Bob Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, last night I had the privilege of personally witnessing President Bush deliver remarks outlining his budget for America and outlining the priorities of that budget. I must say, it was refreshing, for one who has long fought over the past 16 to 17 years in both the House and the Senate, to hear tax cuts being proposed, and not only tax cuts being proposed, but also the opportunity to finally downsize the national debt so we can stop mortgaging our children's future. The President, in that plan for America's priorities, included tax relief, debt reduction, and some much needed reform for some very important programs. One of the negatives over the past 20 or 30 years is that as our deficits and our debts became larger, many times we neglected a lot of key initiatives, areas where the Federal Government could be helpful to the American people. So it is a pleasure to see the debt diminished and money being returned to the taxpayers at the same time, and, in conjunction with that, we are going to provide dollars in much needed areas. I want to talk about that. First, in President Bush's budget, we will see the largest debt reduction in American history. Think of that: The largest debt reduction in American history. It is good news and bad news. It is good that it is the largest debt reduction; it is bad that we have debt that large in the first place. The key thing to understand is that this proposal pays down the national debt by $2 trillion over the next 10 years. That is the largest reduction in debt to the lowest share of the economy since the First World War. With the leadership of the Republican Congress, we have already paid off an enormous portion of the national debt-- nearly $363 billion so far. If you stop to think about it, it costs about $60 million to borrow every billion dollars. Multiply $60 million times 363 and see how much we save in interest on that debt. That $60 million will go a long way in New Hampshire. It was a lot of money where I grew up. That is just on $1 billion of borrowed money; we have paid $363 billion of it already, and we are proposing to pay off $2 trillion--with a ``t''--in the next 10 years. There is a ripple effect through the economy when taking the American Government out of the borrowing market and putting money back into the taxpayers' pockets. By the end of this fiscal year, we will pay off another $262 billion. That is $625 billion of debt reduction. Putting it in perspective, in 1997, the first year we balanced the budget, the debt held by the public was $3.7 trillion. By the end of this year, the debt will be $3.1 trillion, still a lot. Over the next 10 years, we will take $2 trillion more off that debt, leaving a little over $1 trillion in debt. Over the next 2 years, our Social Security-Medicare lockbox policy will reduce the national debt by an additional $400 billion. I was very proud to support President Bush's plan to reduce this enormous national debt which for so long has mortgaged our children's future. It is important to understand everything else. I will discuss some items, including returning money to the taxpayers, providing dollars for Social Security and Medicare, education, defense. Put the increases in perspective. You will get a tax refund. We will talk about that in a moment. Reduce the debt by $2 trillion, and there is still money to do those things. That is amazing. That is a great tribute to this President who didn't come into the White House and say, this is the way we did it last year; we will budget the same way we did last year. He sat down with his key advisers and worked through this budget and found out where the needs were. At the same time, he said he will reduce the debt, put money back into the taxpayers' pocketbooks, and fund programs that deserve to be funded. The tax reduction is fair. It is responsible. It is tax relief for all Americans. It is certainly welcome news to my own State of New Hampshire. Do I think the tax cut could be bigger? Sure. But I plan to work with the President to expand tax relief. The President's tax cut is bold. I support it. I will be with him all the way through this process. Good men and women of my State--and I am sure it is true all over America--have always been weary of taxes. New Hampshire is one of the only States in the Union that does not have, at this date, a sales or income tax. There are some in our State who want to impose a sales tax. I am very encouraged to see the President provide tax relief to the citizens of my great State and this Nation. There is some irony. When I came to Washington several years ago, I wanted to bring the New Hampshire example to Washington--less taxes, less spending. Now we are seeing the reverse. President Bush comes in to cut taxes, cut spending, reduce the national debt. Ironically, some officials in New Hampshire are doing just the opposite--raising taxes, trying to find more revenue. Now more than ever, I believe that hard-working Americans deserve tax relief. If you buy a television set and pay $600, and you get home and the price tag says $450, you were overcharged. So you go back to the store and get your money back. We hear all the fancy and somewhat bureaucratic terms--surplus; we have a big surplus in the Federal Government. What that means is the taxpayers of America have been overcharged. That is more money than we need to operate our Government. It ought to go back to you. It is that simple. We will hear it today. We have heard it all week. We heard it last night in the response to the President that we don't need this tax cut; it is too big. I make a suggestion to those who don't need it and don't want a refund: When you send in your tax return, put a little check mark on it that says you don't want the money, and send a check back to the Federal Government. You don't have to take the tax credit if you don't want it. If you don't want the tax cut, send the money back and we will put the money on the debt. I am fascinated by those who say they don't want the tax cut. Fine, you don't have to take it; you can turn it back. There are a lot of people out there who do want it. For starters, Americans spend more money paying taxes than they do on food, clothing, and shelter combined. That is wrong, pure and simple. We need to change that. President Bush last night in a bipartisan, nonconfrontational but firm and resolute way said let's do this for the American people. We always hear the debates. That taxes will get cut, and they don't get cut. It seems to be a bunch of words that don't mean anything. The President reached out and said: Let's not get into class warfare; let's just reduce taxes on the American people. It is good for the economy. It is good for the people. It is their money. It is not ours; it is theirs. Federal taxes alone cost American families $7,238 per year. That is more than any other item in their budget for most people. Taxpayer freedom day, the average day Americans first start working for themselves, was May 10 last year. So from January 1 to May 10, you worked to pay your Federal taxes. Where is the incentive to move forward and to succeed and do better? I say return the money. Not only are we returning money to the people from whom we took it; we are paying down the debt at the same time. A lot of people say, I don't want tax relief; don't give me tax relief; just pay down the debt. We are saying we are doing both. If you own a Government savings bond, we cannot pay that because we owe that to you. And you may have a 20- or 30-year bond. If we wanted to pay it off in one fell swoop, we couldn't. But a $2 trillion reduction over 10 years is pretty doggone good. For every 8 hours of work performed, the average taxpayer in America works 3 hours to pay the tax collector. I think that is too much. I know some who hem and haw, saying, I don't know whether I can support this tax cut; it is too big, too small--a thousand different reasons. I think if the average taxpayer has to work until May 10 to pay their Federal taxes, has to work 3 hours of every day to pay the tax collector, it is time the taxpayer got a break. This is a big break. Today's average taxpayer faces a combined Federal, State, and local tax burden of nearly 50 percent of their income. I am delighted to support this President in providing the typical family of four paying income taxes a full $1,600 in tax relief. We are in Washington talking about trillions. I don't know what is after trillion. I hope we don't have to deal with it during my tenure in the Senate. We are talking trillions and billions and occasionally millions. Let's talk in hundreds and thousands. That is what the average American deals with--hundreds of dollars and thousands of dollars, not trillions and billions. Let's bring it down. Ask yourself what you could do with $1,600 if you didn't have to give it to the Federal Government. What could you do? There are a lot of things you could do. I am sure you can think of them as well as I can. If you have a child, say, born this year, if you multiply $1,600 times 18 years and add the compounded interest if you put it in a bank account somewhere or a CD, you will find you have a pretty doggone good downpayment on a college education--for the first year anyway--or perhaps a little more money for groceries, a little more money for clothing, perhaps a little bit for that first home mortgage. Add it up. That is real money, as Everett Dirksen used to say. I think we have to get away from talking about all these trillions and billions of dollars and think about what that means to the average taxpayer of America. I say this in all sincerity: If there are taxpayers out there who do not want that $1,600, send it back. But for the rest of us who might like to have it and the families all across America who struggle really hard to make ends meet who would like that $1,600, why should we take it away from them? But some are proposing we do that. President Bush is not. President Bush is saying we need to give that back to the taxpayers; nobody ought to spend more than one-third of their paycheck to support the Federal Government. I agree with him. It is refreshing to hear it. But the President also believes a tax rate of 15 percent is too high for hard- working men and women who earn low wages. So he has proposed we lower that even to 10 percent, down from 15 percent--I agree with that--and double the child tax credit to $1,000 per child, and eliminate the marriage penalty, penalizing people who get married. We in the Federal Government should be encouraging the makeup of the family not breakup, and, of course, eliminating the infamous death tax which the President mentioned last night. All your life, you work hard to earn money, pay taxes on that money, and have perhaps a business or home or some asset you want to leave to your children, and they cannot afford to receive it from you upon your death because they cannot pay the taxes on it, so they have to sell it, whether it be a business or home. That is not right. We ought to change it. Yet there are some who still want to fight the President on that--a million-dollar threshold or whatever. When you start talking about a business or what you build up all your life, if you have to sell it to pay all the taxes, what are you going to do? This is a good plan: Pay down the debt and give money back to the taxpayers who provided the money for us. We--all of us, the taxpayers-- funded the cold war. We won the cold war. We funded that national debt, unfortunately, for all those years, and now we are going to defund it. We are going to pay it off, and we are going to give money back to the taxpayers who earned it. There is one great thing about this budget. I have been around here for a few years, and I have seen many budgets come and go. Most of them are dead on arrival, but I am hopeful this one will not be because this President not only reduces debt and provides tax relief for the American family but he also funds important priorities. I can remember--and many of my colleagues can, too--year after year, people coming down here saying we were going to lose our money, we were going to lose this and that, we were going to get cut here and there because we were fighting for every single dollar because the interest on the debt was going up $300 billion, $400 billion a year just to fund that debt. We are changing that now. We are reversing that. It is a new paradigm. It is a new America, a new century, a new President. There is new excitement here in Washington because we are paying off debt, we are paying back taxpayers the money they deserve to get back, and we are funding new initiatives and new priorities, good initiatives and good priorities. Let's talk about some of them. One is the environment. I chair the Environment and Public Works Committee in the Senate. I commend President Bush's budget. It invests in one of our Nation's most important assets, our environment. Where are we without it? He is proposing to accelerate the cleanup of toxic waste sites called brownfields. It is a reflection of the bill that Senator Chafee and I have introduced to clean up brownfields. The administration has endorsed that bill. I am very excited about it because brownfields, these toxic waste sites, are all over America. There are some 400,000 to 500,000 of them, some in New Hampshire. What is a brownfield? A brownfield is a site that has toxic waste in it. It is not a Superfund site, not as bad as some of them, but for years and years contractors have been afraid to come on these sites and clean them up for fear the Federal Government would come in and say they did not do a good enough job and fine them, and so forth. We have now clarified this in the law so these sites can be cleaned up. Here is what it accomplishes: No. 1, it cleans up a blight in a community. These are not just large cities. It is also the small town of Bradford, NH. I say to any of my constituents in Bradford, if you are listening, help is coming for you. In the town of Bradford, there is a toxic waste site that needs to be cleaned up. It has not been cleaned up because the law has not allowed it to be cleaned up. They want to make a park there. All they have been trying to do is get the funds to clean up this site to make a park. This is what we can do because the President has laid out a budget that pays down that debt, puts money back in the taxpayers' pockets, and allows us to fund programs such as this for the first time in so many years--truly fund them. I am excited about it. When you clean up that brownfield, you are going to create jobs because somebody is working to clean it up; No. 2, you are going to eliminate the blighted site in the community; and, No. 3, maybe somebody builds something there, a new business or something that does not go outside of town and bulldoze off 10 acres of green space. It is just a fantastic opportunity, and President Bush came right out of the gate and mentioned it specifically last night in his speech: Brownfields legislation. We are going to help clean up brownfields. That is good news for certainly every large city in America and thousands of small towns all across America. It is a great opportunity we have not had in the past because we had this debt. Now we are not only putting money back directly in the pockets of the taxpayers, under this budget, but we are also putting money back into the community. So if you are a taxpayer in Bradford, NH, you are going to get a Federal tax cut if you pay taxes and, second, you are going to have your community improved with dollars that are going to come into that community because we have the opportunity to do it now because we are running these surpluses. This is exciting news. It is not just brownfields. I could go on and on with a number of environmental priorities where we could do this-- water infrastructure, sewerage pipes, clean water--all kinds of environmental initiatives now that we will be able to fund. Another one is the Land and Water Conservation Fund where moneys can be provided to help create parks and trails and so many other positive things--habitats. It is just a great opportunity for us. Another item is defense. The defense of the United States has been neglected over the past several years. Everybody knows it. The President has proposed a $5.7 billion increase in pay and benefits. I just came back from the Mediterranean, visiting the troops out there, worried about terrorist attacks and so forth, putting their lives on the line every single day. And some of them are on food stamps? Come on, America. We can do better. The President of the United States, within days of the beginning of his term, went directly to the military aboard ship and on bases and told our sailors, our airmen, our marines, who are defending our interests and values all over the world: We are going to increase your pay and benefits. He lived up to that promise, and he put it in the budget. It should be there. It absolutely should be there. We take for granted what these men and women do. Believe me, we take it for granted. If you have a young son, or daughter, or husband, or wife, or a dad, or a mom who is out there, you know we take that for granted. They are the best in the world, and they deserve the best we can provide them. Now, finally, with this budget we are able to do that. It will give the military the vital funds to compete with the private sector in order to recruit the best people. President Bush has correctly realized our increasingly high-tech military requires that special steps be taken in order to attract and retain personnel with computer science and other disciplines. Right now, there is a great opportunity out there in the private sector. A lot of people are pulled to that, but many people want to serve in the military, and if they just have the opportunity to do it, with better pay and better benefits, we can pull more people toward the military. In addition to the military pay and benefits, the President has pledged to increase pay incentives for highly trained military personnel, and I know that is good news for the military. Let me discuss a couple of other issues: Education. I am a former teacher. I taught school for 6 years. You are never a former teacher; you are always a teacher. I also served on a school board. I have also been a father for 25-plus years. So I think I know a little bit about education from four or five different perspectives, if you will. I agree; decisions regarding education are best done at the local level, period. That is where the best decisions are made. You cannot sugar-coat that any other way. The best decisions are made at the local level. We don't need a national school board running our public schools. We need the local school boards to run those schools with the parents, with the teachers, with the administrators, and with the students working together. Some will say there is a lot of money in President Bush's education plan. There is an 11-percent increase in education funding at the Federal level. Look how it is applied. This plan provides the local schools, local districts, and States more freedom in administering the Federal dollars. They are going to have more choices. They are going to combine dozens and dozens of Federal education programs into only five and allow the States and the local communities to spend the money as they see fit in the categories that they see as best. President Bush said last night: Leave no child behind. I think this is the best opportunity we have had in many years to make that come true. Passing year after year a child who can't read or write doesn't do any good. It puts them at a tremendous disadvantage when they come out into society. It is not necessary. Our schools and teachers should be about kids. If they can't compete, then parents ought to have the opportunity to say, well, I am going to go over here to this school or this school. That is what rich folks do. They send their kids to some private school, if they want to. They borrow money to do it because they don't like the public school. I am a former public school teacher. I am a strong advocate of public schools. They ought to be competitive and good. And if they are not and won't improve, then parents ought to have the right to choose another school. The Bush plan provides schools with more freedom in administering these Federal dollars. But it also holds States accountable for improving student achievement, which will be demonstrated through assessments in reading and math. The plan provides reading programs which will be available to States to provide research-based reading programs in the early elementary grades and low-income preschools. Some think we are going to put all of this taxpayer money on the public debt and not do anything else and that we are going to cut these programs. We are not. That is the beauty of the budget. It is one of the best, if not the best, budgets I have seen since I have been in Washington. It preserves and protects Social Security. It locks away every penny--$2.6 trillion goes right into the lockbox for Social Security. We cannot touch it for anything else. There will be no more Government greedy hands in there borrowing the money and using it for something else. In addition, the President talks about making those dollars in Social Security go further. With Medicare, it is the same thing. It spends every dime for Medicare. That is what it is gathered for and collected for, and that is what it should be spent for. It passes it on. I have spent a year looking at the prescription drug issue. It can be done without hurting the program's solvency. We can provide help for our senior citizens who need prescription drugs. They deserve it and are going to get that help under this budget. Finally, faith-based initiatives are somewhat of a controversial matter. It is not controversial to me. I think the President made it very clear last night. Faith-based proposals can get the job done. There are so many people out there working in various charitable organizations, whether they be religious or not. They are trying to do a job. We are not picking sides. The President is simply saying why not help all of these good-hearted Americans who are working and doing a wonderful job to restore and heal the lives of men and women in need? They can do it better than any Federal Government program. They can do it better than any bureaucrat in Washington, and they are doing it OK. God bless them. If you have ever been out to see what they do, your heart goes out to them. In spite of everything, they are out there day in and day out begging for more money. We need a chance to provide the dollars to these folks who can get people back on track and be productive again. Billy Graham once said that our basic problems today are not social problems; it is not a lack of education. The problems are the problems of the human heart, a heart that is not right to God. These organizations recognize that God has the power to change lives and heal wounds and instill an inner drive in people so they have tools to change destructive behavior. Faith-based organizations provide needed community services. This is a nation under God. We are not supposed to take God out of our Government. We are just not supposed to have a state-sponsored church. Sometimes we forget that. Why not help these people? President Bush does. He took it head on. He knew he was going to get hit for it. But he is doing it anyway. That is leadership. Faith-based organizations are very effective, and they are going to get help. That is why I support President Bush's plan. Let me close with this point: Under this budget, we pay back $2 trillion of the national debt over the next 10 years. We provide $1.6 trillion to go back into the pockets of the people from whom we took it. And we do all of these things that I mentioned. I haven't even gotten started with the things I could have added to the list. That is a good budget. I tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that is leadership. When you step up to the plate and take on something such as that, that is leadership. President Bush deserves a lot of credit for coming up here last night and laying that out in a concise and clear way and not being afraid to take on these tough challenges. I sincerely hope my colleagues will act quickly to pass this budget so the country will be the beneficiary of it. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 28, 2001, to hear testimony regarding the nomination of Mark A. Weinberger.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 28, 2001, at 2 p.m., to hold a closed hearing on intelligence matters.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Leon Kenison, an exemplary public official who dedicated himself to serving the people of New Hampshire for almost four decades. As Commissioner of the Department of Transportation since 1996, he has brought to the office the professional skills and knowledge of the politics and practice of road building so vital to an agency that touches the lives of every person who lives in or visits the Granite State. Leon began his career with the Department of Transportation in 1963, a week before graduating from the University of New Hampshire. He is widely respected for his transportation expertise at state, regional and national levels, and has chaired several key committees for the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials. During his tenure with the DOT, Leon approached his work with a can-do attitude, and balanced what needs to be done with what can be done. Throughout his career, Leon accomplished a great deal for transportation in New Hampshire. The people of this state look upon him with tremendous gratitude and admiration for all that he has done. I have often sought Leon's support and expertise on transportation issues. We worked closely together to make sure that New Hampshire's needs were met in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. Under his leadership, the DOT not only secured funding to complete major highway projects including Route 101 and I-93, but also placed more emphasis on environmental protection, car pools, express bus, rail and other new programs. It is an honor and a privilege to serve Leon Kenison in the U.S. Senate and I wish him and his family godspeed in his retirement and in all of their future endeavors.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I am pleased to join Senator Reid, the ranking member of the Committee; Senator Chafee, the chairman of the Superfund Subcommittee; and Senator Boxer, ranking member of the Subcommittee, to introduce a bill that protects the environment, encourages community involvement, promotes economic redevelopment, provides incentive for the preservation of green spaces, and sets the stage for future comprehensive Superfund reform. As a nation, our industrial heritage has left us with numerous contaminated abandoned or underutilized ``brownfield'' sites. Although the level of contamination at many of these sites is relatively low, and the potential value of the property may be quite high, developers often shy away from redeveloping these sites. Behind their reluctance: uncertainty regarding the level of contamination, the extent of potential liability, or the likely costs of cleanup. The Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001 addresses the uncertainty that has long plagued developers, property owners, and communities seeking to make use of these otherwise desirable sites. This bill is identical to a bill we introduced last year, a bill that had the overwhelming support of 67 cosponsors, but unfortunately never saw floor time. How is our bill better than current law? Simply stated, our bill provides an element of finality which does not exist today, while allowing for federal involvement under a specific universe of conditions. Our bill strikes a solid balance on the issue of finality between so-called ``Republican bills'' and ``Democratic bills'' championed in previous years with no bipartisan support. Furthermore, our bill provides authorization for critically needed funds to assess and clean up brownfield sites, which will create jobs, increase tax revenues, and preserve and create open space and parks. This is a balanced bill. If you never had a chance to review it last year, do so now. This year, we are determined to move this bill through the process--and quickly. Senator Reid and I have committed to marking up this bill in early March, and we hope to have floor time soon afterwards. There are an estimated 450,000 brownfield sites in the United States. These are low risk sites, not the traditional Superfund sites that would be impacted by comprehensive Superfund reform. However, if States and citizens continue to be discouraged form cleaning up brownfield sites, these sites will never be redeveloped, and may in fact become Superfund sites. While I strongly believe that comprehensive Superfund reform is needed, I feel that we can move forward with brownfield legislation without compromising our chances for comprehensive reform. As brownfield sites are outside of the scope of Superfund, I believe that liability carve-outs are outside of the scope of any brownfield legislation. As I have done in the past, I continue to oppose narrow carve-outs. Carve-outs weaken attempts at overhauling the remedy selection and liability allocation provisions in the current Superfund statute and, frankly, make a bad system worse. Our brownfield legislation does not affect the allocation of liability at Superfund sites; instead, it provides needed resources to address sites, provides certainty to those who voluntarily cleanup, and prevents brownfields from being included in the superfund web. Brownfield legislation presents a win-win for all involved and should jumpstart action on substantive Superfund reform. Let me just say that last year, the Congress made a bold move in approving bipartisan legislation to restore the Florida Everglades. One of the proudest moments of my Senate career was witnessing the signing into law of that landmark environmental legislation. I want to use the Everglades model--cooperation, partnership, bipartisanship--as an example of what Congress can do when it puts aside personal politics for good policy. No one thought we'd get Everglades to the President's desk in a presidential election year, but we proved them wrong. Pessimists have little faith that an equally divided Senate will accomplish more than partisan bickering. Let's prove them wrong, too, by committing to enact brownfield legislation in the first session of this Congress. By doing so, not only do we demonstrate to a skeptical nation that bipartisan cooperation is possible, but once again, the environment wins. Our bill represents a carefully negotiated compromise, and as is the nature of a compromise, both sides had to give a little to reach common ground. Now that we stand together on that common ground, let's not undermine our widespread support by trying to bring the bill farther to the left or to the right. The Brownfield Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001 is a strong bill and represents our best chance of addressing the issues plaguing brownfield sites. I urge your support for this bill.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I am pleased to join Senator Reid, the ranking member of the Committee; Senator Chafee, the chairman of the Superfund Subcommittee; and Senator Boxer, ranking member of the Subcommittee, to introduce a bill that protects the environment, encourages community involvement, promotes economic redevelopment, provides incentive for the preservation of green spaces, and sets the stage for future comprehensive Superfund reform. As a nation, our industrial heritage has left us with numerous contaminated abandoned or underutilized ``brownfield'' sites. Although the level of contamination at many of these sites is relatively low, and the potential value of the property may be quite high, developers often shy away from redeveloping these sites. Behind their reluctance: uncertainty regarding the level of contamination, the extent of potential liability, or the likely costs of cleanup. The Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001 addresses the uncertainty that has long plagued developers, property owners, and communities seeking to make use of these otherwise desirable sites. This bill is identical to a bill we introduced last year, a bill that had the overwhelming support of 67 cosponsors, but unfortunately never saw floor time. How is our bill better than current law? Simply stated, our bill provides an element of finality which does not exist today, while allowing for federal involvement under a specific universe of conditions. Our bill strikes a solid balance on the issue of finality between so-called ``Republican bills'' and ``Democratic bills'' championed in previous years with no bipartisan support. Furthermore, our bill provides authorization for critically needed funds to assess and clean up brownfield sites, which will create jobs, increase tax revenues, and preserve and create open space and parks. This is a balanced bill. If you never had a chance to review it last year, do so now. This year, we are determined to move this bill through the process--and quickly. Senator Reid and I have committed to marking up this bill in early March, and we hope to have floor time soon afterwards. There are an estimated 450,000 brownfield sites in the United States. These are low risk sites, not the traditional Superfund sites that would be impacted by comprehensive Superfund reform. However, if States and citizens continue to be discouraged form cleaning up brownfield sites, these sites will never be redeveloped, and may in fact become Superfund sites. While I strongly believe that comprehensive Superfund reform is needed, I feel that we can move forward with brownfield legislation without compromising our chances for comprehensive reform. As brownfield sites are outside of the scope of Superfund, I believe that liability carve-outs are outside of the scope of any brownfield legislation. As I have done in the past, I continue to oppose narrow carve-outs. Carve-outs weaken attempts at overhauling the remedy selection and liability allocation provisions in the current Superfund statute and, frankly, make a bad system worse. Our brownfield legislation does not affect the allocation of liability at Superfund sites; instead, it provides needed resources to address sites, provides certainty to those who voluntarily cleanup, and prevents brownfields from being included in the superfund web. Brownfield legislation presents a win-win for all involved and should jumpstart action on substantive Superfund reform. Let me just say that last year, the Congress made a bold move in approving bipartisan legislation to restore the Florida Everglades. One of the proudest moments of my Senate career was witnessing the signing into law of that landmark environmental legislation. I want to use the Everglades model--cooperation, partnership, bipartisanship--as an example of what Congress can do when it puts aside personal politics for good policy. No one thought we'd get Everglades to the President's desk in a presidential election year, but we proved them wrong. Pessimists have little faith that an equally divided Senate will accomplish more than partisan bickering. Let's prove them wrong, too, by committing to enact brownfield legislation in the first session of this Congress. By doing so, not only do we demonstrate to a skeptical nation that bipartisan cooperation is possible, but once again, the environment wins. Our bill represents a carefully negotiated compromise, and as is the nature of a compromise, both sides had to give a little to reach common ground. Now that we stand together on that common ground, let's not undermine our widespread support by trying to bring the bill farther to the left or to the right. The Brownfield Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001 is a strong bill and represents our best chance of addressing the issues plaguing brownfield sites. I urge your support for this bill.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Laura Stephan of Merrimack, New Hampshire, for being honored with the ``President's Award'' from the Merrimack Chamber of Commerce. Laura has served the citizens of Merrimack selflessly with enthusiasm and loyalty. Her demonstrated ability to continuously provide high quality assistance in all aspects of Chamber activities is commendable. Laura is a graduate from the State University of New York in Albany with a Liberal Arts degree. She is the Treasurer of the State of New Hampshire Women's Council of Realtors and is an active member of the Nashua Chapter of the Women's Council of Realtors who has received the ``Affiliate of the Year Award'' from the Greater Nashua Board of Realtors. Active in numerous community projects, Laura has served as the President of the American Stage Festival Theater Guild and as a member of its Board of Trustees. She is also an active member and committee chairperson for Merrimack Friends and Family. Laura and her husband, Gary, reside in Merrimack. She is a passionate volunteer for the Humane Society of Nashua and is committed to promoting a better quality of life in the community. Laura has enthusiastically provided dedicated service to her local community and to the people of New Hampshire. It is an honor to represent her in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent John Lang and Jason Lagasca, legislative fellows in my office, be granted floor privileges during this afternoon's session.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to PC Connection of Merrimack, New Hampshire, for being honored as ``Business of the Year'' by the Merrimack Chamber of Commerce. A major employer and important corporate leader in New Hampshire, PC Connection is a renowned worldwide business with a strong commitment to public service within the Merrimack community. For several years, under the guidance of Chief Executive Officer, Patricia Gallop, PC Connection has selflessly and steadfastly served the citizens of Merrimack. PC Connection provided volunteer leadership to generate civic awareness among area students. Contributions from the company enabled 2,000 young people to have a voice at the polls which ensured the success of the Kids Vote program. The accomplishments of PC Connection are too numerous to list. They recently brought over 1,000 of their employees and visitors together for a family day of innovative computer activities and collected 2,500 computer components. The components will be refurbished and offered to non-profit agencies throughout New Hampshire. PC Connection is a true community leader and a friend to the people of New Hampshire. The management and employees of the company are a great asset to the citizens of Merrimack. It is both an honor and a pleasure to represent them in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Tim Boucher of Deerfield, New Hampshire, for being honored as ``Business Person of the Year'' by the Merrimack Chamber of Commerce. A hard working and dedicated member of the Merrimack Chamber Board of Directors, Tim has been an enthusiastic volunteer and committee chairman. He has worked diligently for the Chamber Golf Tournament and other fund raising events, selflessly serving the citizens of Merrimack. Tim is a New Hampshire College and New England Law School graduate who was admitted to the Bar in 1991 and specializes in real estate and probate law. He is an active outdoors man who enjoys skiing and camping. He resides in Deerfield, New Hampshire, with his wife, Wendy. Tim Boucher has proven himself to be an outstanding citizen and volunteer in his community and is a role model to us all. It is an honor and a pleasure to represent him in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I am delighted today to rise to discuss President Bush's commitment to strengthening America's national security. I know this is a matter that is very close to the heart of my colleague in the Chair, the Senator from Oklahoma. President Bush often said during the campaign to the military that ``help is on the way.'' It is nice to know that help has arrived. The President is spending this week traveling to military installations to see and hear, for the first time since assuming office, the needs of the military. I can tell you, having just come back a few weeks ago from visiting the troops, marines and sailors aboard the U.S.S. Nassau in the Mediterranean, that they appreciate it when anybody from the Government comes to visit them where they are on location. Clearly, for the President of the United States to go directly to a military facility and look the troops in the eye and tell them that help is coming says a lot about the President. And believe me, it will do a lot for the morale of the military in this country. He is going to be traveling to additional military installations this week to see and hear just what the needs are as those needs are addressed by the men and women who serve. He is committed to address these urgent needs, and specifically pay raises, housing, benefits, and the like. I fully support him in that effort. I believe for the last 8 years our military has suffered. I might just say it is nice to hear a President talking about strengthening the military. The needs of our military in the last 8 years have not been funded, and our military has been overextended for too many peacekeeping missions for which it was neither trained nor equipped. In addition to that, oftentimes these missions were conducted without being budgeted, which forced the dollars to come out of the hides of the men and women who serve in terms of readiness and other accounts. As the Senator in the Chair understands full well, our military readiness is at an all-time low. Planes are not flying for lack of spare parts and numerous accidents. Two Army helicopters crashed yesterday. Ships aren't sailing for lack of fuel. Soldiers aren't training for lack of ammunition. I remember looking a young marine in the eye aboard the U.S.S. Nassau a couple of weeks ago and asking him if he needed anything other than a little more money. He said: Yes, I would like to have that, but I also would appreciate it, Senator, if you could give me some ammunition for this weapon that I need to fire. We don't have even dummy rounds to practice for this particular weapon. He showed me the weapon. I was shocked by that, frankly. But, again, let me reassure our military that help is on the way. In fact, I think it has arrived. Like the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, my friend Senator Warner, I support this effort by the administration to complete a top- to-bottom assessment of the military. I think it is important when we do that assessment to do it on the basis of what the needs are and understand that we are doing it for that reason--to assess the needs-- and not to come to some foregone conclusion and then prove it with your top-to-bottom assessment. We need to be sure we are buying the right weapons for the right threats. The United States has a strong economy and a great open society. Unfortunately, it is the only remaining superpower in the world. That also makes us a target for those who oppose our values of life and our liberties. The world is not a friendly place. We see violence and unrest every night on the news. I do not know if people realize it, but when you go and talk to the men and women out there, their lives are on the line every day. I stood on the bridge of the U.S.S. Nassau in Malta and watched a small Maltese Navy gunboat circling around that ship 24 hours a day to keep guard so that no terrorists could get to that ship. Oftentimes, as we found with the U.S.S. Cole, we didn't have that kind of security from the host country. So weapons of mass destruction--nuclear, chemical, and biological-- continue to proliferate around the world into the hands of dictators and demagogues who might, in desperation, choose to oppose us and, worst of all, fall into the hands of terrorists. We face new threats, such as cyberattacks on our command and control networks and our vulnerable civil infrastructure. Our military needs to think through these new defense challenges and architect the right force for our Nation for the new century. I will give the administration the time it needs to work through these issues as they present a new budget. As a member of the Emerging Threats Subcommittee and Strategic Forces Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I fully appreciate the challenges that President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld face as they try to rebuild our military and simultaneously set us on the right course for this new century. It is not going to be an easy job. There are a lot of needs. We have a lot of ground to make up and a lot of new things to do. In the meantime, like Chairman Warner, I expect a new administration will be requesting a supplemental. But that is not my decision to make. I am hopeful that will be the case. There is no better way to understand the needs of our military than to get out of Washington and visit them. As I said, I salute the President for doing that. I went on the U.S.S. Nassau, and one of the sailors walked up to me and said: Senator, is there any reason why a member of the United States Navy like me who is an E2 cannot get sea pay? I am serving aboard ship, and everybody from E4 and above gets sea pay, and those of us at E1, E2, and E3 don't. We are going to take care of that. That matter has already been brought to the attention of the chairman of the Armed Services Committee in the Senate as well as the relevant committees in the House of Representatives. But it felt good to be back at sea. It felt good to be on board ship. It reminded me of my service aboard the U.S.S. Navasota during the Vietnam war. It didn't feel good enough to reenlist, but it was a great time. There were 13 members of the U.S. Navy and Marines on board from New Hampshire. We listened, had lunch, and we talked. They deserve our support. They deserve compensation commensurate with the rest of America. From E1 to E3--the lowest pay grades in the Navy serving aboard that ship swabbing the decks and doing all the hard work--don't get sea pay, and those E4s and above do. That is wrong. We are going to take care of that. All of our sailors face the same threat. They deal with the same personal issues while they are away from home and family. They have children to raise. They have things to do that they miss--all kinds of family things they miss while they are away while we ask them to do it. They shouldn't be on food stamps and should have a reasonable salary. They ought to be compensated fairly. We are going to take care of the sea pay with legislation this year so that those E1 and E3 sailors will be compensated. I appreciate the military's current desire to hold out the prospect of sea pay as a reenlistment bonus. However, these sailors are paying the same price at sea as the senior sailors. To say you can serve your first elected tour of duty and not get it, but if you re-up, we will give to it to you, is simply wrong. We will find another incentive to get them to re-up. I think, frankly, for them to re-up, we should tell them we are going to appreciate you and we are going to pay you sea pay because you are away from your home and family. In addition to some of the readiness problems and personnel issues we are dealing with now in the military, I think one of the biggest challenges Secretary Rumsfeld is going to face is space and how we utilize space. Of course, Secretary Rumsfeld understands that as well as anybody. He chaired the space commission, so-called, that was created in our Armed Services defense bill. I was proud to be the author of that language. One of the plain reasons is the U.S. economy is so strong that we should use our satellite capabilities to fuel our new information-based science. Satellites support Americans every day. I don't think we realize how important they are. They support our weather, help hunters and boaters navigate; they provide pagers and telephones to communicate with travelers anywhere on the surface of the Earth. But we cannot stop there, however. We must also keep our promises to those who have already given a lifetime of service to this country. Just as our soldiers, sailors, and airmen were there for us, protecting us--we must be there for our veterans and military retirees. Therefore, I am introducing legislation today to eliminate the military survivor's benefit penalty. Mr. President, this legislation will repeal the existing reduction in the Survivor Benefit Plan spouses currently suffer when they reach the age of 62. Today, after years of paying heavy premiums for this optional benefit, survivors of military retirees receive 55 percent of their spouses service pay prior to age 62. However, once these spouses reach age 62, their benefits are drastically reduced to only 35 percent. The overwhelming majority of these beneficiaries are women. This reduction in benefits will have a devastating effect on their quality of life. In addition to eliminating this reduction in benefits which retired military spouses incur when they turn 62, spouses whose loved one passed away after their 62nd birthday will also receive full 55 percent. Passage of this important legislation will bring the military Survivor Benefits Plan more in line with other Federal and civil servants employee health plans. After a lifetime of sacrifice, we owe it to our military retirees to provide them with peace of mind that their spouse will be taken care of after their death. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to support our retirees and pass this legislation immediately. One of the many important defense challenges President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld face is protecting America's lead in space activities. One of the main reasons the U.S. economy is so strong is our use of satellite capabilities to fuel our new information-based society. Satellites support Americans every day. For example, they support our weather forecasts, help hunters and boaters navigate, provide pagers and phones that can communicate with travelers anywhere on the surface of the earth, and allow farmers to check on the health of their fields. Our soldiers, sailors, and airmen also rely on space assets. Accordingly, the utilization of space will also be at the forefront of our national security agenda during this century, and I will work to ensure that America expands its leadership in this military arena. To help the nation better posture for that future challenge, I authored the provision in the FY2000 Defense Authorization Act that created a commission 2 years ago called the ``Commission to Assess National Security Space Management and Organization,'' more commonly known today as the Space Commission. Coincidentally, the chairman chosen last year to lead that commission became our new Secretary of Defense--Donald Rumsfeld. Last month, they finished their work, and I commend Secretary Rumsfeld, the commissioners, and the staff for their outstanding work, and for thoroughly pulling together a great deal of research and data. The Commission's findings confirm my long-held view of the growing importance of space to the nation and my belief that space management and organization reforms are urgently needed as America's commercial, civil, and military reliance on space assets expands. The Commission's recommendations lay the foundations for what I have often maintained--military space activities should evolve to the eventual creation of a separate Space Force. The United States has shown the world the value of space in providing information superiority on the modern battlefield. As we move into the new century, we need to: Defend our current space-based information superiority; be able to deny our adversaries that same capability (thorough programs I have long supported like KE- SAT and Clementine); and leverage the uniqueness of space to be able to rapidly project military force around the world (thorough programs I have long supported like Space Plane). We need a strong advocate for space to fight for and justify these new space programs needed for the 21st century in competition with many other pressing military investment requirements. Near-term management and organization reforms recommended by the Commission will begin to put in place the leadership and advocacy for space programs that have long been lacking. Another of the many defense challenges President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld face is protecting America from missile attack. I salute the administration's commitment to deploying a robust missile defense for this nation. Many Americans don't realize that the United States does not have a defense against a missile attack today. Meanwhile, for years, Russia has deployed various missile defenses around Moscow and other sites which has been ignored by ABM Treaty proponents. These missiles could carry weapons of mass destruction--a nuclear, chemical, or biological warhead that could wreak havoc on a U.S. city. We have a constitutional responsibility to defend America. Homeland defense from missile attack is essential. With such a threat hanging over our leader's head, it is impossible to contemplate engaging globally in the best interest of the United States--no President would risk a U.S. city to come to the aid of an ally. Worst yet, countries like China and North Korea continue to proliferate missile technology to rogue nations. I am pleased that the President and his Cabinet have been so pro- active in explaining this important issue to our allies. A U.S. missile defense system, both theater and national is not intended as a threat to any nation. It is intended to defend America, and we have a duty to deploy such a defense. While I salute the military's efforts to develop a near-term missile- defense capability, I want to work with the administration to ensure we have a robust, multilayered architecture that includes the current land-based concept with sea-, air-, and space-based systems to eliminate this threat to U.S. cities and our deployed forces. Today, President Bush visited the only NATO facility on U.S. soil at the Joint Forces Command at Norfolk, VA. President Bush watched an allied U.S.-NATO coordinated response to a simulated missile attack. I understand the President commented ``Pretty exciting technology, and it's only going to get better.`` I agree that this technology is only going to get better. America needs to make a commitment to protect it's citizens from threats that come on a missile, including biological and chemical weapons. I look forward to working with the new administration, President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld, to rebuild our military and set the nation on the right course for the new century. Let me assure the military, help has arrived. Finally, continuing on the area of missile defense, this is a very important challenge faced by President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld in protecting the United States. Over the last several years, I have been involved in so many debates on the floor, so many discussions. I know the Senator from Oklahoma has as well. We are trying to save a national missile defense program only to have it put off with some wordsmithing or delay. I salute President Bush's commitment to deploying a robust missile defense for this Nation. It is immoral not to do it. I also salute, because it was his birthday a few days ago, President Reagan on his 90th birthday for being the visionary he was on this issue. It was Ronald Reagan who really convinced Gorbachev that we could have built that thing 20 years ago when, in fact, we couldn't. Because he convinced Gorbachev that we could and that it might be a threat to him, the Soviet Union essentially folded as the threat that it was to the world in the cold war for so long. Ronald Reagan knew this could be done. He was laughed at, still is to some extent on that issue. But 10, 15, 20 years from now, when we have this thing up and going and it is protecting our troops in the field, protecting our allies and protecting our own homeland, Ronald Reagan will get the credit he deserves so richly for coming up with that visionary promise of a missile defense system. Russia has deployed various missile defenses around Moscow and other sites which have been ignored by the ABM Treaty proponents. These missiles could carry weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical, and biological, that could wreak havoc on a U.S. city, and we have basically ignored it. We have a constitutional responsibility to defend America. I can remember seeing little tapes of so-called focus groups where they would ask 15 or 20 people in a room what would happen if another nation, such as China or Iran or Iraq, fired a missile at the United States of America. All of them answered: We would shoot it down. All of them were wrong. We do not have the capability to shoot down such a missile, but we need that capability. We need the capability to shoot it down over the aggressor's homeland, not over ourselves. So that is where this missile defense system is so important. I hear the criticisms: It won't work; it is too expensive; we don't need it. The bottom line is, if we can defend America from any missile attack, whether it be accidental or deliberate or whatever, we need to do it. That is our obligation. We have a constitutional responsibility to defend America. Homeland defense from missile attack is the moral thing to do. With such a threat hanging over our leader's head, it is impossible to contemplate engaging globally in the best interests of the United States. No President should risk a U.S. city to come to the aid of an ally. And worst yet, China, North Korea, and other nations continue to proliferate missile technology. There is some really shocking documentation, both public as well as classified, that will tell us that this is a serious matter. I am pleased the President and Secretary of Defense and his Cabinet have been so proactive in explaining this important issue to our allies. I understand that Secretary Rumsfeld went to Europe, was very forceful to our allies, saying: You are free nations. You have the right to your views, but our view is we need to protect ourselves and to defend this system and build this system, and we are going to do it. In closing, I will just say I look forward to working with President Bush, working with my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee to improve our readiness, to improve pay for our military and benefits, to cut all of the excessive operations throughout the world that are not really related to defense and get our military morale back. It is going to be exciting, and I look forward to being a part of it. I ask unanimous consent to print the text of the legislation in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I am delighted today to rise to discuss President Bush's commitment to strengthening America's national security. I know this is a matter that is very close to the heart of my colleague in the Chair, the Senator from Oklahoma. President Bush often said during the campaign to the military that ``help is on the way.'' It is nice to know that help has arrived. The President is spending this week traveling to military installations to see and hear, for the first time since assuming office, the needs of the military. I can tell you, having just come back a few weeks ago from visiting the troops, marines and sailors aboard the U.S.S. Nassau in the Mediterranean, that they appreciate it when anybody from the Government comes to visit them where they are on location. Clearly, for the President of the United States to go directly to a military facility and look the troops in the eye and tell them that help is coming says a lot about the President. And believe me, it will do a lot for the morale of the military in this country. He is going to be traveling to additional military installations this week to see and hear just what the needs are as those needs are addressed by the men and women who serve. He is committed to address these urgent needs, and specifically pay raises, housing, benefits, and the like. I fully support him in that effort. I believe for the last 8 years our military has suffered. I might just say it is nice to hear a President talking about strengthening the military. The needs of our military in the last 8 years have not been funded, and our military has been overextended for too many peacekeeping missions for which it was neither trained nor equipped. In addition to that, oftentimes these missions were conducted without being budgeted, which forced the dollars to come out of the hides of the men and women who serve in terms of readiness and other accounts. As the Senator in the Chair understands full well, our military readiness is at an all-time low. Planes are not flying for lack of spare parts and numerous accidents. Two Army helicopters crashed yesterday. Ships aren't sailing for lack of fuel. Soldiers aren't training for lack of ammunition. I remember looking a young marine in the eye aboard the U.S.S. Nassau a couple of weeks ago and asking him if he needed anything other than a little more money. He said: Yes, I would like to have that, but I also would appreciate it, Senator, if you could give me some ammunition for this weapon that I need to fire. We don't have even dummy rounds to practice for this particular weapon. He showed me the weapon. I was shocked by that, frankly. But, again, let me reassure our military that help is on the way. In fact, I think it has arrived. Like the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, my friend Senator Warner, I support this effort by the administration to complete a top- to-bottom assessment of the military. I think it is important when we do that assessment to do it on the basis of what the needs are and understand that we are doing it for that reason--to assess the needs-- and not to come to some foregone conclusion and then prove it with your top-to-bottom assessment. We need to be sure we are buying the right weapons for the right threats. The United States has a strong economy and a great open society. Unfortunately, it is the only remaining superpower in the world. That also makes us a target for those who oppose our values of life and our liberties. The world is not a friendly place. We see violence and unrest every night on the news. I do not know if people realize it, but when you go and talk to the men and women out there, their lives are on the line every day. I stood on the bridge of the U.S.S. Nassau in Malta and watched a small Maltese Navy gunboat circling around that ship 24 hours a day to keep guard so that no terrorists could get to that ship. Oftentimes, as we found with the U.S.S. Cole, we didn't have that kind of security from the host country. So weapons of mass destruction--nuclear, chemical, and biological-- continue to proliferate around the world into the hands of dictators and demagogues who might, in desperation, choose to oppose us and, worst of all, fall into the hands of terrorists. We face new threats, such as cyberattacks on our command and control networks and our vulnerable civil infrastructure. Our military needs to think through these new defense challenges and architect the right force for our Nation for the new century. I will give the administration the time it needs to work through these issues as they present a new budget. As a member of the Emerging Threats Subcommittee and Strategic Forces Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I fully appreciate the challenges that President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld face as they try to rebuild our military and simultaneously set us on the right course for this new century. It is not going to be an easy job. There are a lot of needs. We have a lot of ground to make up and a lot of new things to do. In the meantime, like Chairman Warner, I expect a new administration will be requesting a supplemental. But that is not my decision to make. I am hopeful that will be the case. There is no better way to understand the needs of our military than to get out of Washington and visit them. As I said, I salute the President for doing that. I went on the U.S.S. Nassau, and one of the sailors walked up to me and said: Senator, is there any reason why a member of the United States Navy like me who is an E2 cannot get sea pay? I am serving aboard ship, and everybody from E4 and above gets sea pay, and those of us at E1, E2, and E3 don't. We are going to take care of that. That matter has already been brought to the attention of the chairman of the Armed Services Committee in the Senate as well as the relevant committees in the House of Representatives. But it felt good to be back at sea. It felt good to be on board ship. It reminded me of my service aboard the U.S.S. Navasota during the Vietnam war. It didn't feel good enough to reenlist, but it was a great time. There were 13 members of the U.S. Navy and Marines on board from New Hampshire. We listened, had lunch, and we talked. They deserve our support. They deserve compensation commensurate with the rest of America. From E1 to E3--the lowest pay grades in the Navy serving aboard that ship swabbing the decks and doing all the hard work--don't get sea pay, and those E4s and above do. That is wrong. We are going to take care of that. All of our sailors face the same threat. They deal with the same personal issues while they are away from home and family. They have children to raise. They have things to do that they miss--all kinds of family things they miss while they are away while we ask them to do it. They shouldn't be on food stamps and should have a reasonable salary. They ought to be compensated fairly. We are going to take care of the sea pay with legislation this year so that those E1 and E3 sailors will be compensated. I appreciate the military's current desire to hold out the prospect of sea pay as a reenlistment bonus. However, these sailors are paying the same price at sea as the senior sailors. To say you can serve your first elected tour of duty and not get it, but if you re-up, we will give to it to you, is simply wrong. We will find another incentive to get them to re-up. I think, frankly, for them to re-up, we should tell them we are going to appreciate you and we are going to pay you sea pay because you are away from your home and family. In addition to some of the readiness problems and personnel issues we are dealing with now in the military, I think one of the biggest challenges Secretary Rumsfeld is going to face is space and how we utilize space. Of course, Secretary Rumsfeld understands that as well as anybody. He chaired the space commission, so-called, that was created in our Armed Services defense bill. I was proud to be the author of that language. One of the plain reasons is the U.S. economy is so strong that we should use our satellite capabilities to fuel our new information-based science. Satellites support Americans every day. I don't think we realize how important they are. They support our weather, help hunters and boaters navigate; they provide pagers and telephones to communicate with travelers anywhere on the surface of the Earth. But we cannot stop there, however. We must also keep our promises to those who have already given a lifetime of service to this country. Just as our soldiers, sailors, and airmen were there for us, protecting us--we must be there for our veterans and military retirees. Therefore, I am introducing legislation today to eliminate the military survivor's benefit penalty. Mr. President, this legislation will repeal the existing reduction in the Survivor Benefit Plan spouses currently suffer when they reach the age of 62. Today, after years of paying heavy premiums for this optional benefit, survivors of military retirees receive 55 percent of their spouses service pay prior to age 62. However, once these spouses reach age 62, their benefits are drastically reduced to only 35 percent. The overwhelming majority of these beneficiaries are women. This reduction in benefits will have a devastating effect on their quality of life. In addition to eliminating this reduction in benefits which retired military spouses incur when they turn 62, spouses whose loved one passed away after their 62nd birthday will also receive full 55 percent. Passage of this important legislation will bring the military Survivor Benefits Plan more in line with other Federal and civil servants employee health plans. After a lifetime of sacrifice, we owe it to our military retirees to provide them with peace of mind that their spouse will be taken care of after their death. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to support our retirees and pass this legislation immediately. One of the many important defense challenges President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld face is protecting America's lead in space activities. One of the main reasons the U.S. economy is so strong is our use of satellite capabilities to fuel our new information-based society. Satellites support Americans every day. For example, they support our weather forecasts, help hunters and boaters navigate, provide pagers and phones that can communicate with travelers anywhere on the surface of the earth, and allow farmers to check on the health of their fields. Our soldiers, sailors, and airmen also rely on space assets. Accordingly, the utilization of space will also be at the forefront of our national security agenda during this century, and I will work to ensure that America expands its leadership in this military arena. To help the nation better posture for that future challenge, I authored the provision in the FY2000 Defense Authorization Act that created a commission 2 years ago called the ``Commission to Assess National Security Space Management and Organization,'' more commonly known today as the Space Commission. Coincidentally, the chairman chosen last year to lead that commission became our new Secretary of Defense--Donald Rumsfeld. Last month, they finished their work, and I commend Secretary Rumsfeld, the commissioners, and the staff for their outstanding work, and for thoroughly pulling together a great deal of research and data. The Commission's findings confirm my long-held view of the growing importance of space to the nation and my belief that space management and organization reforms are urgently needed as America's commercial, civil, and military reliance on space assets expands. The Commission's recommendations lay the foundations for what I have often maintained--military space activities should evolve to the eventual creation of a separate Space Force. The United States has shown the world the value of space in providing information superiority on the modern battlefield. As we move into the new century, we need to: Defend our current space-based information superiority; be able to deny our adversaries that same capability (thorough programs I have long supported like KE- SAT and Clementine); and leverage the uniqueness of space to be able to rapidly project military force around the world (thorough programs I have long supported like Space Plane). We need a strong advocate for space to fight for and justify these new space programs needed for the 21st century in competition with many other pressing military investment requirements. Near-term management and organization reforms recommended by the Commission will begin to put in place the leadership and advocacy for space programs that have long been lacking. Another of the many defense challenges President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld face is protecting America from missile attack. I salute the administration's commitment to deploying a robust missile defense for this nation. Many Americans don't realize that the United States does not have a defense against a missile attack today. Meanwhile, for years, Russia has deployed various missile defenses around Moscow and other sites which has been ignored by ABM Treaty proponents. These missiles could carry weapons of mass destruction--a nuclear, chemical, or biological warhead that could wreak havoc on a U.S. city. We have a constitutional responsibility to defend America. Homeland defense from missile attack is essential. With such a threat hanging over our leader's head, it is impossible to contemplate engaging globally in the best interest of the United States--no President would risk a U.S. city to come to the aid of an ally. Worst yet, countries like China and North Korea continue to proliferate missile technology to rogue nations. I am pleased that the President and his Cabinet have been so pro- active in explaining this important issue to our allies. A U.S. missile defense system, both theater and national is not intended as a threat to any nation. It is intended to defend America, and we have a duty to deploy such a defense. While I salute the military's efforts to develop a near-term missile- defense capability, I want to work with the administration to ensure we have a robust, multilayered architecture that includes the current land-based concept with sea-, air-, and space-based systems to eliminate this threat to U.S. cities and our deployed forces. Today, President Bush visited the only NATO facility on U.S. soil at the Joint Forces Command at Norfolk, VA. President Bush watched an allied U.S.-NATO coordinated response to a simulated missile attack. I understand the President commented ``Pretty exciting technology, and it's only going to get better.`` I agree that this technology is only going to get better. America needs to make a commitment to protect it's citizens from threats that come on a missile, including biological and chemical weapons. I look forward to working with the new administration, President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld, to rebuild our military and set the nation on the right course for the new century. Let me assure the military, help has arrived. Finally, continuing on the area of missile defense, this is a very important challenge faced by President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld in protecting the United States. Over the last several years, I have been involved in so many debates on the floor, so many discussions. I know the Senator from Oklahoma has as well. We are trying to save a national missile defense program only to have it put off with some wordsmithing or delay. I salute President Bush's commitment to deploying a robust missile defense for this Nation. It is immoral not to do it. I also salute, because it was his birthday a few days ago, President Reagan on his 90th birthday for being the visionary he was on this issue. It was Ronald Reagan who really convinced Gorbachev that we could have built that thing 20 years ago when, in fact, we couldn't. Because he convinced Gorbachev that we could and that it might be a threat to him, the Soviet Union essentially folded as the threat that it was to the world in the cold war for so long. Ronald Reagan knew this could be done. He was laughed at, still is to some extent on that issue. But 10, 15, 20 years from now, when we have this thing up and going and it is protecting our troops in the field, protecting our allies and protecting our own homeland, Ronald Reagan will get the credit he deserves so richly for coming up with that visionary promise of a missile defense system. Russia has deployed various missile defenses around Moscow and other sites which have been ignored by the ABM Treaty proponents. These missiles could carry weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical, and biological, that could wreak havoc on a U.S. city, and we have basically ignored it. We have a constitutional responsibility to defend America. I can remember seeing little tapes of so-called focus groups where they would ask 15 or 20 people in a room what would happen if another nation, such as China or Iran or Iraq, fired a missile at the United States of America. All of them answered: We would shoot it down. All of them were wrong. We do not have the capability to shoot down such a missile, but we need that capability. We need the capability to shoot it down over the aggressor's homeland, not over ourselves. So that is where this missile defense system is so important. I hear the criticisms: It won't work; it is too expensive; we don't need it. The bottom line is, if we can defend America from any missile attack, whether it be accidental or deliberate or whatever, we need to do it. That is our obligation. We have a constitutional responsibility to defend America. Homeland defense from missile attack is the moral thing to do. With such a threat hanging over our leader's head, it is impossible to contemplate engaging globally in the best interests of the United States. No President should risk a U.S. city to come to the aid of an ally. And worst yet, China, North Korea, and other nations continue to proliferate missile technology. There is some really shocking documentation, both public as well as classified, that will tell us that this is a serious matter. I am pleased the President and Secretary of Defense and his Cabinet have been so proactive in explaining this important issue to our allies. I understand that Secretary Rumsfeld went to Europe, was very forceful to our allies, saying: You are free nations. You have the right to your views, but our view is we need to protect ourselves and to defend this system and build this system, and we are going to do it. In closing, I will just say I look forward to working with President Bush, working with my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee to improve our readiness, to improve pay for our military and benefits, to cut all of the excessive operations throughout the world that are not really related to defense and get our military morale back. It is going to be exciting, and I look forward to being a part of it. I ask unanimous consent to print the text of the legislation in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

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

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate in morning business for no longer than 15 minutes.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and celebrate the 90th birthday of our 40th President, Ronald Wilson Reagan. It is ironic that today this body is debating the merits of a tax cut. Almost twenty years ago, President Reagan introduced and helped to pass the largest tax cut in our Nation's history. Nearly two decades later, we are still enjoying the economic benefits of that tax cut. Our economy has had real growth every year since 1982, with the exception of a tiny 1.2 percent dip in 1991. Thanks to President Reagan's tax cut, we have experienced by far the longest run of economic growth in American history. President Reagan's main reason for supporting tax relief was not to provide an economic stimulus, although that was an inevitable result. His main reason was to promote freedom. Freedom from the heavy hand of Government. Freedom to spend one's own hard earned money on whatever one wanted. Back in our country's colonial days, the colonists would tar and feather tax collectors because they had to pay around one percent of their wages. One percent! The famous Boston Tea Party was another way that our forefathers protested a relatively small, by our modern standards, tax increase. But by 1980, our highest tax rate was an enormous 70 percent! President Reagan understood that such a tax rate was indefensible. It was unjust, oppressive and against everything for which our Nation stands. He supported and got a 25 percent across the board tax cut. He knew that the American people, not the American Government, knew best how to spend their own money. Pretty revolutionary thinking. President Reagan also took office at the height of Communist expansion around the world. The Soviet Union had just invaded Afghanistan. Southeast Asia was still experiencing the dreadful repercussions of Pol Pot. Communist insurgents were wreaking havoc all over Central America. The embryonic Solidarity movement in Poland was being brutally repressed. The voice of Democracy was being stifled around the globe. Our own armed forces were in a shambles, both in terms of morale and military readiness. But our President did not waver. He knew that as the most visible leader of the Free World, he must stand up for freedom and democracy. And despite facing strong opposition, at home and abroad, from those who considered the dominance of the Soviet Union to be inevitable, President Reagan stood up and helped change the course of history. It was his military buildup that showed the Soviet Union that we meant business. He knew that the Communists could not withstand an arms race. He knew that eventually the voices of freedom would drown out the nightmarish cries of Communist regimes. He knew that our country's character, dedication, industriousness and resolve would push the Soviet Empire into the abyss. All our Nation needed was a leader. And because of his visionary leadership, the Berlin Wall came crumbling down, democracy spread across Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union collapsed. Today millions of Europeans view President Reagan as their liberator, and our economy has been further helped along because of the ``peace dividend.'' President Reagan was known as the ``Great Communicator.'' Sometimes this was used as s derisive term against him, as though the only reason ordinary Americans liked and trusted him was because the former actor had somehow pulled the wool over their eyes. Nothing could be further from the truth. The American people saw an uncomplicated man, much like themselves, who held the same traditional values as they did. They saw a man who personified class. They saw a man who led by example, a man who never took off his jacket in the Oval Office because he held The People's sacred trust in such high esteem. Most important of all, they saw a man who trusted them to run their own lives. No wonder the American people love Ronald Reagan. No wonder we elected him twice by overwhelming margins. He proved to everyone, at home and abroad, that ``Government is not the solution--Government is the problem.'' He gave us hope for the future. He gave us hope for our country. He gave us hope in ourselves. He told us that it was ``morning in America'' again and that our great Nation is a ``shining city on the hill.'' Although President Reagan's voice has been silenced by Alzheimer's, we can still hear the echoes of freedom ringing from his writings and his presidency. We can still pay homage to his deeds by recognizing the woman behind the man, his wife, Nancy. Mrs. Reagan, we salute you. Today we honor the life and leadership of Ronald Wilson Reagan. Without his shining example, our country, and our world, would be a much darker place. Happy Birthday Mr. President!

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, Senator Ashcroft has received broad bipartisan support from a number of organizations. I ask unanimous consent that a list of 332 organizations supporting Senator Ashcroft be placed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I consider it an honor and privilege to stand here today in support of the nomination of John Ashcroft to be Attorney General of the United States. Contrary to some of the rhetoric we have been hearing from the other side, everybody in this institution knows he is one of the finest people who ever served here. He is a man of great religious faith, a moral man. Yet as we listen to this debate, if it wasn't for the fact that it was so personally destructive and so vindictive, it would be humorous. We have a man who served 6 years in the Senate, served two terms as Governor, two terms as attorney general of the State of Missouri. Yet to hear the debate, he is anti-child, anti-woman, anti-black, anti-gay, anti-Catholic. What else can possibly be said? One thing we can certainly be assured of--the left knows how to play politics. They do it well, and I commend them for it. Unfortunately, though, sometimes in politics, one destroys unfairly the reputations of people who don't deserve it. That is what offends me the most. I will not use the term ``anger,'' but it does offend me that this kind of personal destruction has to be used. I recall the comments earlier in the debate today of Senator Leahy when he said there are 280 million Americans with divergent ethnic backgrounds and political views. Out of that 280 million Americans, according to the left, if there are any of those 280 million Americans who are conservative and happen to be pro-life or pro-gun, they can't be Attorney General. If they are pro-choice or if they are anti-gun, then they can be. I again remind my colleagues that the vote on Janet Reno was 98-0. Most of us on this side of the aisle would agree that her views and ours were quite different, but we supported her nomination because the President of the United States has a right to pick his or her Cabinet. That is a fact. I will respond directly to this anti-Catholic charge. It is so outrageous, I don't know how people can look in the mirror, to be candid about it, and do this kind of personal destruction. Let me read from a copy of a letter I just received from Senator Kennedy's own cardinal, Cardinal Law. I will read it into the Record: Dear Senator Ashcroft: Let me begin by expressing my deep dismay at the unfounded and scurrilous charge that you could possibly harbor anti-Catholic feelings. I was astounded to hear that anyone was making such a ridiculous accusation. From any time as Bishop of Springfield/Cape Girardeau until today, I have always found you to be a man of honor, integrity and deep faith. I recall with great fondness the many opportunities we had to work together on many issues affecting the lives of the good people of the State of Missouri. In a particular way, I recall how kind and thoughtful you were to invite me to address The Governor's Annual Prayer Breakfast on January 9, 1992 when you were serving as the Governor of Missouri. On that same day you also honored me with an invitation to address The Governor's Leadership Forum on Faith and Values. College students, then and now, are beneficiaries of your generous love and concern for them and their futures. I do not recall that you made any distinctions between black and white, Protestant, Catholic or Jew in your desire to instill in them a love for their faith, their families and one another as brothers and sisters in the human family. Let me assure you, John, of my prayers. Asking God to bless you, Janet, the children and all whom you hold dear and with warm personal regards. I am Sincerely yours in Christ, Bernard F. Law, Archbishop of Boston. Mr. President, there are a long line of people on the basis of their position on life who couldn't be Attorney General. We could start with Jesus Christ himself. We could also add to that list the Pope, Mother Teresa, all the cardinals in the United States. We are going to have to eliminate a whole lot of people. It is so outrageous and, frankly, pathetic, it really exposes the left for what they are. It exposes the left for what they are. Let me read part of a comment made by Bill Bennett: What you are seeing is the true face of the Democratic Party. What you are seeing is them saying to a man ``you are perfectly decent, everything you have done is within the law, you haven't harbored any illegal aliens, you have never left the scene of a crime, you led an exemplary life, but we don't approve of your views. You dare to say you are pro-life, you dare to say you are opposed to reverse discrimination and for that you will pay. For that we will make this experience something you will never forget.'' I hope they do it. I hope the American people watch it. If you want to see the haters, you'll see them in these press conferences behind the attempt to kill the Ashcroft nomination. You can't say it any better than that. People should be ashamed of themselves. Who did our side oppose on a Cabinet appointment in the Clinton administration? They all were approved by voice vote, with the exception of Janet Reno. That was 98-0. The activist Democrats shooting at John Ashcroft in his bid to become America's next Attorney General have revealed the ugliness about themselves, not the nominee. So said Betsy Hart of Scripps Howard. That is the truth. There is the ugliness. It is not John Ashcroft. John Ashcroft sat on that committee on a panel and took those questions and took that abuse. He was decent, respectful, honorable, gracious, and took it all. He is above them all. He showed it on national television. He is above them all. His critics couldn't tie his shoe laces or even shine his boots. Betsy Hart also said: Apparently these folks are so comfortable with using cabinet offices to create law instead of to enforce existing laws and so content to see judges write new law instead of interpret existing law, they can't fathom a responsible officeholder who will honor the rule of law. You cannot say it any better than that, if you are prepared for 10 years. That sums it up in a nutshell. They are so used to using these positions to create law, they can't believe a person such as John Ashcroft, who will say to you: I worked as hard as I could as a Member of the Senate to create laws for what I believe in. So does everybody else on the left, and you have every right to do that. But there is a difference between that John Ashcroft and the John Ashcroft, however reluctant he may be, who will step up to the plate as the Attorney General of the United States and enforce the law--yes, even the laws he doesn't like. His record proves he did it over and over and over and over and over again. There is not one shred of evidence to indicate that he didn't do it. I am sick and tired of the hypocrisy in this place. Much was made about another issue; when you start getting into the racial charges, that hits right below the belt. I am going to answer it. It deserves to be answered. Is there anybody in here whose spouse taught for several years at a predominantly black school? Is that racist? In the news today is speculation that his No. 2 person may, in fact, be black. So what. The most qualified person should be who he picks. Then the issue of desegregation in the St. Louis matter before the Governor and the attorney general. During that suit, the job of the attorney general and the Governor was to support the State's position, to defend the State. It wasn't about segregation. It was about taxes. It was about busing. It was a very controversial issue. Those who opposed busing or imposing taxes by the courts on the citizens were not racists. Anyone who implies that is flat out wrong. If John Ashcroft is guilty of segregation because he defended the State, then why is Jay Nixon, who is the attorney general, himself, not guilty of the same thing? Why is it that two prominent Members of this body--I will introduce this into the Record--Senator Kennedy and Senator Harkin--invite you to a breakfast ``to meet and support Missouri Senate candidate, Attorney General Jay Nixon, Tuesday, March 31, 1998, at The Monocle for a contribution of $5,000 or finish your max-out?'' He did the same thing as Ashcroft did. And it is hypocrisy to stand here and say this to destroy the reputation of one of the finest people who ever served here. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this announcement be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to honor former United States Senator Warren Rudman of New Hampshire, whose dedication to public service has earned him the respect and admiration of a grateful nation. On January 8th of this year, Senator Rudman was awarded the Presidential Citizens Medal which recognizes exemplary service by a citizen of the United States. The medal recognizes Senator Rudman for co- authoring the Gramm-Rudman- Hollings deficit reduction law that requires automatic spending cuts if annual deficit targets are missed. Senator Rudman served in the United States Army as a combat platoon leader and company commander during the Korean conflict. After graduating from Boston College Law school, he returned to New Hampshire to practice law and was later appointed Attorney General of the State. Senator Rudman serves as Chairman of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and was also appointed to serve as Vice Chairman of the Commission on Roles and Capabilities of the United States Intelligence Community. During his distinguished twelve years in the Senate, Senator Rudman established a record of independence. While a member of the Senate, he served on the Ethics Committee and the Senate Appropriations Committee, where he was active on the Subcommittees on Defense and Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary. Warren Rudman is an exemplary citizen who has dedicated himself to serving the people of New Hampshire and our country for over three decades. He continues to selflessly give of his time within the community and serves on the Board of Trustees of Boston College, Valley Forge Military Academy, the Brookings Institution and the Aspen Institute. The people of our state and country look to Senator Rudman with tremendous gratitude and admiration for all that he has done. It has been a pleasure and privilege of mine to have worked with a leader as extraordinary as Warren Rudman. Warren, it is an honor to represent you in the United States Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. The National Sheriffs' Association wrote a letter on behalf of John Ashcroft for Attorney General. On this business about Ronnie White, the truth of the matter is the individual accused of that crime, Mr. Johnson, went on a 24-hour crime spree, killed three sheriffs, killing the wife of another one at a party during the Christmas holidays, and he was given all kinds of legal defenses. Ronnie White argued that Johnson's defense team, a group of three private attorneys with extensive trial experience, had provided ineffective assistance. Fine; he has a right to do that. Ronnie White was a judge. He had a right to say this guy deserves some more help. But he also has to expect that if you make those kinds of decisions, somebody may hold that against you when you go up for another judgeship somewhere. That is all it was. That is what that was about. It wasn't about racism; it was about a judge who some of us thought--55 of us, as a matter of fact--thought shouldn't be on the court because of his views on crime. I urge my colleagues to rethink their positions and understand it is important that we understand that a President should pick his nominee and that this nominee is a fine man--one of the finest who ever served here. He should be confirmed, and I hope he will be confirmed, as the next Attorney General. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Kay James said it about as well as you can say it. ``Religious profiling,'' that is what it is. You can't be a man of faith or a woman of faith. You can't be that. You can't have views that differ with the left. Otherwise, you can't serve. That is it. Bipartisanship? I will tell you how far it reaches when we agree with that. That is when we get bipartisanship. They never come over to agree with us. That is what this debate is about. It is about the continuation of the election. The election is over. Hello, the election is over, folks. The President of the United States should pick his Cabinet. That is the right thing to do, and every one of you knows it. To get into this character assassination of racism, anti-Catholic, antigay, anti-this, anti-that--there is not a shred of evidence about John Ashcroft that would indicate that, and you ought to examine your conscience before you vote. John Ashcroft is well qualified to be Attorney General, maybe one of the most qualified ever to even be put up for nomination. During the debate on Janet Reno, I recall her views against the death penalty. I happen to support the death penalty. I voted for Reno because Reno said she would enforce the law, and if the law of the land is the death penalty, she said she would enforce it. That is fine. Do I agree with everything Janet Reno did? No. Bill Clinton won the Presidency and had the right to pick his Attorney General. That is the situation right now. George Bush is the President, and he has the right to pick. If you think John Ashcroft is not going to enforce the law, then say so. If you think he is a racist, say so. But there is not one shred of evidence that indicates otherwise. This business about Ronnie White is so outrageous that it really just defies logic to talk about it. The National Sheriffs' Association wrote a letter, and I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Ben Augello of Weare, New Hampshire, an elementary school principal whose devotion to education serves as an inspiration for his colleagues and students alike. Recently named Elementary Principal of the Year by the New Hampshire Association of School Principals, Ben is known for his incomparable listening skills. Ben's lifelong dream since childhood to become a teacher began in New York where he taught science to middle school students. He had a special talent for making every student feel valued and special. Ben has been the principal of the Center Woods Elementary School in Weare, New Hampshire, since 1991. He oversaw the construction of the school and has also spearheaded development of the school's inclusionary model. Mr. Augello is an enthusiastic administrator who exudes a warmth and openness that permeates the school. Married for thirty-seven years, Ben and his wife Bunny have two children: Christine, a resident of Nashua, and Peter, who resides in Florida. Ben's hobbies include cooking and traveling throughout the United States and Europe. Ben Augello is a tribute to his community and profession. 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 am going to just take another 2 or 3 minutes to make some comments on the Norton nomination and then will not use all of the remaining time but will be happy to yield it back so we can move to the next nominee. Again, let me just reiterate my strong support for Governor Whitman in this position as EPA Administrator. She is extremely well qualified--one of the most qualified people ever to be recommended for the job. She has firsthand experience as a Governor dealing with these problems--some of them on the receiving end of the Federal Government and other times just working in cooperation with the Federal Government. It is an exciting opportunity to work together on the agenda I talked about a few moments ago: clean air, clean water, infrastructure, many other issues that will be coming before us, including MTBE, which is a big issue in New Hampshire and New Jersey.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the President's nominee for the Secretary of the Interior, Gale Norton. I know there are some groups out there that have mischaracterized her record and have indicated some fears or concerns. I remember similar fears and concerns being expressed about me. It didn't seem to work out the way some thought it would. They have resorted to name calling, misrepresenting her record, making false accusations. We are probably going to hear some of those accusations repeated on the floor today, regretfully. I begin by trying to set the record straight. I think this business of personal attacking and trying to destroy people personally is a mistake that is uncalled for. It is one thing to disagree on the issues. It is another thing to begin to get into name calling and making accusations about people's character that are not justified. Let me stick to the record. Gale Norton has a strong environmental record. Certainly, if we look at the facts in Colorado at Rocky Flats and Rocky Mountain Arsenal, she has a strong record of enforcing Federal and State environmental laws vigorously and fairly. As attorney general of Colorado, she fought to make the Federal Government and private companies clean up hazardous and nuclear waste left behind at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal and Rocky Flats. At the Rocky Mountain Arsenal, she fought all the way the U.S. Supreme Court for the State's right to hold the Federal Government to the same stringent cleanup standards that she applied to private companies. She sued not to try to weaken the cleanup standard but to strengthen it. Today the Rocky Mountain Arsenal is a national wildlife refuge. That is not an accident. That is strong leadership on the part of this nominee for Secretary of the Interior. The extreme environmental groups also blame Ms. Norton for the Summitville mine disaster and suggest that she didn't do enough to enforce the law. Again, their facts are wrong completely. Ms. Norton did go after the mine operator shortly after she took office. Because of her actions, the mine operator was forced to operate a water treatment facility to prevent contamination from spreading. She also brought an enforcement action against the mine operator recovering millions of dollars to pay for the cleanup. She did not let the polluter off the hook. To the contrary, she made the polluter pay. This ``let the polluter off the hook'' is a favorite expression of the left to somehow assume that if you try to work to get cleanup and you are not extracting every last dollar from every person who has it, somehow we are letting polluters off the hook. As we know, we have crossed this rubicon in the past. We have crossed that threshold, and it depends on which polluter we are talking about. What is a polluter? Is a polluter somebody who throws a ballpoint pen in a landfill? Under some definitions, yes. We have to be very careful how we throw that term around. We are going to hear it a lot today in the debate, that somehow she let the polluters off the hook. The facts are, she did not. These are just a few examples. Anyone who looks at her record-- instead of the environmental groups' characterizations--will see that Ms. Norton enforced the law and she protected the environment at the same time. She appreciates the value of preserving our land. She grew up in Colorado. She understands what wilderness means and what it means to live in a beautiful, pristine area such as central Colorado. The extreme environmental groups have also suggested that Gale Norton cannot be trusted to protect our public lands, our national parks and refuges and wilderness areas. That is not true. Her record demonstrates that Ms. Norton values our public lands and she will protect them. Again, just look at the record. As attorney general, she worked with Congress to craft the Colorado wilderness bill that established 19 new wilderness areas in the State. That doesn't sound like somebody who is opposed to cleaning up our environment and protecting our wilderness. That bill was enacted in part because of Ms. Norton's efforts to build consensus for the preservation of those lands. Her record at the Department of Interior, where she was Associate Solicitor for Conservation and Wildlife from 1985 to 1987, shows once again that she was an effective advocate for protecting our public lands and natural resources, including endangered species. Let me name just a few of her accomplishments in the Solicitor's Office: She represented the Fish and Wildlife Service in its successful effort to add 80,000-90,000 acres to the Big Cypress National Preserve. She was involved in an effort to add 5,000 acres to complete the Florida Panther National Wildlife Reserve in Florida. She fought to ensure the success of the captive breeding program that saved the California condor when environmental groups sued to try to stop it. If they had succeeded, the condor would now be extinct. She fought for the acquisition of land to extend the Appalachian Trail. She worked on the regulations that banned lead shot for migratory birds, saving millions of birds. She secured funds for the restoration of Ellis Island and the Statue of Liberty. And she negotiated the original agreement with Senator McCain to restrict overflights in the Grand Canyon. Again, these are just a few of her accomplishments over the past 15 years, but they paint a clear picture. They paint a picture of someone who has dedicated her life to public service, to preserving the environment and natural resources, and to enforcing the law. They paint a picture of an individual who is highly qualified to be the next Secretary of Interior, and the first woman to serve in that position. I urge my colleagues to consider the facts, not the distortions, in making their decisions about Gale Norton. I strongly support Ms. Norton's nomination to be Secretary of the Interior, and look forward to working with her on the many challenges that lay ahead.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Following morning business, it is expected the Senate will begin consideration of the Ashcroft nomination to be Attorney General of the United States. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, the Senate will now immediately begin consideration of the nomination of Governor Whitman's nomination to be Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Under the previous order, there will be 30 minutes for debate on the nomination. Following that debate, the Senate will resume consideration of the nomination of Gale Norton to be Secretary of the Interior. There will be approximately 2 hours for closing debate with two consecutive votes scheduled to occur at 2:45 p.m. on the Norton nomination for Secretary of the Interior and the Whitman nomination for EPA Administrator. I now ask unanimous consent that immediately following the votes, the Senate proceed to a period of morning business with Senator Lott or his designee in control of the time until 3:45 p.m. and Senator Daschle in control of the following 20 minutes, beginning at 3:45 p.m.