After the events of September 11, it is clear that this Nation needs God more than ever. This is to say nothing of the eventual creation of a brave new world. Will genes be modified to give people higher IQs or eliminate the tendency to be overweight? What if we inadvertently introduce disastrous abnormalities into the human race? Will we introduce abnormalities that lead to new diseases that afflict our fellow man? Cloning is just not worth it. The fourth point to consider is that human cloning represents the commodification and commercialization of human life. Some biotech firms hope to patent specific cloned human embryos for sale for many types of experimentation--just as designer strains of cats, mice, and other animals are already patented and sold as ``medical models.'' These firms are amoral and will pursue whichever path provides the greatest potential for financial gain. They will not regulate themselves. This Congress bears the responsibility of regulating these companies. It is our duty to the American public to hold amoral corporations to a higher ethical standard. These biotech firms are forgetting that human life is not a good to be traded in the marketplace nor a means by which they can profit financially. The fifth and final reason we should not allow any form of human cloning is that it will be impossible to keep women from implanting cloned embryos into their wombs. A ban on reproductive cloning will not work because cloning would take place within the privacy of a doctor-patient relationship and because the transfer of embryos to begin a pregnancy is a simple procedure. Would the woman be forced to abort the ``illegal product''? This has been called the ``clone and kill'' approach because you would force the woman to kill her unborn child. Even the Department of Justice agrees that it is nearly impossible to enforce a bill that allows for the creation of human embryos for research. They said: ``Enforcing a modified cloning ban would be problematic and pose certain law enforcement challenges that would be lessened with an outright ban on human cloning.'' And ``anything short of an outright ban would present other difficulties to law enforcement.'' If you think we will never see an implanted clone, think again. Italian fertility specialist Severino Antinori is now explicitly claiming that three women are pregnant with clones. One of the pregnancies is in its 10th week. The bottom line is that if we only vote to ban reproductive cloning but allow for therapeutic cloning, at some point we will start hearing stories of women who are pregnant with clones of their dead children, clones of their husband, and clones of themselves. We will have opened up the Pandora's box, and we will bear the responsibility for all that may follow. Unless humans are seen as created in God's image and endowed by Him with the right to live, there will be no stopping the scientists and doctors from doing whatever they want to do. We stand here today in an important moment in time. Pro-cloning advocates have promoted the lofty claims of miraculous breakthroughs. They play on the emotions of the ill and those who care about them, which is all of us. But just below the surface there is a dark, frightening premise. They believe that science has the right to play God, to create a lower form of human life to be harvested for medical research. This is ethically and morally wrong. Even science does not back all the hype from the pro-cloning side. There is no proof that sacrificing our ethics and morality to allow human cloning will even help these patients. There are better, ethical solutions. Today, my colleagues, we must choose. This one decision will protect human life as we know it, or it will open the door to an ethical, medical, and moral wasteland, We can help those suffering with diseases without sacrificing our Nation's core principles. To oppose any form of human cloning is to preserve the sanctity of human life while providing real solutions based on real science. Let us choose what is right. We must ban all human cloning, no matter how it is cloaked. Future generations will judge us based upon what we do today. We must think of the future we want for our children--an ethical world that use sound, moral science to heal, and that respects the dignity of every human life. Our country stands at a crossroads. I hope the United States will not follow the road taken by God's chosen people many years ago as recorded in the Holy Bible: ``In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit.'' (Judges 21:25) I hope and pray that the Senate will eventually ban all forms of human cloning.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I thank the leader. I know he is as concerned about safety in our skies as I am, and I appreciate his support. I look forward to passing this important bipartisan initiative when we return from the August recess.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, if I could have the attention of the Republican Leader for just a moment. I say to the leader, I had considered offering my armed pilots amendment on this bill, but after our discussions, and with the assurances that to the extent possible this would be one of the first items of business when we consider the homeland defense bill, I have agreed to withhold.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the Jensen's Residential Communities, Inc., as they celebrate 75 years as an exceptional provider of affordable homes. Today, I would like to give my congratulations to the Jensen family for their success in establishing and managing communities of premier manufactured homes. I would also like to extend my gratitude on behalf of New Hampshire and its local communities for providing such an excellent combined example of quality and economy. The Jensen Residential Communities began in 1927 by Mr. Kristian Jensen Sr. as one of the pioneering manufactured home communities in New Hampshire. Since its inception, the housing communities have spread across to seven eastern states, totaling 27 developments. There are currently five Jensen Residential Communities in New Hampshire alone. I want to congratulate the Jensen family once again for an admirable entrepreneurial endeavor and a first-rate product. Thank you for your continuous pledge to meet the needs of the American family. It is an honor to represent you in the US Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to commend and congratulate David Bibber who is retiring as chief of Dover's Fire and Rescue. Davis Bibber has been chief of Dover, NH, Fire and Rescue team since 1978 and has recently decided his position as chief is in need of some ``new blood.'' Bibber was the new kid on the block when he began as a fireman at the Fairfax County fire department in 1962 at 18 years of age. David started as a volunteer and was permitted to live at the fire station while he finished school. After a few short years, David was granted a full-time job with the department. David's story is an inspirational example of the American dream; working his way up to the top. On David's watch some major accomplishments have been achieved at Dover Fire and Rescue. Among them are the implementation of paramedic services, increased responsibility for emergency management services, greater enforcement of building codes, and an expansion in public education programs throughout the community pertaining to fire and safety. While David has been chief, Dover has also developed a central alarm system by combining the dispatch services for the police and fire department to lessen the response time for support. Chief Bibber gives all the credit for his and the fire department's successes to his staff. He recognizes the hard work and dedication that each member of the team has offered in order to keep the city's rescue services running smoothly. David also recognizes the hard work that all city workers provide, respecting city counselors in particular for their pro bono duties and efforts to make the lives of Dover residents better. Congratulations to Mr. David Bibber. I thank you, New Hampshire thanks you, and the city of Dover thanks you for serving the interests of the people with care and capability.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the memory of a fallen soldier in the U.S. Military, Robert Raneri. Robert Raneri was a captain and commander of the 94th Military Police Company in the Army Reserves and a highly respected and dedicated officer. Raneri's professionalism and dedication to the Army was thought by many to be unrivaled. In July of 2000, Captain Raneri led a unit of 600 soldiers in a mission to Bosnia. In the wake of a very politically and militarily charged conflict, Raneri returned nine months later with every one of the 600 soldiers alive and unscathed as he had promised upon their departure overseas. Those who worked with Robert knew him as a strong presence and as a man not afraid to take chances if it was in the best interest of the men he commanded and of the nation. His peers remember him as calm, deliberate, clear-headed, compassionate, tough, and exacting. These virtues combined created a fine leader, friend, and man in Mr. Robert Raneri. Robert was to be married to Maj. Amy Huther a week after his June 26th passing, greatly looking forward to being a husband and a father someday. These dreams will cease to be realized for this exceptional man as a result of the unfortunate motorcycle accident that recently took his life. Robert Raneri was a dedicated Army Reservist who spent his life serving the United States as a commanding officer to the 94th Military Police Company and his memory should be held in the highest respect. Robert's passing is a great loss not only for his family, but for the country and the U.S. Army.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to an innovator of the ages, an artist of medicine, and technological visionary, Mr. Dean Kamen. As a prominent figure in the life and community of our State of New Hampshire we honor Mr. Kamen for his efforts and entrepreneurial spirit that have furthered the fields of science and technology in numerous ways with the advent of his inventions. The improvements in several medical procedures and enhancement of the administering of various drug treatments have vastly improved the lives of individuals who suffer from a range of illnesses. Mr. Kamen holds over 150 national and international patents and is renowned throughout the country as one of the greatest inventors of this age. Among his credits include the first wearable infusion pump, the first insulin pump for Diabetics, and the HomeChoice/TM/ dialysis machine. Recently, Mr. Kamen was in New Hampshire to demonstrate to the Environment and Public Works Committee, his latest technological improvement, the Segway Human Transporter, an environmentally friendly and fuel-efficient mode of transportation for the 21st century. In attending this demonstration I was able to witness first-hand the incredible and impressive talent and vision of Mr. Kamen. Dean Kamen accomplishments are well-recognized and his many awards include the Kilby Award for extraordinary contributions to society, the Heinz Award in Technology, and the National Medal of Technology given to him in 2000 by President Bill Clinton for inventions that have advanced medical care worldwide. In addition, Mr. Kamen was honored by the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation as ``2002 Person of the Year'' for work related to the research and advancement of diabetes treatment for youths. Dean Kamen deserves to be recognized for his exceptional efforts at spreading the excitement of science and technology to the world at large. His advances for medical technology have been blanketed in the notion that technology can be of virtue and practical in our society, a proposition that is admirable and worthy of merit. Thank you, Dean, for all your efforts to aid others through the advancement of medicine and technology. It is an honor to represent you in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today in remembrance of a highly respected and valued member of the Manchester community and an esteemed public relations careerist, Mr. Albert G. Cappannelli. Al began his work with public media as a radio news reporter after graduating from Boston University with a bachelor's degree in broadcast journalism. His fervor for the technique of media and journalism led Al to the arena of strategy consulting. As director of national media at High Point Communications, he developed tactics for clients throughout New Hampshire including the Department of Education as well as on the national circuit for companies including Anthem Blue Cross-Blue Shield, American Express Financial Services, and Maryland Public Service Commission. Colleagues described Albert as savvy and highly effective in his discipline. In addition to Al's professional career, he established a well- deserved reputation as a community leader in Manchester. He volunteered his time and effort to a number of causes in the community spanning across interests with regard to both personal and social affairs. Al was an active member at St. Peter's in Auburn where he held a position on the parish council and was a parish facilitator for the Crown Ministries for the Diocese of Manchester. He was a huge advocate in matters surrounding education; volunteering his time with Weston Elementary School, Keene State College, McDonald Youth Leadership program, and as a member of the Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce Education Committee. Albert Cappannelli was the victim of an unfortunate and untimely passing as a result of liver cancer that had been diagnosed merely 2 weeks earlier. Albert is survived by his wife Jane of 16 years and his two children, Joshua and Helen. Al spent his life and career serving public interest and revealed an uncompromising compassion and integrity throughout that endeavor. He was a fine man, respected colleague, and adored by all who knew him. I was proud to call him my friend, and honored to represent such a fine individual in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to give my congratulations to the town of Bow, New Hampshire on their 275th anniversary. Bow, New Hampshire is a quaint and inviting city and home to nearly 7,200 proud residents. The town was chartered in 1727 and began as an agricultural settlement. The waterways that stretch through Bow allowed the town to establish a series of mills that have since served as the heart of an area of town known affectionately as ``Bow Mills.'' Bow has also served as a historically significant stomping ground for many influential figures. Sergeant John Ordway, native to Bow, was part of the Lewis and Clark expedition and Andrew Jackson stopped in Bow on his 1833 New England Tour. Residents of this beautiful town are among the first in the nation to vote in primaries. This progressive city has been able to maintain a family-oriented and relaxing environment for 275 years in spite of their close proximity to the two largest cities in New Hampshire. It is highly commendable that Bow has preserved a superbly low crime rate and given its residents a safe and secure town in which to live and raise their families. Bow is incomparable in so many ways, particularly the attention Bow gives to the public school system in their community. Bow's public schools are well maintained, well equipped with the latest technology to ensure cutting-edge education and skills training, and most importantly, provide an adequate number of teachers that can endow our children with guidance and direction. The student to teacher ratio is roughly 14 to 1. This is an astounding and praiseworthy circumstance and furnishes Bow's youth with the opportunity for one to one interaction in the classroom and an extended chance to explore each subject in greater depth. Bow is truly one of the most unique and wonderful cities in New Hampshire and in the United States. It is said that Bow originally was given its name because of its literal positioning at the bow of the Merrimack River. I propose that perhaps Bow was given its name for its representational properties; the visual packaging of this town is beautifully decorated, however, what you discover inside the package is the true gift and reward. Bow, New Hampshire, congratulations on your 275th anniversary. It is an honor to represent the citizens of Bow in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, today, at the request of the President of the United States, I am introducing his proposal to address power plant pollution in the Nation. Introduction of his bill is an important step forward in the long progress of amending the Clean Air to ensure that we are both improving air quality and building upon the most successful environmental program in Federal law, the Acid Rain Program. One of the first goals that I announced when I became Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee in 1999 was to craft a multi- emissions bill for the utility sector. It was a new idea at the time, and we have had to work hard since then to build support for the concept. Recently the Environment and Public Works Committee held a markup during which four separate legislative approaches to a multi- pollutant system were considered, one of those was a complete substitute that I presented to my colleagues. Today the President offers us a fifth option for our consideration. Each of these legislative drafts contain worthy and groundbreaking ideas as to how we can move forward on the difficult area of reducing air pollution without harming our economy. None is exactly like the others, and there are some clear policy differences among them. I am obviously partial to my own approach, but all five should be discussed. I am confident that the Senate can, if we work together in a bipartisan fashion, find a consensus approach that will be acceptable to a majority of Senators. I look forward to that process, and I welcome the President to that debate. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a summary of the President's legislation that was provided by the Administration, and that the text of the bill also be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, today, at the request of the President of the United States, I am introducing his proposal to address power plant pollution in the Nation. Introduction of his bill is an important step forward in the long progress of amending the Clean Air to ensure that we are both improving air quality and building upon the most successful environmental program in Federal law, the Acid Rain Program. One of the first goals that I announced when I became Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee in 1999 was to craft a multi- emissions bill for the utility sector. It was a new idea at the time, and we have had to work hard since then to build support for the concept. Recently the Environment and Public Works Committee held a markup during which four separate legislative approaches to a multi- pollutant system were considered, one of those was a complete substitute that I presented to my colleagues. Today the President offers us a fifth option for our consideration. Each of these legislative drafts contain worthy and groundbreaking ideas as to how we can move forward on the difficult area of reducing air pollution without harming our economy. None is exactly like the others, and there are some clear policy differences among them. I am obviously partial to my own approach, but all five should be discussed. I am confident that the Senate can, if we work together in a bipartisan fashion, find a consensus approach that will be acceptable to a majority of Senators. I look forward to that process, and I welcome the President to that debate. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a summary of the President's legislation that was provided by the Administration, and that the text of the bill also be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joining my colleagues on the Environment and Public Works Committee to introduce the Water Quality Investment Act of 2002. When I because Chairman of the Committee in 1999, one of my top priorities was a renewed commitment to our Nation's water systems and the Americans served by them. Senator Crapo, as Chairman of the Fisheries, Wildlife and Water Subcommittee shared my commitment and made this issue a focus of his subcommittee. Earlier this year, I joined with Chairmen Jeffords and Graham, as well as Senator Crapo, to introduce S. 1961, the Water Investment Act. This was a strong bipartisan bill that took compromise by all four members to achieve. Unfortunately, the bill that was reported out of Committee was a partisan proposal that added several provisions that will prevent the bill from moving forward. Our majority colleagues insisted on changing the principled funding formula included in S. 1961 for a politically driven one that has no hope of surviving the lengthy legislative process while also compromising the needs of the country's small States. Further, they added Davis Bacon, an onerous labor provision that continues to divide the Senate and only serves to cloud the future of an otherwise strong bill. While I can no longer support S. 1961, clean water remains one of my top priorities as the Ranking Republican on the EPW Committee. Therefore, I join Senators Inhofe and Crapo today in introducing a streamlined bill that is free of the controversies that now plague S. 1961. I am a strong advocate of limited government and when it comes to water infrastructure, I do not believe the primary responsibility of financing local water needs lies with the Federal Government. I am equally adamant, however, that the Federal Government should not place unfunded mandates on our local communities. This bill strikes a responsible balance between meeting Federal obligations and maintaining local responsibility and state flexibility. So much of our Nation's water infrastructure is aging and in desperate need of replacement. Coupled with the aging problem is the cost burden that local communities face in order to comply with ever increasing State and Federal clean water mandates. This bill addresses these problems and makes structural changes to ensure that we avoid a national crisis now and in the future. The legislation authorizes $35 billion over the next 5 years in Federal contribution to the total water infrastructure need to help defray the cost of the mandates placed on communities. This is a substantial increase in Federal commitment, but not nearly as high as some would have preferred. This commitment does not come without additional responsibilities. When the Clean Water Act was amended by Congress in 1987, a debate I remember well, we set up a revolving fund so more Federal money would not be required. The fund would continually revolve providing a continual pool of money for water needs. Unfortunately, appropriations have not kept pace with the Federal share and the funds have not been able to revolve at levels necessary to meet the increasing need. Further, as more Federal mandates have been imposed on local communities, facilities have exhausted their useful life while local officials have found raising water rates unpalatable. Thus, what was not to be Federal responsibility became a Federal necessity. Now we are faced with a near crisis situation. This bill makes certain that we do not go down that road again. The Federal government will help to defray the costs of Federal mandates, but with the new money comes a new requirement that all utilities do a better job of managing their funds and plan for future costs. The bill requires utilities to assess the condition of their facility and pipes and develop a plan to pay for the long-term repair and replacement of these assets. That plan will include Federal assistance, but it will be limited assistance. We also make additional structural changes to the law both to address financial concerns and to help achieve improved management of these water systems. One such change to the Clean Water Act is to incorporate a Drinking Water Act provision that allows States, at their discretion, to provide principal forgiveness on loans and to extend the repayment period for loans to disadvantaged communities. This flexibility will provide help to communities struggling with high combined sewer overflow cost to secure additional financial help. This bill also promotes other important cost saving measures that many communities are already experimenting with throughout the country. It will also provide much needed information and planning tools to communities across the country who are experiencing a months-long drought. Again, I am disappointed I could not maintain my support for S. 1961, the Water Investment Act. However, the bill that passed the Committee took several steps in the wrong direction by including not only a formula but new mandates and regulatory requirements that will prevent the bill from moving forward. Clean water should be a priority for every member of the Senate. We need to come together around a bill that can go forward. S. 1961 is no longer that bill. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact the Water Quality Investment Act this year and commemorate the 30th Anniversary of the Clean Water Act with a renewed commitment to the nation's waterways and the people who depend on them.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joining my colleagues on the Environment and Public Works Committee to introduce the Water Quality Investment Act of 2002. When I because Chairman of the Committee in 1999, one of my top priorities was a renewed commitment to our Nation's water systems and the Americans served by them. Senator Crapo, as Chairman of the Fisheries, Wildlife and Water Subcommittee shared my commitment and made this issue a focus of his subcommittee. Earlier this year, I joined with Chairmen Jeffords and Graham, as well as Senator Crapo, to introduce S. 1961, the Water Investment Act. This was a strong bipartisan bill that took compromise by all four members to achieve. Unfortunately, the bill that was reported out of Committee was a partisan proposal that added several provisions that will prevent the bill from moving forward. Our majority colleagues insisted on changing the principled funding formula included in S. 1961 for a politically driven one that has no hope of surviving the lengthy legislative process while also compromising the needs of the country's small States. Further, they added Davis Bacon, an onerous labor provision that continues to divide the Senate and only serves to cloud the future of an otherwise strong bill. While I can no longer support S. 1961, clean water remains one of my top priorities as the Ranking Republican on the EPW Committee. Therefore, I join Senators Inhofe and Crapo today in introducing a streamlined bill that is free of the controversies that now plague S. 1961. I am a strong advocate of limited government and when it comes to water infrastructure, I do not believe the primary responsibility of financing local water needs lies with the Federal Government. I am equally adamant, however, that the Federal Government should not place unfunded mandates on our local communities. This bill strikes a responsible balance between meeting Federal obligations and maintaining local responsibility and state flexibility. So much of our Nation's water infrastructure is aging and in desperate need of replacement. Coupled with the aging problem is the cost burden that local communities face in order to comply with ever increasing State and Federal clean water mandates. This bill addresses these problems and makes structural changes to ensure that we avoid a national crisis now and in the future. The legislation authorizes $35 billion over the next 5 years in Federal contribution to the total water infrastructure need to help defray the cost of the mandates placed on communities. This is a substantial increase in Federal commitment, but not nearly as high as some would have preferred. This commitment does not come without additional responsibilities. When the Clean Water Act was amended by Congress in 1987, a debate I remember well, we set up a revolving fund so more Federal money would not be required. The fund would continually revolve providing a continual pool of money for water needs. Unfortunately, appropriations have not kept pace with the Federal share and the funds have not been able to revolve at levels necessary to meet the increasing need. Further, as more Federal mandates have been imposed on local communities, facilities have exhausted their useful life while local officials have found raising water rates unpalatable. Thus, what was not to be Federal responsibility became a Federal necessity. Now we are faced with a near crisis situation. This bill makes certain that we do not go down that road again. The Federal government will help to defray the costs of Federal mandates, but with the new money comes a new requirement that all utilities do a better job of managing their funds and plan for future costs. The bill requires utilities to assess the condition of their facility and pipes and develop a plan to pay for the long-term repair and replacement of these assets. That plan will include Federal assistance, but it will be limited assistance. We also make additional structural changes to the law both to address financial concerns and to help achieve improved management of these water systems. One such change to the Clean Water Act is to incorporate a Drinking Water Act provision that allows States, at their discretion, to provide principal forgiveness on loans and to extend the repayment period for loans to disadvantaged communities. This flexibility will provide help to communities struggling with high combined sewer overflow cost to secure additional financial help. This bill also promotes other important cost saving measures that many communities are already experimenting with throughout the country. It will also provide much needed information and planning tools to communities across the country who are experiencing a months-long drought. Again, I am disappointed I could not maintain my support for S. 1961, the Water Investment Act. However, the bill that passed the Committee took several steps in the wrong direction by including not only a formula but new mandates and regulatory requirements that will prevent the bill from moving forward. Clean water should be a priority for every member of the Senate. We need to come together around a bill that can go forward. S. 1961 is no longer that bill. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact the Water Quality Investment Act this year and commemorate the 30th Anniversary of the Clean Water Act with a renewed commitment to the nation's waterways and the people who depend on them.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life of a dear friend William Ruger, one of the greatest gun designers and manufacturers in the nation. Joining with Alexander McCormick Sturm in 1949 Ruger founded Sturm Ruger & Co., the largest firearms designer, manufacturer, and distributer in the United States. At the time Ruger's company produced more varieties of sport firearms than any other firm in the world. Turning out his first design in 1949, Ruger's pistol soon became one of America's favorite hand guns, still widely used by many gun owners today. Ruger would soon design a light machine gun for the United States Army and would continue designing and patenting dozens of guns throughout the last 53 years. ``Ruger was a true firearms genius who mastered the disciplines of inventing, designing, engineering, manufacturing and marketing better than anyone since Samuel Colt,'' said R.L. Wilson, a firearms historian and Ruger Biographer. ``No one in the 20th century so clearly dominated the field or was so skilled at articulating the unique appeal of quality firearms for legitimate uses.'' Recently as chairman emeritus Ruger oversaw the manufacturing of high-quality rifles, shotguns, pistols, and revolvers that law enforcement and sporting enthusiasts have come to expect. Ruger kept a watchful eye on the company as it prospered, building manufacturing facilities in a number of New Hampshire's towns providing work for many. I have found great friendship with Ruger throughout the last years of his life and continue to admire and cherish the friendship that I have with his family. He was not only a great husband and father but a great businessman, American patriot, and friend. It was an honor representing William Ruger in the U.S. Senate and remains a distinct privilege in serving his family.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the outstanding successes of a friend and colleague in the field of education, the President of the University of New Hampshire, Dr. Joan Leitzel. As UNH's 17th President, Dr. Leitzel began her term by renovating buildings, adding a diverse program list and developing key buildings that provided needed space for classes and research. Thanks to Dr. Leitzel's work, the number of donors increased substantially to support the beloved University. Dr. Leitzel also increased enrollment for subsequent years. A large portion of her success is attributed to her attention to the needs of New Hampshire's business by providing a quality professional workforce. By working with businesses in the area, Dr. Leitzel better prepares students for the competitive job market. Dr. Leitzel more than doubled research funding from $43 million in 1996 to $82 million in 2001 by making the research proposals more competitive. Greater funding from the state and forthcoming building projects help add to the University's prominence. It is so small accomplishment to steer a University to the level that has been reached under Dr. Leitzel. I commend Dr. Joan Leitzel on receiving magna cum laude status for her leadership and for her many accomplishments that have put the University of New Hampshire on track to a successful future. I wish her all the happiness life can bring in her retirement. It is an honor and privilege representing her in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a colleague for his service to the citizens of New Hampshire, Mr. Stanley Arnold. After 19 years of service to New Hampshire Stanley will be retiring in September 2002. His service as commissioner began in 1988 when appointed, by then Governor, John Sununu. Prior to becoming commissioner Stanley was an auditor in the Department of Revenue. Praised by Governor Jeanne Shaheen as, ``Essential in difficult and complicated policy debates,'' . . . ``Arnold has been a straight shooter through the five years that I have worked with him.'' Stanley has always strived to provide the best possible service to the people of the community. Lauded as one of Governor Shaheen's most trusted advisers, Stanley increased use of technology and established a unit to focus on businesses not filing tax returns. It is an honor to represent Mr. Stanley Arnold in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a man that has dedicated the last 7 years of his life to helping those less fortunate than himself, Major W. Wheelock. Among his many accomplishments, Major Wheelock has most recently served as the President/CEO of Crotched Mountain foundation in Greenfield, New Hampshire and has previously served as Executive Vice President/Treasurer of Franklin Pierce College. Major Wheelock retired in June of this year. As part of his tireless service to others, Major participates in the River Mead Retirement Community as a board member; the Yankee Publishing, Inc. as a board member; New Hampshire 2002 Health and Educational Facilities Authority as Board Vice Chair; and New Hampshire Hospital Association as a Board Vice Chair. The service Major Wheelock has provided Crotched Mountain School was doubtless a devotion to those that receive an education there. Crotched Mountain School provides outstanding rehabilitative programs for students with disabilities in Kindergarten through twelfth grade. His duty and service are apparent through his love and devotion for the students at Crotched Mountain. More than doing an exceptional job, Major Wheelock is to be commended for his service to such a worthy organization. A man of better character, I rarely meet. It is an honor and privilege representing Major Wheelock in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today in remembrance of a cherished friend and former Republican State representative, Frances Riley. Mrs. Riley's professional career as a representative from New Hampshire can only be described as accomplished, passionate, and revered. As a House member from 1985 to 1998, Fran co-founded the Legislature for Limited Spending and was a valued member of the Manchester Federation Republican Woman's Club. She demonstrated an unyielding respect, not only for her position but for the positions of her colleagues as well. This was an important principle from which Fran never faltered, solidifying her role as a first-rate political official. Riley is survived by her husband, Paul; their three daughters, Katherine James, Christine Riley, and Karen Godzyk, one brother, one sister, and four grandchildren. Frances Riley had been a resident and active member of the Manchester community since she arrived there in 1957. My friendship with Mrs. Riley began some time ago and she remained a treasured and admired presence in both my personal and professional life. Her absence will be felt by all of us whose lives she touched and who were privileged to be her friend. Fran, I'll miss you.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, in March of this year, when we passed the energy bill, Senator Voinovich offered an amendment to reauthorize the Price-Anderson Act that passed overwhelmingly 78-21. The Price-Anderson Act expires on August 1, 2002. This act sets up a system of insurance and indemnification to protect the public against losses stemming from nuclear accidents. It has served the nation well since the 1950s and has been reauthorized three times. Price-Anderson has been amended over the years so that the utility industry that operates nuclear reactors is charged premiums for this insurance. The private Department of Energy (DOE) contractors that are involved in strategic weapons production, clean up of national security sites, nuclear research and technology, as well as other related national priorities are indemnified by the government. In keeping with the directions in the current law both the DOE and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) have issued reports urging renewal. The provisions of the Voinovich amendment to the energy bill to reauthorize this legislation were crafted in consonance with these reports. In the Defense authorization bill we are now considering, there is a provision to only renew the authority for the private DOE contractors. There is strong justification for doing so, since a lapse in the authority will affect important cleanup and defense programs as I mentioned before. Private industry must be indemnified properly before undertaking these important national projects. Reauthorization is vital to national defense and must be considered on ``must do'' legislation such as the defense bill. However, the NRC provision of Price-Anderson, one that falls under the jurisdiction of the Environment & Public Works Committee, is not included in this bill. Historically, in the reauthorization of Price-Anderson, we have never separated the DOE contractor provision from the NRC licensee provision. The three previous renewals of Price-Anderson have extended both the DOE and NRC portions of the Act at the same time for identical time periods. As the ranking member of the Environment & Public Works Committee and as a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, it was my hope that we could ensure that these two provisions of Price-Anderson be moved through the legislative process as one package, and not be separated. Due to the need of keeping non-military provisions off of the Defense Authorization bill while the bill is under consideration by the Senate, adding the NRC provision of Price-Anderson will not be possible at this time. However, it is certainly the hope of this Senator that the DOE and the NRC provisions of Price-Anderson remain on as close of a parallel legislative tracks as is possible, however that can be accomplished.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I am outraged with the decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional because it contains the words ``Under God.'' The pledge is part of the fabric of our society, a wonderful tradition that is observed in thousands of schools each day by millions of school children. For two activist judges to decide for thousands of schools and thousands of parents that their children can't recite the pledge is the height of liberal intolerance and arrogance. The Declaration of Independence talks about our Creator. Our coins and dollars have ``In God We Trust'' imprinted on them. Our public officials take their oath on the Bible. The Ten Commandments is posted in the U.S. Supreme Court. The House and Senate start off each day with the Pledge of Allegiance. If it's good enough for Senators to say the pledge each day, it's good enough for America's school children to do the same. There are countless more examples of religion in American public life. The First Congress enacted the Northwest Ordinance, which provided that ``religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.'' President George Washington offered a prayer at his First Inaugural Address. Many of our nation's Founding Fathers and Framers of our Constitution commented publicly and privately about the values and importance of religion in American public life. Our armed services provide chaplains, priests and rabbis. The U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate begin each day with an opening prayer. For this court to single out the pledge for including the phrase ``One Nation, Under God,'' is simply incredible. Nobody's forcing school children to recite the pledge. What we want, and what millions of parents want, is to simply give American children the chance to pledge allegiance to our Flag and to everything that it represents: patriotism, sacrifice, courage, justice, perseverance. The list goes on. Now, more than ever, we should encourage our young people to learn and respect the patriotic values embodied in our Flag, the symbol of our country, and in the Pledge of Allegiance.