Bob Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S.J. Res. 36, and the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 340, and the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 231, and the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 3164, and the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000, S. 835. This is an important piece of legislation that will enhance our ability to protect the nation's valuable shoreline habitats, extend the cooperative partnership to preserve the Chesapeake Bay and Long Island Sound, and expand the effort to improve water quality in our nation's lakes. I am proud to have been a cosponsor of this legislation and to have had the opportunity to work with our colleagues in the House of Representatives to ensure its passage this year. This legislation was of particular importance to our former colleague, and my friend, Senator John Chafee. He was the principal sponsor of this bill and a long time champion of estuaries. A year ago, under his chairmanship, the Committee on Environment and Public Works reported out S. 835 by voice vote. Since then, his son, Senator Lincoln Chafee has continued the effort to get an estuaries bill signed into law. I am grateful for his leadership and am pleased to join him in that effort. With the Senate's passage of the Conference Report on S. 835 today, and similar action in the House, we will achieve that goal. I believe that is a fitting tribute to Senator John Chafee. S. 835 exemplifies environmental policy based on partnership and cooperation, and not on top-down mandates and over-burdensome Federal regulations. The bill encourages States, local governments and nongovernmental organizations to work together to identify estuary habitat restoration projects. With the federal government, acting through the Army Corps of Engineers, as a partner, communities across the country will be able to restore and enhance one million acres of estuaries. Because these projects will be implemented in partnership with local sponsors, there will be little cost to the taxpayer. This is exactly the kind of environmental success that we should all be proud of supporting. To understand how important this Act is for protecting the environment, one has to understand what estuaries are and how valuable they are to our society. Estuaries are the bays, gulfs, sounds, and inlets where fresh water from rivers and streams meets and mixes with salt water from the ocean. More simply, estuaries are where the rivers meet the sea. You can find examples of estuaries in costal marshes, coastal wetlands, maritime forests, sea grass meadows and river deltas. Estuaries represent some of the most environmentally and economically productive habitats in the world. Estuaries are critical for wildlife. Approximately 50 percent of the nation's migratory songbirds are linked to coastal estuary habitats, while nearly 30 percent of North American waterfowl rely upon coastal estuary habitat for wintering grounds. Many threatened and endangered species depend upon estuaries for their survival. Estuaries also play a major role in commercial and recreational fishing. Approximately seventy-five percent of the commercial fish catch, and eighty to ninety percent of the recreational fish catch, depend in some way on estuaries. Estuaries also contribute significantly to the quality of life for many Americans. Over half of the population of the United States lives near a coastal area; a great majority of Americans visit estuaries every year to swim, fish, hunt, dive, bike, view wildlife, and learn. For many states, tourism associated with estuaries provides enormous economic benefit. In fact, the coastal recreation and tourism industry is the second largest employer in the nation, serving 180 million Americans each year. These many attributes of estuaries are especially important to me because of the rich coast line of New Hampshire. New Hampshire estuaries contribute to the dynamic habitat and beauty of the State, as well as the economy. Recreational shell fishing alone contributes an estimated $3 million annually to the State and local economies. New Hampshire has been in the forefront of the national effort to identify and protect sensitive estuary habitats. The New Hampshire Great Bay/Little Bay and Hampton Harbor, and their tributary rivers joined the National Estuary Program in July of 1995 as part of the New Hampshire Estuaries Project. I am particularly pleased that the Conference Report on S. 835 specifically mentions the Great Bay Estuary and directs the Secretary of the Army to give priority consideration to the Great Bay Estuary in selecting estuary habitat restoration projects. The Great Bay Estuary has a rich cultural history. It's beauty and resources attracted the Paleo-Indians to the area nearly 6,000 years ago. It was also the site of a popular summer resort during the 1800s, as well as a shipyard. As a Senator from New Hampshire, I am proud to help preserve this historical and ecological resource for future generations. Unfortunately, many of the estuaries around the United States including those in New Hampshire, have been harmed by urbanization of the surrounding areas. According to the EPA's National Water Quality Inventory, 38 percent of the surveyed estuary habitat is impaired. The Estuaries and Clean Waters Act is a tremendous step forward in establishing a much-needed restoration program that does not duplicate existing efforts, but instead builds upon them. The legislation establishes a new, collaborative, interagency, inter- governmental process for the selection and implementation of estuary habitat restoration projects. It is based on the premise that we should provide incentives to States, local communities, and the private sector to play a role in the restoration of estuary habitat. It also reflects the fundamental belief that the decisions of how to restore these estuaries should be made by those who know best--the local communities. The Secretary of the Army is authorized to use $275 million over the next five years to implement, with local partners, estuary habitat restoration projects that are selected from a list put together by a multi-agency Estuary Habitat Restoration Council. The Council gets the ideas for specific projects from the local communities and nongovernmental organizations that want to want to serve as partners in the projects. This is truly a collaborative process, from start to finish. In selecting specific projects, the Secretary is directed to take into consideration a number of factors. These factors include: technical feasibility and scientific merit; cost-effectiveness; whether the project will encourage increased coordination and cooperation among federal, State, and local governments; whether the project fosters public-private partnerships; and whether the project is part of an approved estuary management or habitat restoration plan. I am particularly pleased that special priority will be given to projects that test innovative technologies that have the potential for improving cost-effectiveness in estuary habitat restoration. These technologies are eligible to receive an increased federal cost share. Some of these technologies are now being identified and tested in the National Estuarine Research Reserve System. The University of New Hampshire plays an important role in the NERRS program. This bill also ensures accountability through ongoing monitoring and evaluation. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) will maintain a data base of restoration projects so that information and lessons learned from one project can be incorporated into other restoration projects. In addition, the Secretary is directed to submit to Congress two reports, after the third and fifth years of the program, a detailing the progress made under the Act. This report will allow us in the Congress, as well as the public, to assess the successes and failures of the projects and strategies developed under this Act. S. 835 also includes important provisions dealing with the National Estuaries Program, the Chesapeake Bay Program and the Long Island Sound. I know that the Chesapeake Bay Program has been of particular importance to Senator Warner. I am pleased that the final bill extended the authorizations for these three programs. I do want to acknowledge the important role that the National Estuaries Program (NEP) has played in raising national awareness of the value of estuary habitats. The NEP was established in 1988 and demonstrates what we can accomplish when Federal, State and local governments work in partnership. Participation in the program is voluntary and emphasizes watershed planning and community involvement. To date, 28 conservation plans under this program have been prepared for designated estuaries. I am pleased that New Hampshire is in the process of developing its own conservation plan. Unfortunately, the National Estuaries Program has not had sufficient resources to adequately address habitat restoration. Until now, in fact, only the development of the plans could be funded, not their implementation. S. 835 will change that. This bill will increase the authorization for the NEP from $12 million to $35 million annually through 2005. I believe that this overwhelmingly bipartisan bill represents an approach to environmental policy that should be the basis for solving all environmental problems. I strongly believe that we should seek to solve environmental problems together, on a bipartisan basis, through cooperation and partnership, and not through confrontation. We should trust the States and local governments as our partners, and allow decisions that affect local communities to made by at the local level. We must use our taxpayer dollars wisely and effectively; and we should insist on results and accountability. If we do these things, I believe we will do a better job of preserving our natural resources, cleaning up our waters, and improving our air quality. Mr. President, the Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000 takes an important step in the right direction. It's a bill that we should all be proud of. I thank my colleagues for supporting its passage.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Jenny Thompson of Dover, New Hampshire on her magnificent performance in the Sydney Olympic games. Her hard work and dedication through three Olympics is an example for all of us, and the people of New Hampshire are extremely proud of her success. Jenny has done so much throughout her career to make the people of Dover and New Hampshire proud during her distinguished career. Whether it was breaking records at Stanford University or winning numerous competitions, Jenny has set the standard for women's swimming in the United States over the past decade. Jenny's Olympic teammates often cite her achievements as their inspiration for striving for excellence in the pool. During the Sydney games, American swimmers brought home an impressive 33 of a possible 96 swimming medals, more than any other nation, and Jenny played a key role in that amazing success. She anchored two gold medal-winning relays and brought home her first individual Olympic medal, a bronze in the 100-meter freestyle. These blistering performances brought Jenny's individual Olympic medal count to nine, breaking Bonnie Blair's record for Olympic medals won by an American woman. Jenny performed beautifully under amazing pressure and against tough competition, and she will always be a champion in the eyes of the people of New Hampshire. As Jenny ends her Olympic swimming career, I wish her all the best as she heads to medical school. I am confident her amazing work ethic and dedication to excellence will serve her well in her career in medicine and any other endeavor she pursues. It is truly an honor to represent Jenny in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Captain John O'Grady, who recently completed a charity bicycle ride from Dayton, Ohio to Albuquerque, New Mexico to raise awareness and money for epilepsy charities. I am particularly proud of John because I had the pleasure of coaching this amazing young man during the 1973-74 baseball season at Kingswood Regional High School. John's desire to make his ride is deeply personal. Just this year, after 23 years as a pilot with United Parcel Service and Airborne Express, John suffered a grand mal seizure while dining at an airport restaurant after a flight. A few weeks later, John was stricken again and diagnosed with epilepsy. This was a shocking blow for a man who flew planes and hot air balloons for so many years. With his flying and driving privileges permanently taken away from him, John was forced to ride his bicycle everywhere he went. In fact, it was on a bike that he suffered the seizure that led to his epilepsy diagnosis, but John did not give up. Instead, he decided to try to use his experience to help others facing epilepsy and the charities that do such important work as we research and try to find a cure for this terrible disease. Since John enjoys hot-air ballooning so much and could not bear to miss the annual International Balloon Fiesta, he decided to ride his bike the 1,600 miles from Dayton, Ohio to the event in Albuquerque. Along the way, John has raised more than $11,000 for several epilepsy charities and inspired others battling epilepsy. John's ride has given people with epilepsy a platform on which they can finally talk about their disease and the discrimination they face on a daily basis. That is perhaps the most important legacy of this magnificent achievement. I want to congratulate John and wish him well in all he does. I am so proud of his courage and determination, and I am honored to have known him. It is an honor to serve him in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to and congratulate Framatome Connectors USA, of Manchester, on their nomination for this year's Secretary of Defense Employer Support Freedom Award. Their dedication to their employees who serve our country as part of the National Guard and Reserve is admirable and an example for other businesses. Framatome, which manufactures electrical connectors, serves the needs of its five employees who serve in the National Guard and Reserve in several very important ways. First, their compensation package for all employees includes differential pay between civilian and military salaries. The package also includes medical, dental, and life insurance and 401(k) coverage for the duration of the employee's duty commitment. Framatome has also established a policy that allows the employee on active duty to maintain his or her position with the company for as long as they required to remain on active duty. They believe the service of their employees to their country is important to our nation's defense, and anything they can do to make this service easier for their employees and their families is worth the effort. Framatome put this generous plan into action recently when one of their employees was mobilized and sent to Bosnia during a Presidential call up. The company believed that when an employee is activated and pulled away from his or her family, a financial cushion should be available to help bridge the gap during the salary transition from civilian to military pay. They wanted to be sure the family of the reservist or guardsman or woman would have the financial resources they needed to continue as close to normal a life as possible while their loved one was away. I applaud Framatome's effort to make Reserve or National Guard service easier for their employees, and the company's national recognition is certainly well-deserved. I know the employees who sacrifice so much to serve their country are extremely grateful for the chance to serve their country and work for such a compassionate, understanding company. It is an honor to serve all the people of Framatome, USA in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on a disturbing Department of Defense (DOD) policy that prohibits the adoption of retired military working dogs (MWD). The bill that I am speaking in support of today, H.R. 5314, will amend the law to allow a handler to adopt a retired military working dog. This legislation was constructed with the guidance and input of all the parties involved. While the Senate version provides more flexibility for the DOD than I would prefer, in the future the Congress will have the opportunity to evaluate the DOD's work when they report back to Congress on their progress in facilitating military dog adoptions. In discussions with the Managers, my understanding is that this change is only intended to protect the Department of Defense's flexibility to retain animals it determines to be unsuitable for release. In no way is this intended to allow the Defense Department to retain animals that are suitable for release and are no longer needed. I believe it is important to clarify this point, but with that understanding, I am pleased to support this legislation. The DOD's policy callously discards these highly trained and devoted animals after completion of their service to their country after 8-10 years of age, even if their handlers wish to adopt them. Under the current law there is no happy retirement for these loyal canines. After their body is no longer able to sustain the workload of their mission, the future becomes bleak for these dogs. In a best case scenario, the dogs are sent back to Lackland Air Force Base, their original training school, where they are used to instruct their human counterparts to become handlers. After they have served this final duty, they are kenneled for an undertermined amount of time and then put down. In some instances, military working dogs are caged as long as a year until they meet their final outcome. If no kennel space is available, the less fortunate are terminated directly upon their arrival to Lackland. Without the loyal service of Military Working Dogs and their devotion to their handlers, countless American soldiers would have died or become casualties of war. These dogs have abilities that our most advanced technology cannot match, rendering them priceless to the men and women serving in our military. Of the 10,000 men who served with K-9 units during the Vietnam War more than 265 were Killed in Action. Of the 4,000 dogs that served, 281 were ``Officially'' listed as ``Killed in Action,'' but only 190 were returned home at the end of the war. More than 500 dogs died on the battlefields of Vietnam. Military Working Dogs not only helped win battles and save lives, but had an enormous impact upon the mental well-being of those humans that surrounded them in the severest of battle conditions. It is clear that the DOD's policy does not work in the best interests of the dog handlers and the dogs. There is a distinctly strong bond between dog handlers and their dogs, who work, live and play together on a daily basis. I believe that the military's policy unnecessarily severs a bond that has taken years to cultivate which can easily be alleviated by allowing dog handlers or other qualified people to care for these highly intelligent dogs after they can no longer serve their country. The 1949 Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, enacted after World War II, reclassified military working dogs as equipment. According to the military mentality, any piece of equipment no longer operable, becomes a hardship to the unit and must be disposed. In 1997, the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act was amended. The law was altered to permit federal dog handlers, such as those in the Drug Enforcement Administration, to adopt their aging K-9 partners after their service in law enforcement was completed. The DOD's K-9 partners were the only federal canine group not included in the modification. Are these worthy canines any less deserving of peacefully living out the remainder of their days than another federal working dogs? These dogs can be detrained of their aggressive responses and we have no reason to assume that they will not continue to obey their handlers. The bill that I am speaking in support of today, H.R. 5315, will amend the law to allow a handler to adopt a retired military working dog. I believe that legislation was constructed with the best interest for all parties involved. The decision to allow a handler to adopt their canine partner rests on the shoulders of those who know the dog best: the dog's last unit commander an the last unit veterinarian. Made on a case-by-case basis, the commander and veterinarian are obligated to give their consent before the adoption process can move forward. Furthermore, H.R. 5314 provides an additional safeguard at the federal level. Upon receipt of the dog, the adopting handler waives all liability against the federal government. H.R. 5314 will effectively accomplish two goals: it offers the DOD a solution to their dilemma of maintaining aging canines and lifts the restriction that prohibits the adoption of military working dogs. Former dog handlers, individuals with comparable experience, or law enforcement agencies will be able to provide a loving home for such deserving animals. Through the passage of this legislation, not only will the military working dog be taken from a permanently caged status, but the dog will also be given the opportunity for a positive home environment. I know you will agree that after a lifetime of service, there can be no better reward for both handler and dog. In closing, H.R. 5314 has been endorsed by the Humane Society of the United States, the American Veterinary Medical Association, the Society for Animal Protective Legislation, the Doris Day Animal Rights League, and The American Society for the prevention of Cruelty to Animals. This is a positive measure which is a win-win solution for dog, handler and the Department of Defense. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter to Senator Warner from William W. Putney, DVM. He was a C.O. of the War Dog Training School at Camp Lejeune, NC, was awarded the Silver Star for his bravery during his command of a ``war dog'' platoon in the 3rd Marine Division during World War II.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. He offers his strong support for a change in the law that will allow the adoption of military working dogs. Former Marine Lt. Putney led a successful effort to build a cemetery and monument for the 25 dogs who died in the liberation of Guam in 1944, and I applaud his work to memorialize their contribution to preventing more loss of life during WWII. I also want to have printed for the Record an article that provides some details of his military life and his accomplishments in recognizing the special canine contribution to our wartime successes.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Barbara Bedford of Etna, New Hampshire, on her fine performance at the Sydney Olympic Games. Her hard work, dedication and perseverance in making her Olympic dream a reality are an example for us all, and the people of New Hampshire are so very proud of her excellent performance. Barbara, along with Jenny Thompson, was part of the gold-medal winning 4x100 medley relay that shattered the world record. It was so great to see Barbara fly through the water during the backstroke leg of the relay with her extremely patriotic red, white and blue-dyed hair. Her Olympic moment was years in the making, as she finally made her first Olympic team at the age of 27 after disappointments at the 1988, 1992 and 1996 Olympic Trials. After those heartbreaking defeats, Barbara could have easily given up her dream of making an Olympic team. However, with the help of her family and coach, Barbara did not retreat. Instead, she worked tirelessly toward her dream and was rewarded at this year's Olympic trials, where she placed first in the 50-meter backstroke. Barbara was able to keep her focus squarely on making the team this year and reach her goal, and this is an inspiration to all of us and proves once again that if we work hard, we can do just about anything. Her positive attitude and passion for her sport is so refreshing in an age when far too many athletes seem more interested in endorsements than their sport. Once again, I want to congratulate Barbara on her accomplishments, and I wish her all the best in her future endeavors. 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 rise today to pay tribute to Eric Kingsley as he leaves his position as Executive Director of the New Hampshire Timberland Owners Association, NHTOA. Eric's five year tenure at NHTOA has been marked by progress and success. The organization's programs and services have grown to meet the needs and concerns of its members, and have established a strong, stable foundation for the association's future. Through the years, I have grown to value Eric's input on the many issues that significantly impact New Hampshire's timberlands. Eric has done an outstanding job of keeping me, and other policy makers, informed on the issues and has been a true leader in making sure the voice of NHTOA was heard throughout the country. Of all of Eric's achievements at NHTOA, perhaps his most important success came this past spring. Eric helped lead the charge to defeat the Environmental Protection Agency's ill-considered proposal to treat some forestry activities as ``point source pollution'' under the Clean Water Act. These rules, known as Total Maximum Daily Loads--TMDL--would have required landowners, foresters, and homeowners to obtain federal permits before conducting a timber harvest and could have exposed them to lengthy bureaucratic delays and costly citizen lawsuits. This past May, I held a field hearing in Whitefield, New Hampshire, on the TMDL issue, and not only did Eric successfully testify, but he organized hundreds of foresters to ensure their message was heard loud and clear in Washington. Thanks in large part to Eric's leadership on this issue, the EPA withdrew the section of the TMDL rules that adversely affected forestry. My staff and I have also worked closely with Eric on issues of importance to the White Mountain National Forest. When the President issued his ``roadless'' initiative stripping the people of New Hampshire and New England with the opportunity to have a voice in the management of their public lands, Eric was there to ensure we took this measure to task. This time we were not successful, but we were very close to creating an exemption for the White Mountain National Forest from this heavy-handed proposal. Eric also rose to the occasion in the face of destruction from Mother Nature's wrath. The Ice Storm in January 1998 brought unprecedented challenges to New Hampshire's forest lands. Hundreds of thousands of acres were significantly damaged. Eric worked closely with me and my colleagues to help us turn this tragedy into an opportunity. Today, not only has the federal government provided resources to help recover from the storm, but we have a record number of acres under forest stewardship plans. My staff and I have worked with Eric on a wide variety of other issues during his time at NHTOA, and have always been impressed with his dedication and the depth of knowledge he displayed on issues ranging from estate tax reform to rural economic development. He has always been an effective and honest advocate for the causes he holds close to his heart, and I know he will be greatly missed by me and NHTOA's 1,500 members. I wish Eric well in all his future endeavors, and am confident he will succeed in whatever pursuits he chooses. It is an honor to represent him in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the Knights of Columbus Number 6725 of Merrimack, New Hampshire as they gather to celebrate their 25th anniversary. This is a milestone of which they and the community of Merrimack should be extremely proud. Throughout its quarter-century of existence, the Knights of Columbus has been a major presence in the Greater Merrimack Area. They have donated their time and energy to making their entire community a better place through public service. Whether it is manning a soup kitchen in Nashua, making annual donations to the New Hampshire Kidney Fund or recognizing Families of the Year, K of C 6725 has shown their dedication to their core values of family, Church, council, and community. Furthermore, the K of C 6725 has worked to help those who do not have a voice, including the needy, the handicapped, and the unborn. They have donated countless items of clothing to people in need, worked tirelessly to help WMUR-TV with its annual presentation of the Jerry Lewis Telethon and purchased and maintained concession trailers to help generate donations for many charitable organizations. Furthermore, they have sponsored an annual folk music night for Birthright, a group dedicated to protecting the unborn. The K of C 6725 has shown dedication not only to its community and those in need but to the Catholic Church as well. They are a constant presence, holding an annual Palm Sunday Breakfast, an Easter celebration known as ``Birthday Party for Jesus,'' and setting up an Memorial Mass at Last Rest Cemetery in Merrimack. In a world where far too few people take the time and opportunity to get involved in their churches and communities, the K of C No. 6725 is an example of the good things we can accomplish when we work together to help others. I congratulate them on this wonderful anniversary, and I wish them all the best as they continue their fantastic work. It is an honor to represent all of K of C 6725's members in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Upper Connecticut River Partnership Act of 2000. This legislation is a truly locally-led initiative. I believe it will result in great environmental benefits for the Connecticut River. The Connecticut River forms the border to New Hampshire and Vermont and provides for a great deal of recreational and tourism opportunities for residents of both States. This legislation takes a major step forward in making sure this River continues to thrive as a treasured resource. To understand just how significant this legislation is, I would like to share with my colleagues some history about the Connecticut River program. In 1987-88, New Hampshire and Vermont each created a commission to address environmental issues facing the Connecticut river valley. The commissions were established to coordinate water quality and various other environmental efforts along the Connecticut river valley. The two commissions came together in 1990 to form the Connecticut River Joint Commission. The Joint Commission has no regulatory authority, but carries out cooperative education and advisory activities. To further the local influence of the Commission, the Connecticut River Joint Commission established five advisory bi-state local river subcommittees comprised of representatives nominated by the governing body of their municipalities. These advisory groups developed a Connecticut River Corridor Management Plan. A major portion of the plan focuses on channeling federal funds to local communities to implement water quality programs, nonpoint source pollution controls and other environmental projects. Over the last ten years, the Connecticut River Joint Commission has fostered widespread participation and laid a strong foundation of community and citizen involvement. As a Senator from New Hampshire and chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, as well as someone who enjoys the beauty of the Connecticut river, I am proud to be the principal author and cosponsor of this locally led, voluntary effort that accomplishes real environmental progress. Too often we depend on bureaucratic federal regulatory programs to accomplish environmental success. This bill takes a different approach and one that I bet will achieve greater results on the ground. I hope that other communities and neighboring states will look at this model as an example of how to develop and implement true voluntary, on the ground, locally-led environmental programs. I want to thank my colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, and the two distinguished Senators of Vermont, Senators Leahy and Jeffords, for joining me as original cosponsors to this legislation. I look forward to working with them as we move this important legislation through the Senate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Upper Connecticut River Partnership Act of 2000. This legislation is a truly locally-led initiative. I believe it will result in great environmental benefits for the Connecticut River. The Connecticut River forms the border to New Hampshire and Vermont and provides for a great deal of recreational and tourism opportunities for residents of both States. This legislation takes a major step forward in making sure this River continues to thrive as a treasured resource. To understand just how significant this legislation is, I would like to share with my colleagues some history about the Connecticut River program. In 1987-88, New Hampshire and Vermont each created a commission to address environmental issues facing the Connecticut river valley. The commissions were established to coordinate water quality and various other environmental efforts along the Connecticut river valley. The two commissions came together in 1990 to form the Connecticut River Joint Commission. The Joint Commission has no regulatory authority, but carries out cooperative education and advisory activities. To further the local influence of the Commission, the Connecticut River Joint Commission established five advisory bi-state local river subcommittees comprised of representatives nominated by the governing body of their municipalities. These advisory groups developed a Connecticut River Corridor Management Plan. A major portion of the plan focuses on channeling federal funds to local communities to implement water quality programs, nonpoint source pollution controls and other environmental projects. Over the last ten years, the Connecticut River Joint Commission has fostered widespread participation and laid a strong foundation of community and citizen involvement. As a Senator from New Hampshire and chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, as well as someone who enjoys the beauty of the Connecticut river, I am proud to be the principal author and cosponsor of this locally led, voluntary effort that accomplishes real environmental progress. Too often we depend on bureaucratic federal regulatory programs to accomplish environmental success. This bill takes a different approach and one that I bet will achieve greater results on the ground. I hope that other communities and neighboring states will look at this model as an example of how to develop and implement true voluntary, on the ground, locally-led environmental programs. I want to thank my colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, and the two distinguished Senators of Vermont, Senators Leahy and Jeffords, for joining me as original cosponsors to this legislation. I look forward to working with them as we move this important legislation through the Senate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to applaud my colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, on his efforts to reauthorize the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act in a package of oceans and fisheries legislation. I would also like to reaffirm the continued interest of the Committee on Environment and Public Works in this important legislation, over which our two committees have traditionally shared jurisdiction. As my colleague knows, this legislation is critically important to the northeast. The populations of striped bass, which can be found all along the east coast, began to decline dramatically during the 1970s. In 1979, Congress responded by authorizing the Emergency Striped Bass Study as part of the Anadromous Fish Conservation Act. And in 1984, Congress enacted the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act. This Act promotes a coordinated Federal-State partnership for striped bass management. The National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have been jointly responsible for working with State agencies to recover the fishery. Their efforts have been very successful. The commercial catch of striped bass peaked in 1998 at 19 million pounds, which is a dramatic increase from 1983 when the catch was 2.9 million pounds. Historically, both the Environment and Public Works Committee, which I chair, and the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, which is chaired by Senator McCain, have shared jurisdiction over the conservation of striped bass. Because both the Department of Commerce and the Department of the Interior are involved in the conservation of the fishery, legislation to reauthorize the 1984 Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act has always been of interest to both the Commerce Committee and the Environment and Public Works Committee. The most recent reauthorizing legislation, the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act Amendments of 1997, was sequentially referred, by unanimous consent, to the Environment and Public Works Committee after the Commerce Committee ordered the bill to be reported. The Environment Committee then amended and reported the bill. It was signed into law on December 16, 1997. In order to facilitate passage of reauthorizing legislation this year, I have agreed to the language being offered by Senator McCain in H.R. 3417, as amended, the Pribilof Islands Transition Act, and will not request sequential referral. However, I want to reaffirm, with the agreement of my colleague, that this in no way affects the future jurisdiction of the Environment and Public Works Committee over the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Reverend Monsignor Norman P. Bolduc, 48, Chancellor of the Diocese of Manchester, as New Hampshire mourns his tragic loss. Monsignor Bolduc was ordained a priest in April 1979 after entering his religious training at Saint Thomas Seminary in Connecticut at the tender age of 13. As a Lieutenant Colonel, Monsignor Bolduc served as a Chaplain of the United States Air Force Reserves. He earned a master's in philosophy at the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C., where he also earned his licentiate in Canon law. Upon the recommendation of Bishop Odore Gendron, the seventh Bishop of Manchester, Pope John Paul II appointed Reverend Norman Bolduc as a Chaplain to His Holiness with the title of Monsignor in 1991. As Chancellor, Monsignor Bolduc was the third-ranking official in the diocese. He served as the bishop's Secretary for Pastoral Services and represented the bishop in Concord, New Hampshire, speaking on legislative matters. Reverend Edward Arsenault, Secretary for Administration of the diocese, noted Monsignor Bolduc's keen intellect and his ``great ability to explain and teach the church's teaching. He was a noted and gifted homilist.'' Monsignor Bolduc was a talented baseball player, an avid golfer and had a passion for travel, often traveling to foreign lands. Many New Hampshire residents were fortunate to share his love of travel and accompanied him on pilgrimages to the Holy Land. Monsignor Bolduc was the eldest of seven children. He was the loving son of Norman Sr. and Cecile Bolduc of Laconia, New Hampshire. Monsignor Bolduc was a caring brother and devoted uncle to his eleven nieces and nephews. He enjoyed his family life and cherished the time he spent with all of them. As Bishop John B. McCormack remembered his faithful and devoted colleague during the Funeral Mass celebrated at Saint Joseph's Cathedral he reminded us all that, ``It is clear that God does give, but God also takes away. It is clear whether we live or die, we are all the Lord's.'' Monsignor Bolduc honorably served our nation and the Roman Catholic Church and will be greatly missed by all those who were blessed by his presence and ministry. As Holy Scripture says in Psalm 116, ``Precious in the eyes of the Lord is the death of the faithful ones.'' May God bless Norman Sr., Cecile and Monsignor Boduc's siblings, nieces and nephews as they mourn the loss of their loved one. I am honored to have served the Reverend Monsignor Norman Bolduc in the United States Senate. May God bless him and grant him eternal peace.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I am proud to serve on the Senate Armed Services Committee that developed the Senate version of the National Defense Authorization bill for fiscal year 2001. I am equally proud to have served as a Conferee to resolve differences between our bill and the one that passed the House of Representatives. This bill is important to our men and women who serve this Nation every day. As the explosion today in Yemen demonstrates, America's great military men and women put their lives on the line for us every day. That sacrifice demands our attention and our support. This bill is another step to help us pull the U.S. military out of the nosedive created by this Administration. The number of deployments the Clinton/Gore administration committed us to has forced the military to use its limited funds for operations vice maintaining our forces. Readiness is at an all-time low. We are cannibalizing parts of our forces to keep the other parts running. That is wrong. Our men and women in uniform deserve better. This bill is a step in the right direction, but we still need more. I will fight for more again next year. My colleagues on the Armed Services Committee have lauded the benefits of this bill, so I will not repeat them all here. However, several points I feel are very important to note for the American people. This bill authorizes $309.9 billion in military spending, $4.6 billion above the President's budget request. It authorizes $63.2 billion for procurement, $2.6 billion above the President's budget request. It authorizes $38.9 billion for research and development, $1.1 billion above the President's budget request. This bill provides a decent pay raise--3.7 percent. It approves permanent comprehensive health care benefits for military retirees and benefits for military families. It also provides pharmacy benefits. When our military men and women put their lives on the line for our freedom, we owe them this commitment. This bill is a start, but we must do better. We need to expand our missile defense capabilities to fully leverage land, sea, air, and space options. Our ship-building rate is below that needed to sustain our aging naval force in the long term. We also need to be investing in space power programs. For 8 years, this Administration has ignored programs like the Kinetic Energy Anti-Satellite system and the military space plane. I also want to mention two important items which I fought vigorously for in this Bill that my colleagues have not mentioned. First, this bill attempts to right a grievous wrong that was committed over 50 years ago when Captain Charles Butler McVay III was tried and convicted--unjustly I believe--for the sinking of his ship, the U.S.S. Indianapolis, shortly before the end of the Second World War. This remains the greatest sea disaster in the history of the U.S. Navy. 880 of the 1,197 men aboard perished. Many of those who survived the actual sinking were left without lifeboats, food, or water and faced shark attacks for 4 days and 5 nights. This legislation recognizes Captain McVay's lack of culpability for the tragic loss of the ship, urges a correction of his military record to reflect his exoneration, and prompts the Navy to award a Navy Unit Commendation to the U.S.S. Indianapolis and her final crew. Captain McVay was not given intelligence reports about Japanese submarine activity in the ship's path; he was not granted an escort to help protect his ship; and he had taken prudent steps to protect the vessel. Not all of this information was made available to the court- martial board. Several hundred U.S. ships were lost in combat to enemy action during World War II, yet only Captain McVay was subjected to a court-martial. This language does not erase the conviction of Captain McVay from his record. We in Congress do not have the authority to do that. It must remain on his record as a stain upon the conscience of the Navy until this or some future President sees fit to order that it be expunged. This resolution does, however, represent acknowledgment from one branch of the Federal Government he served so capably that Captain McVay's conviction was morally wrong and that he should no longer be viewed by the American people as responsible for the horrible tragedy which haunted him to the end of his life. Second, this bill closes a loop hole in our national security regarding the granting of security clearances. Everyday, we entrust our national secrets to individuals to develop weapon systems, intelligence capabilities, war plans, and the like to defend this nation in war and peace. The American people demand these individuals be of the highest integrity. Yet, it came to my attention that we have not been maintaining that standard. Persons with criminal track records have been granted security clearances. We have even granted clearances to murderers. The addition I fought for in this bill is simple. It would prevent the Department of Defense from granting security clearances to those who have been convicted in a court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year. As I have said, this bill will strengthen our military. It is a step in the right direction, but we are not finished. I urge my colleagues to approve the conference report. (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I am delighted to accommodate my friend from Idaho.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I agree with the chairman of the Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water Subcommittee.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I agree wholeheartedly with the Senator from Idaho. It is those closest to the land who can help determine on a case-by-case basis how to balance wildlife needs with users who engage in various sporting activities, while remaining consistent with the objectives of the Pittman-Robertson Act. assistant director

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I want to thank the Senator from Missouri for his comments and hope we can continue to work together on the monitoring of this and other EPA programs. Military Retirees

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from Missouri. Assisting Veterans With Disabilities

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I want to call the Senate's attention to a program that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is implementing in a way that I believe is inconsistent with the original intent of Congress. The Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program, EDSP, was created by EPA to implement language in the Food Quality Protection Act, FQPA, and Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 requiring that EPA, and I quote, ``develop a screening program, using appropriate validated test systems and other scientifically relevant information, to determine whether certain substances may have an effect in humans that is similar to an effect produced by a naturally occurring estrogen, or other such endocrine effect . . .'' The Program was required to be implemented by August 1, 1999. This program has been plagued by a lack of public participation from key constituencies, an expansive interpretation of the Congressional mandate, questionable decisions as to the validation of testing protocols, and neglect of money appropriated for the development of non-animal tests. In October 1996 EPA formed the Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing Advisory Committee, EDSTAC, under the Federal Advisory Committee Act to advise EPA on risk assessment techniques for endocrine disrupting chemicals. EDSTAC included scientists and representatives from EPA and other government agencies, industry, national environmental groups, worker protection groups, environmental justice groups, and research scientists. More recently, EPA set up the Endocrine Disruptor Standardization and Validation Task Force to perform the work needed to develop, standardize, and validate the screens and tests proposed for the Program. However, one very important constituency was not included in either of these groups--in fact they were excluded--they are the animal welfare groups. Traditionally, these groups have been left out of the consultation process of EPA regarding the newly initiated chemical testing programs. Any program that includes testing of chemicals for toxicity or other effects involves the use of animals in such testing, however, the groups that advocate for animal welfare were excluded from providing early input in the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program. As Chairman of the committee with jurisdiction over the testing and handling of toxic chemicals, the Committee on Environment and Public Works, I am particularly concerned about how this program is being administered. In addition to the lack of public input, a major concern deals with the large number of animals used in testing that could occur as a result of EPA's implementation plan for this program. On August 25, 2000, EPA published a report to Congress on the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program that sets forth the findings, recommendations and further actions of EPA in implementing the EDSP. The implementation plan that EPA has come up with is broader than the plain language of the FQPA. While obtaining better data on endocrine disruptors is certainly a worthy goal, I am concerned about the expansion of this congressionally mandated program. The broad interpretation by the EPA of the chemicals to test and the method of validation calls into question whether this program will be implemented in a manner consistent with the intent of Congress. All of these expanded interpretations increase the number of test animals needed to implement the program. The law specifically states that EPA is to ``use appropriately validated tests.'' EPA has interpreted the law to mean that animal tests can be validated through the EPA's own Science Advisory Board, however, non-animal tests must be run through a more rigorous Interagency Coordinating Committee for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM) process. ICCVAM was created as a standing committee in 1997 and is composed of representatives of fifteen Federal regulatory or research agencies that regulate the use of animals in toxicology testing; EPA is a co-chair of ICCVAM. The ICCVAM process with input from the EPA Science Advisory Board reviews can ensure that the tests, animal or non-animal, will produce good results. I believe all tests should be assessed for validation by ICCVAM. My comments up until now have been critical of the plan that EPA has put forth for future implementation of the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program. Last year, Congress appropriated $5 million for the development and implementation of the test methods including the high throughput pre-screen, a non-animal screening process. After spending $70,000, the Agency has stopped working to integrate the high throughput pre-screen into the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program. Although this specific example concerns me, it is only one example of the general disinterest of EPA in integrating non-animal tests into the program. I urge the EPA's Office of Research and Development to apportion funds to prioritize research, development and validation of non-animal tests.