Bob Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I would like to introduce the Junior Duck Stamp Reauthorization Act of 2000. The Junior Duck Stamp Program is a wonderful program that allows children from kindergarten through twelfth grade to participate in an integrated art and science curriculum that is designed to teach environmental science and habitat conservation. It also raises awareness for wetlands and waterfowl conservation. Students and teachers work together through a set curriculum that incorporates ecological and wildlife management principles, allowing students to learn about conserving wildlife habitat while they explore the esthetic qualities of wildlife and nature. As part of the curriculum, each student is encouraged to focus his or her efforts on a particular waterfowl species. The culmination of the curriculum is an artistic depiction of that species. Each state selects a Best-of-Show winner and that piece of artwork competes to become the national winner of the Junior Duck Stamp contest. The winning depiction is chosen as the Federal Junior Duck Stamp, and the student receives $2,500. Revenues from selling the stamp are used for conservation awards and scholarships to the participants. By all accounts the Junior Duck Stamp Program has been extremely successful. Last year alone more than 44,000 students entered the state competitions. The Fish and Wildlife Service and educators estimate that for every child who enters the state program, ten others are exposed to the curriculum. The program has also been very successful in introducing urban children to nature, allows all children to develop an important connection to the environment, and motivates students to take an active role in conservation of waterfowl species. This legislation is a simple reauthorization of the program through 2005. The U.S. Fish and wildlife Service would be authorized to receive $250,000 a year for the administration of the Junior Duck Stamp Program. In addition, the Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design Program Act of 1994 would be amended to allow schools in the District of Columbia and the U.S. territories to participate in the program. Mr. President, I strongly urge the passage of this legislation. The Junior Duck Stamp Program has played an important role in the education of children and the conservation of our natural resources, and it should continue to do so. I ask that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak on the underlying bill as in morning business so as not to take time away from the Byrd amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, yesterday and today we heard my distinguished colleague, Senator Thompson, speak eloquently on the whole issue of the Chinese nonproliferation amendment. It is interesting that no one in the Senate wants to give us the opportunity to amend the legislation for fear somehow it might mess it up. On the other hand, it did not bother the House. They amended HR 4444 and sent it over here, and I believe the Senate has a responsibility to do likewise. Frankly, I believe we have that right to offer amendments, such as the Thompson amendment, whether I agree or disagree with it. I believe people ought to vote on those amendments based on how they feel about it. This is a very important issue. Permanent meant permanent when I went to school. When you say ``permanent normal trade relations with China,'' permanent means permanent. I am going to touch on a number of issues, including the subject Senator Thompson has spoken so eloquently on over the past couple of days, but there are many other issues one might want to stop and have serious reflections on whether or not this is really what we want to do. To the leader's credit, he has given us ample opportunity to have these debates. As Senator Thompson just said, one gets the feeling that it is a foregone conclusion; that we are wasting our time; we are basically taking the Senate's time for no apparent reason; that it is already in the cards; that everybody is for permanent normal trade relations; we do not have to worry; we are just wasting time. We waste a lot of time around here. I suppose we can say some of the greatest debates of all time have taken place in this Chamber. If it is a waste of time, so be it, but I believe these comments should be made, and I believe they ought to be considered. If people want to vote against the Thompson amendment, a Smith amendment, or other amendments, they have every right to do so. If they want to say proliferation matters, then they have a right to do so, and they will have a right to vote. I applaud Senator Thompson for adding this amendment to the PNTR debate. He has been involved in the committee investigating some of these matters. He is able. He knows about these issues. It would be a shame if the Senate did not heed what he has advised them to consider. I believe one of the greatest threats to the U.S. today is China's proliferation of weapons of mass destruction--nuclear, chemical, and biological, all three--and the means to deploy them; not just produce them, but have the mechanism to deploy them. We do not know whether they have the will or the desire. We do not deal with will and desire. What we deal with is capability. This is a fact. This is not opinion, as Senator Thompson has pointed out. It is a fact that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction--biological, chemical and nuclear--are occurring today by the Chinese. It is a fact. Despite words to the contrary, China continues to transfer technology to Pakistan, Iran, North Korea, and Libya. One can say: Fine, I do not care; it is more important to sell my agricultural products to China than it is to worry about proliferation of nuclear and missile technology. That is fine if that is your opinion, but do not come to the floor and say that it is not happening because it is happening. This technology is being transferred to North Korea, to Libya, to Iran, and to Pakistan. It is happening, and that is a fact. One can say: Fine, I don't care about that; we will go ahead and feed the people who are doing it, but it is a fact that this technology is being transferred. The Director of Central Intelligence reported on August 9 that China remains a ``key supplier,'' his words, of these technologies, particularly missile or chemical technology transfers. Some of these transfers have raised questions about violations of the Non- Proliferation Treaty which China signed and contradictions to the Missile Technology Control Regime which China promised to abide by, and U.S. laws, violations which may require sanctions. China has not joined some of the international nonproliferation groups. The Clinton-Gore administration policy of ``comprehensive engagement'' with Beijing seeking to improve bilateral relations has failed. It is time for a tougher approach to advance U.S. nonproliferation interests. This is not about coming out here and beating up on a country. The facts are the facts. They threatened Taiwan. They have threatened us if we interfere with them threatening Taiwan. They have actively engaged in seeking to control the Long Beach naval shipyard, the Panama Canal, and other regions in the Caribbean, and yet we are supposed to stand by and ignore this threat, all of it in the name of free trade. Not only are we supposed to ignore it, we are not even supposed to have a vote on it; we are just wasting the Senate's time to point out that this is happening in the world today. Maybe Senators have made up their minds, but I want to speak to the American people because, frankly, I am not sure the American people have made up their minds on this issue. Maybe they need to know. I ask you: If you are a parent with a 17- 18- 19-year-old son or daughter--I have one 21 and one 18--whether or not you feel safe in providing this country of China with permanent normal trade relations; that is, giving them the best opportunities we can to trade with them and you are not worried about the fact that they are spreading weapons of mass destruction all over the world. If you are not, then I think you should sit silently and say to yourself: I am going to get my way; the Senators are going to vote the way I want them to vote. But if you are not satisfied, then you ought to let your Senators know because we are going to have a vote on this in the very near future. Many in this body are adamantly opposed to amending this trade legislation. They argue that trade and national security concerns are not connected. We should go ahead and trade with China. We open up our country. We open up the dialog. We open up debate and just ignore all the other issues. Proliferation, human rights abuses, religious persecution, and all the other issues I plan to speak about will take care of itself. Don't worry about China. They will not hurt us. Don't worry about it. Just keep trading with them and provide more assistance. No one is talking about ignoring 1 billion-plus people in the world. That is not what this debate is about. No one proposes to ignore them. I do not propose to ignore them. No one proposes to not talk with them or not to have relations with them. That is not what we are talking about. What we are talking about is permanently establishing these normal trade relations, which gives them benefits that American companies do not even have and American citizens do not have. So if you want people who are trying to spread weapons of mass destruction all over the world--chemical, biological, and nuclear--to have better situations-- their companies don't have to abide by environmental standards; they put people in slave labor in the textile mills, or whatever, for 50 cents a day--if that does not bother you, then fine, don't call your Senators and tell them. Leave it alone. They are going to vote your way. But if it does bother you, you may want to speak up. This amendment, the Thompson amendment, is very relevant. People should be heard on it. Every Senator should be heard on it. The Chinese Government realizes we are willing to abdicate our national security concerns to gain access to their meager markets at all costs. You think the Chinese are not watching this debate? You think they don't know what is going on? Here is what they are hearing: You know what. These guys will do anything to get our business. They will do anything to get our business. They will let us go ahead and spread weapons of mass destruction all over the world. They don't care about that. The United States will let us move into Panama and threaten the people of Taiwan as long as we can buy their corn and their wheat. Man, that is a good deal for us. Boy, I will bet they are laughing in Beijing right now at this debate. But I will tell you what. If it ever comes, God forbid, to a conflict in the future, if you have a son or a daughter in that conflict, you are not going to be laughing. That is the reality. That is the way life is. Ronald Reagan stood firm against the Soviet Union; and it worked. When President Reagan told Gorbachev to tear the Berlin Wall down, he tore it down. We won the Cold War because we stood firm. We did not kowtow to the threats and the intimidation to sell products. Some wanted us to, but we didn't. Leaders in China believe the actions of this body are a foregone conclusion--over and done. The Chinese have acted accordingly by continuing to proliferate nuclear and missile technology during this whole process. It is still going on, as is evident by the latest report from the Director of the CIA. They are still doing it. And we are still going to give them permanent normal trade relations. Sometimes--and I have been on both sides of many issues; I have lost debates and I have won debates--sometimes you have to have the debate. You know what. I want history to judge me on what my position is on this issue. I hope to God that I never ever have to come back to the Senate floor and say: See, I told you so. I hope tomorrow the Chinese all become democrats--little ``d''--and we become one big, happy world family between the Chinese and the Americans. I hope that happens. You know what, folks. Are you sure that is going to happen? Do you feel real good about that happening based on what is occurring right now as we speak? Spies spying, stealing our secrets, stealing the whole arsenal of our weapons, and we are about to let the person who stole that--he is going to go free very shortly. We are the laughingstock of the world. Unbelievable. Yet we sit here--so many of us--without even uttering a whimper and criticize those of us who speak up and talk about it, criticize us for even offering amendments to try to stop it. I commend Senator Thompson. I admire him. I respect him. I served with him on that committee when he did this investigation. I respect what he has done. He is right. History will judge him right. Those of us who stood up and spoke out, history will judge us right as well. That is all that matters because when you stand up here, you can speak and you can vote. That is about it on the Senate floor. And sometimes you lose. But it doesn't mean you shouldn't be heard. It doesn't mean you are always wrong when you lose. It doesn't mean you are always right, either. The recent release of the State Department's annual human rights report states that China's human rights record has worsened, not improved. Are these the actions of a country that we believe are going to curb their dismal record of missile and weapons of mass destruction proliferation, atrocious human rights violations, or honor their trade agreements signed with the United States? Quite frankly, actions speak louder than words--a trite expression. China has not even attempted to clean up its act. As Congress has debated this issue this year, they have not even attempted to clean it up because they know what the result will be. They have known all along: Free and open trade, and reduced vigilance. Free trade will facilitate the proliferation of technologies and systems for weapons of mass destruction and the means to deploy them. Make no mistake about it. Free and open trade, permanent normal trade relations with the Chinese, will foster the ability of this nation, China, to send weapons of mass destruction around the world, and the means to deploy them. We should speak up on the Senate floor about it. Frankly, we should adopt the Thompson amendment. If that means it defeats PNTR, good. The same technologies that create Chinese space threats to the U.S. also enhance Chinese capabilities. We in Congress should not stand by passively and watch that happen, either. Voting against the Thompson amendment will send a green light to Red China to continue to destabilize regions already mired in centuries-old conflicts. China's proliferation activities have sparked a nuclear arms race on the Indian subcontinent and have assisted Iran's nuclear missile programs, not to mention Libya's desire to become a nuclear power--a very comforting thought. The Chinese are helping Libya, Mr. Qadhafi, to become a nuclear power. I am sure that will comfort everyone. Why not? Let's help them. Let's feed them. Let's trade with them. Let's treat them as if they are a nice nation that does not do any of this; ignore it all, and let Libya be a nuclear power. That will be nice. It is time that this body takes action. I urge Members to reconsider. Those of you who believe that Thompson is wrong, I urge you to reconsider that in the face of this debate. It would seem that the main argument against these and every other amendment that is being offered is that since it was not in the House bill, as I said before, then we can't have it in the Senate bill. That, frankly, is an insult to all of us in the Senate. We have an obligation, as I said, to amend if we want to. The proponents argue there can be no conference; that is, don't have the House and Senate sit down to work out any deal. That takes too much time. That is too much trouble. We just want to pass what the House sent over, even though they amended it. Are the proponents suggesting that the Senate will not ask for any more conferences between now and the end of the session on any bill? Are we going to conference appropriations bills? We do 13 conferences usually on appropriations bills. But we can't do a conference on permanent normal trade relations with China? That is the process. The process calls for conferences between the House and the Senates. Even if we conceded that it was too late for a conference, the suggestion that a conference is needed is totally inconsistent with our framework of government. When we pass a bill, it does not go to conference. It goes to the House. We all know that. If the Senate--given the overwhelming support for PNTR in this body--approves some commonsense modifications, then those amendments would eagerly be accepted by the House. It would not be a big deal. If there is an argument over it, fine. We settle the argument, as we do in every conference. So if we amend the bill, it goes to the House. It takes no time. The clerk engrosses the amendments and sends it over. We can pass an amended bill at lunchtime, have it passed in the House in time for the Members to be home for dinner; President Clinton wakes up in the morning, has a little breakfast, and signs the bill. Over and done with. What is the big deal? We make things too complicated around here. Frankly, they are phony arguments, as if this conference is going to take decades to finish. We are going to finish the conference. The fact that we might add a couple of amendments, whether it is proliferation or anything else, to this bill and that it is going to delay the conference and somehow mess up PNTR is nonsense, total nonsense. I taught history. I taught civics. I taught how a bill becomes law. I have been on conferences. I am on two right now, the Department of Defense and the Water Resources Development Act. I can assure you, those bills are much larger and have many more time-consuming issues than this one. But I might ask you, are those bills any more important than this one? I don't think so. So why, then, are we conferencing them and not wanting to conference here? Some have argued that the annual debate over whether to renew this was counterproductive. I would argue that it served as one of the few constraints on Chinese behavior. The fact that we had this debate in the Senate is good. At least China knows there are some of us who are concerned about it. If we yield permanent MFN on PNTR to China, then we forever relinquish one of the few tools we have to foster change in China, which is our agricultural leverage. Unfortunately, since 1989, when MFN was once again renewed despite the carnage at Tiananmen Square witnessed by the rest of the world, the Chinese came quickly to understand that the U.S. Government valued its trading relationship with China above all else. It is a fact; that is how they view it. What is of greatest concern is that a majority in Congress, like the CEOs of many major companies, appear to be mesmerized by this mythical Chinese market and are willing to ignore the egregious conduct. China's conduct should have, at a minimum, postponed China's admittance in the WTO. It is the kind of conduct you cannot ignore. You cannot ignore the atrocities that are occurring in this country. We don't have to ignore it. We can pass amendments to PNTR that highlight those atrocities in an effort to leverage the Chinese to stop it. I will get into some of those in a moment. We are familiar with the 1996 campaign finance scandal where millions of dollars were delivered from China through conduits in an attempt to buy the White House. It was a big embarrassment for our country. We know that China plundered nuclear secrets from our national labs and that in fact, according to our own intelligence agencies, Chinese agents continued to steal that technology in the United States, including from DOE labs. This is happening. Countless news articles have underscored China's dangerous proliferation of missile technology and weapons of mass destruction to rogue regimes all over the world. As I said, two Sovremenny-class destroyers equipped with Sunburn missiles, these missiles were specifically designed to defeat our Aegis system and our carrier battle groups. That is the specific purpose of this class of destroyers. This represents a great leap forward on the part of the Chinese Navy and a serious threat to the 7th fleet and our allies in the Pacific. Are we so blinded by trade and the lure of profits that we can't recognize the danger to our strategic vital interests? Are we that blind? In Hong Kong, only recently turned over to the Chinese Government, news reports over the weekend indicated that pollsters are being discouraged from reviewing information which shows the declining popularity of Hong Kong's Chief Executive. The Chinese Government has warned businessmen on Taiwan they cannot be pro- independence if they expect to do business with Beijing. The Chinese military on a regular basis truly speaks of invading Taiwan, and the proliferation of missiles aimed at Taiwan lends credibility to this threat. While the Clinton administration rewards Beijing with support for MFN and PNTR and has supported military-to-military exchanges with the People's Liberation Army, it has opposed the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act which seeks to bolster the capabilities of the degraded Taiwanese military and upgrade United States-Taiwan military relations. Most recently and, frankly, most shamefully, the Clinton administration discouraged members of both parties of Congress from even meeting with the democratically elected leader of Taiwan. What an insult. I just don't understand it. We are going to give permanent normal trade relations to China, sell them our products and feed them, and we are not going to offend them by talking to the leader of Taiwan. We are the world's greatest superpower. The rest of the world, I hope, still views us as the land of liberty and the beacon of freedom. And we are afraid to offend China by talking to the leader of Taiwan? What must they think when the administration denies the freedom of assembly, that all Americans enjoy, to a visiting democratically elected dignitary? Think about that. What signal are we sending? Are we not rewarding the intelligence of the regime in Beijing by snubbing the duly elected leader of the Chinese democracy? It is un-American and it is inexplicable. It just can't be about money because, in fact, we sell more goods to Taiwan than we do to China. So why are we doing it? If we sell more goods to China than we do to the People's Republic, why are we snubbing the leader of Taiwan? We won't even talk with him. What is it about this administration that makes it so eager to kowtow to Communist leaders? It may not be an accident. I ask unanimous consent that this be submitted as part of the Record.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I would like to introduce the Junior Duck Stamp Reauthorization Act of 2000. The Junior Duck Stamp Program is a wonderful program that allows children from kindergarten through twelfth grade to participate in an integrated art and science curriculum that is designed to teach environmental science and habitat conservation. It also raises awareness for wetlands and waterfowl conservation. Students and teachers work together through a set curriculum that incorporates ecological and wildlife management principles, allowing students to learn about conserving wildlife habitat while they explore the esthetic qualities of wildlife and nature. As part of the curriculum, each student is encouraged to focus his or her efforts on a particular waterfowl species. The culmination of the curriculum is an artistic depiction of that species. Each state selects a Best-of-Show winner and that piece of artwork competes to become the national winner of the Junior Duck Stamp contest. The winning depiction is chosen as the Federal Junior Duck Stamp, and the student receives $2,500. Revenues from selling the stamp are used for conservation awards and scholarships to the participants. By all accounts the Junior Duck Stamp Program has been extremely successful. Last year alone more than 44,000 students entered the state competitions. The Fish and Wildlife Service and educators estimate that for every child who enters the state program, ten others are exposed to the curriculum. The program has also been very successful in introducing urban children to nature, allows all children to develop an important connection to the environment, and motivates students to take an active role in conservation of waterfowl species. This legislation is a simple reauthorization of the program through 2005. The U.S. Fish and wildlife Service would be authorized to receive $250,000 a year for the administration of the Junior Duck Stamp Program. In addition, the Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design Program Act of 1994 would be amended to allow schools in the District of Columbia and the U.S. territories to participate in the program. Mr. President, I strongly urge the passage of this legislation. The Junior Duck Stamp Program has played an important role in the education of children and the conservation of our natural resources, and it should continue to do so. I ask that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Bob and Miriam Smith upon the recent dedication of the Norman S. and Lida M. Smith Academic Technology Center at Bentley College in Massachusetts. Bob and Miriam have a long history of philanthropy to the college. They have established numerous scholarship programs, many for deserving students from disadvantaged communities. Bob and Miriam's financial donation will give Bentley College the chance to enhance its business education program. As the retired chief executive officer of American Express Bank, Bob understands the value of a superior business education. Named in memory of Bob's parents, Norman and Lida Smith, the Center will give students the advantage of a business education enhanced by the most advanced technology available today. Bob's dedication to his alma mater is a testament to his integrity, hard work, and impressive business skills. In addition to the outpouring of generous financial donations, Bob's strategic guidance plan has supported the college through tough economic times and demographic changes, and continues to do so today. Without the support of generous citizens such as Bob and Miriam, our nation's colleges and universities would not have attained the leadership status in the world of academia that they currently enjoy. Bob and Miriam's donation gives Bentley College the competitive edge. It is an honor to serve them both in the United States Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I realize we are in a tight time situation so I will be brief in explaining my situation because I have to be brief in explaining it. This amendment proposes a number of commonsense additions. These all amend the section of the bill that creates a commission which is to monitor and report on Chinese activities. The six subjects I am urging we include are very reasonable. I am amazed, really, they have not already been included in the commission's reporting responsibilities. Let me just list and give a brief line or two on each one. The first division or item is monitoring and reporting on Chinese cooperation on POW and MIA issues. We all know that the Chinese Government possesses information about Americans who are missing from the Korean war--and perhaps even the Vietnam war, but certainly the Korean war; maybe World War II--which could bring closure to literally thousands of families. Yet this Government, the Chinese Government, has refused to provide us even basic information. In fact, it denies it even possesses this information when we know they do. So this amendment would merely let the American people know in an objective manner on this commission the extent to which the Chinese are not cooperating on this humanitarian issue. The second item is monitoring and reporting on commercial activities between the United States and the People's Liberation Army. Currently, the Chinese People's Liberation Army directly or indirectly owns scores of businesses. They conduct commerce with U.S. companies. That includes the sale of products to U.S. consumers. So this amendment would simply require the FBI to monitor and report to Congress on the activities of the PLA's, the People's Liberation Army's, businesses here in the United States. Specifically, they would take data collected by the DIA, CIA, customs, and other agencies and report their findings to Congress on the dollar amount of PLA revenues and where these revenues are being directed within the Chinese military. This report will also monitor any technology transfers between PLA companies and U.S. companies, including an assessment of the impact upon the U.S. military, U.S. interests, and our allies. That is all it does. I think it is a very reasonable amendment and should be approved by the Senate. The third item in the division is monitoring and reporting on development of Chinese space capabilities. We know the world has observed our military space advantage and has taken steps to acquire their own military space systems to counter ours. In particular, we have observed the Chinese are developing military space capabilities that could threaten the United States and threaten our allies' military, civilian, and commercial systems. Free and open trade, and the reduced vigilance free trade fosters, will facilitate the development and proliferation of space technology needed to expand Chinese space capabilities. This commission would monitor this activity and report on it so we would have good information as to exactly what was going on in that regard. The fourth item is monitoring and reporting on the cooperation on environmental protection. Our Nation has some of the strongest environmental laws in the world. Yet Chinese companies can operate with lower costs and compete with U.S. companies because they do not have to comply with the same requirements that U.S. companies do. If we are going to give permanent trade status to the country of China, then why not make them play by the same rules U.S. companies do? If you wonder why they can sell their clothes and other products over here so cheaply, that is one of the reasons they compete with us and can pay such low labor costs. They do not have to abide by the same regulations. This amendment simply monitors the extent to which China is enforcing their own environmental regulations. We cannot dictate how they do that--they are their own nation--but we can monitor it and we can let the American people know that we are, by passing PNTR, saying we are going to ignore their environmental infractions and we are going to enforce ours. I think we ought to have that as part of this agreement. The fifth division is monitoring and reporting on conditions relating to orphans and orphanages in China and the extent to which they are providing access to U.S. and international adoption agencies. Every year, untold numbers of Chinese baby boys and girls with special needs are left at state-run orphanages in horrible situations. Throughout the nineties, several human rights organizations revealed deplorable conditions and inhuman treatment. The death rates for these children are oftentimes astronomical. They are left to die of starvation. When we give all this wonderful treatment to the country of China, I hope we think about that and see if we have any concerns about these human rights violations. My amendment would simply monitor and encourage China to determine that the quality and care of its orphans is improving by providing specific data on the survival rates of these children. Isn't that the least we can do if we are going to trade with them and help them? Why not help the children in China who are stuck in these orphanages. Finally, No. 6, monitoring and reporting on organ harvesting and transplanting in the People's Republic of China. One of the most despicable, horrible acts of any nation in the world--and I cannot understand why we would look the other way and not even report and let the American people and the world know what they are doing. This amendment would task a commission with monitoring this barbaric and inhuman practice of literally taking organs involuntarily from executed prisoners. They are not prisoners executed and then having their organs taken after execution, they are executed in order to get the organs, so we understand what this is. We would require a report on the actions taken by the PRC to end organ harvesting. In conclusion, this is a good amendment. There are six divisions. They are good divisions. I say to my colleagues who say we cannot amend this because it is going to mess up the whole PNTR issue, this is not messing up anything. This commission is going to monitor these six areas that are, for the most part, outrages really that the Chinese are allowed to get away with. I urge the adoption of this amendment at the appropriate time. I thank my colleagues, and I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I thank the leader.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Reserving the right to object, the vote went longer than anticipated. I was looking only for 5 or 10 minutes to present my amendments.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I thank the majority leader for his consideration and also thank Senator Domenici as well. I do not want to hold the Senate up from moving to the appropriations bill. amendment no. 4129

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask the amendment that I sent to the desk be divided into six categories in the manner in which I now send to the desk.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, Section 403 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act requires that a statement of the cost of reported bills, prepared by the Congressional Budget Office, be included in Senate reports. On July 27, 2000, the Committee on Environment and Public Works filed Senate Report 106-362, accompanying S. 2796, the Water Resource Development Act of 2000, and Senate Report 106-363, accompanying S. 2979, Restoring the Everglades, An American Legacy Act. The cost estimates were not available at the time of filing. The information subsequently was received by the committee and I ask unanimous consent to print it in the Congressional Record.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Richard Cyr upon receiving the Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis Award for outstanding public service. In a time where random acts of kindness seem to be waning, Richard has proven that kind souls are still in abundance. He has established one of the most important volunteer efforts in the state, if not the country. Richard formed David's House, a program for the parents of sick children that provides much-needed support and love during critical times of treatment programs. It is this tireless dedication to helping others that garnered Richard a national award for this efforts. Richard understood how difficult it was for families of sick children to remain close to their loved ones without having to add hotel costs to the growing number of bills. He was in the same situation himself when his foster child, David, became ill with acute lymphocytic leukemia. Richard spent countless nights sleeping in his car or in the hospital lobby to be closer to his child. After David's death, he decided that a safe refuge for families was necessary during illness. David's House gives parents the ability to concentrate on their children without worrying about where to sleep, eat or shower during hospital visits. The House is staffed entirely by volunteers and receives donations from private sources. After fifteen years of operation, David's House has assisted hundreds of families and eased the pain of coping with illness. Such stability and growth is a testament of the true importance and need for institutions like David's House. Richard's dedication to helping others in a grave time of need is truly inspirational. It is an honor to represent him in the United States Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, today I have introduced legislation, S. 2962, which I believe will deal once and for all with the MTBE problem that is facing us all across America, specifically New England. In the Northeast, as well as California and other areas of the country, we are beginning to see evidence of MTBE in ground water. This is a serious environmental problem that must be addressed. It is certainly a problem in New Hampshire. I rise today to speak for my constituents in New Hampshire who are now having their wells, several a week by the way, being contaminated by MTBE. This is my home State. This is a serious problem there. I am here to offer this legislation to help my constituents in New Hampshire get relief from MTBE, which is a pollutant in their wells. But I am also here to speak for all Americans across the country who have MTBE in their wells, whether they be in California or New Hampshire. MTBE has done more damage to our drinking water than we would care to know. MTBE has been a component of our fuel supply for over two decades. In 1990, we amended the Clean Air Act to include a clean gasoline program. Unfortunately, we did not look at the science that was probably more evident than not. Because we did not look at that science, we have now created another environmental problem of a huge magnitude, which is probably going to cost billions of dollars to clean up. If there is a moral here, or lesson, it should be: Use good science. Look carefully before you leap into some of these environmental dilemmas. That program in the 1990 Clean Air Act amendment mandated use of 2 percent oxygen in the gas, by weight. In other words, 2 percent of the weight of a gallon of gasoline should be oxygen. That was put in the fuel. MTBE was one of two options that could be used. The problem with MTBE is that it has this ability to migrate through the ground very quickly and then into the water table. What is MTBE? It is an ether, and in the event of a leak or gas spill, the MTBE will separate from the gas and migrate through the ground very quickly. The real problem starts when MTBE finds its way into the ground water, which it frequently does. Several States have had gasoline leaks, or spills, that led to the closure of wells because of MTBE. It smells. It tastes horrible. It is not the kind of thing you want to see come out of your shower or your faucet when you are ready to use your water. This is a serious problem. Some have made light of it, frankly, in this body, in the sense that maybe it is not such a serious problem and maybe we should look at some other alternatives other than banning it. But we need to ban MTBE. The legislation I am introducing today will do that. It does it in a responsible manner, which I will explain. Several States have had these leaks or spills, as I said. So this bill will address the problems associated with MTBE, but--and this is a very important point--will not reduce any of the environmental benefits of the clean air program. That cannot be said with every option that has been presented on this issue. Again, we can ban MTBE, but we will not reduce any environmental benefit that the MTBE has brought to clean the air and that is important. Briefly, this bill will allow the Governor of any State to waive the gasoline oxygen requirement of the Clean Air Act--waive it. But it will preserve the environmental benefits. It will also grant the State and the Federal Government authority to ban MTBE. It authorizes an additional $200 million out of the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Fund to clean up MTBE where these wells have been contaminated because of these leaking tanks. In other words, if we could repair those leaking tanks, we are going to cut back on the amount of problems we are going to have in the future. So it is important we have this as part of the legislation to get the money there to fix these tanks, to cut back on the amount of MTBE that gets into the ground water. If it does not leak out of the tank, the gasoline tank, it will not get into the ground water. But it is leaking out of tanks and we have to fix it. The bill also authorizes an extensive study of numerous environmental consequences of our current fuel use. It was my hope to have marked up and sent to the floor from the Environment and Public Works Committee, which I chair, a bill this past week. In fact, it was our goal to do it yesterday, but we could not get the parties together who I needed to make this bill a reality, in the sense that it would pass. We could have introduced a bill, could have marked a bill, perhaps, but it would not have passed because we would not have the support. This problem is too serious to play politics. MTBE is a pollutant in our wells. We need to get it out. We have to have legislation to do it and it has to pass. There is no point introducing a bill that will not pass. There are people who are dug in on all sides of this issue for various reasons. But the point is, we need to compromise. We all cannot get what we want, but the end result must be that we get MTBE out of our ground water. That is the bottom line. So I agreed, reluctantly, but I agreed, in the interests of working together with my colleagues, to hold off until September in order to resolve the few remaining issues, but I intend to hold that markup in September. In fact, the specific date is September 7. In that legislation that we mark up, we will ban MTBE. The issues that are in this legislation include the treatment of ethanol. I am pleased with the recent progress we have made on this. But there is a serious problem that we have to deal with, those who advocate more ethanol in fuel. I expect these issues to be resolved. We are working behind the scenes very hard to resolve these issues before the September 7 markup. It will give the staff something to do during the August recess. I know they will work out the details. But I thank the many Senators on both sides of the aisle I have been working with very closely to resolve these issues. This is a tough, tough issue, and it is hard to get agreement. Everybody is not going to get what they want, but the bottom line is, we have to get MTBE out of the water. Let me address the ethanol issue for a moment. Some weeks ago I circulated a draft that included a clean alternative fuels program. This is a very complex issue. What are alternative fuels? It could be premium gasoline. It could be natural gas. It could be electricity. It could be fuel cells. It could be ethanol. But if you say ``renewable fuels,'' then you are talking for the most part only ethanol. So when we are talking alternative fuels, what alternatives do we have to MTBE that would help us meet these requirements in the Clean Air Act? This has proven to be a good step toward addressing the ethanol question. The program will also enhance the development of cleaner and more efficient cars which will help with the Clean Air Act issues as well. There has been growing support for this alternative fuels approach since the time we first brought this up. We do not want to create more MTBE problems. We do not want to create dirtier air by eliminating MTBE because we created dirty water by putting MTBEs in gasoline. So last week in an effort, again, to reach out, I received a letter supporting that approach from 32 States represented by air quality planners in the northeastern States and the Governors' Ethanol Coalition. So for the first time we now have ethanol, and the Northeast, you have specific problems here with the MTBE issue, talking, working together, and, as we said, from this letter of support from 32 States, they support this approach. We have not dotted every ``i'' and crossed every ``t'' yet, but in concept they support the approach. The bill I am offering today, while that bill does not include the exact language they are talking about in that letter--and I want to make that clear--it is a bridge. It is a bridge from where my legislation is to where they are. Actually, simultaneously to the bill I have introduced, I have also offered an amendment No. 4026, which crosses that bridge. I have introduced what I would like to have, what I believe is the most cost-effective method to deal with this problem, but I recognize that even though it is the least costly, it does not have the amount of support I need to pass it. So I have offered another amendment to my own bill, which is my way of saying: OK, you offered me the bridge. I am willing to walk across it and meet you at least halfway. I will describe this bill in a little more detail first. This is a complex issue. The Environmental and Public Works Committee has been struggling with this, certainly in the last 7 or 8 months I have been chairman of the committee, and I am sure they were struggling with it many months before that. I have tried to craft a solution that is direct and balanced. I believe I have accomplished that. That is my goal. It is not to ramrod anything through to make anybody angry. It is a legitimate attempt to get a consensus to deal with a serious environmental problem, not to deal with everybody's own opinions. If anybody comes to the table and says: If I do not get this, I will leave the table--I tell the people who say that: Don't bother coming to the table; you are wasting my time and yours. If you want to, talk, compromise, and reach a rational conclusion. I am willing to talk, and Senators on all sides of this have done just that. We have talked to many industry folks and environmental people as well on this very issue. The bill waives the oxygen mandate. The Reformulated Gasoline Program, or RFG, requires at least 2 percent of gasoline by weight to be oxygen. MTBE and ethanol are the principal additives that help satisfy this mandate. It is ethanol or MTBE. They will bring us to that 2 percent oxygenate requirement. Because MTBE is rarely used outside the Reformulated Gas Program, a sensible starting point was to allow each State, if they wish, to waive the oxygen requirement. What about the so-called environmental backsliding; in other words, slipping back and allowing more dirty air? There is concern that if the Governors waive this mandate that this will affect the environmental benefit--clean air--of the Reformulated Gas Program. Let me be very clear: My bill ensures there will be no environmental backsliding. We are not walking away from the requirements of the Clean Air Act. If this bill is adopted, the environment--at least the air-- will not know the difference. There will be no negative impact on the air, and the water will be cleaner. Phaseout of MTBE: Eliminating the 2 percent oxygen mandate alone does not mean the elimination of MTBE. MTBE is an effective octane booster, and refiners still may want to use it. Since only a very small amount of MTBE will cause a tremendous amount of damage, it is important to consider the fate of MTBE. This bill will give the EPA Administrator the authority to ban it immediately. If EPA does not do so in 4 years, then this bill will, by law, ban MTBE. The EPA has 4 years to ban it. If they do not, the bill will. EPA could, however, overturn the ban if it deemed it was not necessary to protect air quality, water quality, or human health. If it gets to the point that it is not a problem, then EPA does not have to ban it. Notwithstanding EPA's decision, the bill gives the States the authority to ban the additive. Since there is already massive contamination caused by MTBE, this bill will authorize, as I said, $200 million to be given to the States from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program for the purpose of cleaning up MTBE-caused contamination. Since a Federal mandate caused this pollution--remember that a Federal mandate caused this pollution. This is not the fault of the oil companies. It is not the fault of the MTBE producers. They did what they were asked to do. They produced this additive to clean up the air. Since a Federal mandate caused the pollution, it would be irresponsible for the Federal Government not to bear some of the financial burden associated with the cleanup. Unfortunately, that is the case. I do not like to spend taxpayers' dollars, but this was a mandate, and because of that mandate, we have a problem. It is also important to point out that although it is not part of my legislation, it is reasonable to think of some way of perhaps trying to work with the MTBE producers to help them through this transition if, in fact, MTBE is banned. I certainly am willing to work with them to come up with some solution, some help in terms of their movement from one industry to another, or whatever the case may be. Finally, the bill authorizes a comprehensive study of the environmental consequences of our current fuel supply. In order to be better informed to make future environmental decisions regarding fuel policy, the bill directs EPA to undertake a study of our motor fuel. I will talk a little bit about the cost, a very important point. Lately, we have heard a great deal about gasoline prices, certainly fuel oil prices, as well, in New England. These concerns underscore the question of the costs associated with limiting MTBE use. MTBE, like it or not, is clean, it is cheap, and it helps to clean up our air. Placing it in our fuel supply and keeping the fuel supply clean will have a cost. We have to replace it. We cannot backslide. We do not want to dirty the air while we take MTBE out. It is my belief the Senate is not prepared to reduce our clean air standards or allow for the continued contamination of our drinking water. We have two issues: Contaminated drinking water and do we backslide off the clean air provision. I believe my colleagues in the Senate are willing to work with me to clean up the water to get the MTBE out of our wells and to preserve the integrity of the Clean Air Act and not backslide or move back from the cleaner air we have accomplished by using MTBE. The question, though, becomes: What is the most effective and cost friendly option for achieving this goal? I have a chart which will help illustrate the options. Each one of these options--the red line, yellow line, green line, and the blue line--bans MTBE, but it is a little more complicated than that. One option is simply the elimination of MTBE with no other changes in the law. That is the red line. These show costs. This is the highest cost option because it is about an 8-cent increase in gas prices per gallon. This is a ban of MTBE, and it replaces it with ethanol in the Reformulated Gas Program. One might think: That is fine, it is ethanol, produced by corn, a nice natural product; what is wrong with that? Let's do it. The problem is, in areas in the Northeast, such as New Hampshire, and in other States such as Texas, these States would have to use ethanol to meet that oxygenate requirement because there is no other option. In order to meet the 2-percent oxygenate requirement if MTBE is removed, they have to use ethanol. One may say: What is wrong with that? Ethanol makes gas evaporate more quickly and those fumes would add to smog and haze in New England and it would be serious. Obviously, California would have the same problem. Refiners would have to make gas less evaporative and thereby increasing the cost. In other words, they would have to do something to deal with that rapid evaporation and it would cost more to do that. This is not an option for New England nor California nor any other State that has this particular problem. If we are going to be responsible, then we should work with our colleagues who have these problems. I happen to have that problem because I am from New Hampshire, and as the chairman of the committee, I need to work with all regions of the country to get a compromise that is acceptable to everybody so that we do not have more environmental problems in New England or California or some other place by simply banning MTBE and letting ethanol take over. Some want that. Obviously, the ethanol producers would love it, but that does not help us. We do not want to create more problems. That is not a responsible approach, I say with all due respect. The next line is the orange line in terms of cost. That is the Clinton administration's position. That represents the cost of eliminating the oxygen mandate, but replacing it with a national ethanol mandate. You have no other alternative other than ethanol. The cost of mandating a threefold increase in ethanol sales is very expensive. So the options represented by the orange line shown on the chart cost less than what is shown with the red line because it does not mandate that the reformulated gas contain ethanol. It does not mandate it, but that is what is going to happen. But, shown with this orange line on the chart, it simply mandates the total ethanol market. So you are mandating the market here, and that is no good. That does not work. Unlike what is shown with the red line, there would be no regional constraint. It would not be acceptable. Now, what is shown on the chart with the blue line is legislation that I am introducing today, without the amendment initially. In my view, that is the cheapest and most responsible way to deal with this problem. However, for reasons which I respect--I might not agree with them, but I respect them--it does not have enough support, either, to pass the Senate. I recognize that, but I want everybody to know where I am coming from. I believe we should use the cheapest alternative that gets the job done. That is my view. But I understand, as I said before, I am willing to build that bridge to go from what is shown with the blue line to what is shown with the green line. I will not go to what is shown with the orange or red lines, but I am willing to go from what is shown with the blue line to what is shown with the green line. As I have said, what is shown with the blue line is the bill I have introduced. That bill will cost more to make clean gas without MTBE, but because we place the fewest requirements on the refiners on how to achieve that clean gas, this bill would cost the economy less than all other options. It is very important for me to repeat that. We place the fewest requirements on the refiners on how to achieve the clean gas. We want clean gas achieved. That is the goal. This bill would cost the economy less than all of those other options. While my bill addresses all of the concerns with MTBE, I am also sensitive to the concerns of the Senators who understand that this bill might have an impact on ethanol. So in order to address these concerns, I have prepared an amendment to my own legislation, amendment No. 4026, which I have already sent to the desk. This amendment seeks to address the concerns over ethanol that Members have. I am hoping that over the course of the next 30 days we will be able to build this bridge from what is shown by the blue line to what is shown by the green line, to get to what I think is an acceptable and responsible approach. I indicated earlier there is a lot of interest. Thirty-two States have expressed interest in this, in my letter. This amendment seeks to address the concerns of the ethanol industry by establishing a segment of the fuel market that must be comprised of either ethanol or fuel used to power superclean vehicles. About 10 days ago, I had the opportunity to ride in a fuel-celled bus. It had hydrogen cells. I had never experienced anything like it: No fumes, no smell, very little sound, and no pollutants whatsoever. I road several miles in it. The current occupant of the Chair, the Senator from Utah, Senator Bennett, drives a hybrid car which is part electric, part gas. You see, we are moving in the right direction. Hybrid cars, fuel cells--they are the future. The more we do that, the less we need of any type of gasoline, whether it is ethanol or just oil based. It does not matter. The point is, we are moving in the right direction. That is what we want to encourage. This bill will establish a segment of the fuel market that must be comprised of either ethanol or fuel used to power those clean vehicles. We do not want to stop them from having that option. If we just go with the renewables that the administration wants, all they can use is ethanol. What we want them to do is use ethanol, if they wish, but to use hybrid cars if they wish. Encourage that, encourage fuel cells, whatever, or premium gas, but let the market deal with it. So there are a lot of exciting things happening. This amendment is going to create competition. There is nothing wrong with competition, good old competition. You pick winners and losers--no guarantees--with competition between the ethanol industry and the clean vehicle market. So why mandate ethanol and exclude clean vehicles? It does not make any sense. So the estimated cost of this approach is represented by the green line on the chart. This is a very good approach that I believe is a compromise that gets us there. It costs us a little more, but it gets us there. Because we can't get there with what is represented by the blue line, I am willing to go here, with what is represented by the green line. Mr. President, I know my time is pretty close to expiring, I am sure. To those who will ask, why does this have to be so complicated, I did not create the issue. I have spent the last 6 months trying to understand it and learn about it. I think I am getting there, with a lot of help. It is a complex issue, with many competing interests. That is the thing. But a simple ban of MTBE does not get everybody there-- all the regions of the country. It does not get it done. So a simple ban of MTBE makes gas more expensive and air more dirty. It is not acceptable. We cannot do that. A stand-alone mandate of ethanol does not get you there, either. Smog concerns, cost concerns-- particularly in New Hampshire, and other areas of the Northeast, as well as California--that does not get you there. Simply eliminating the reformulated gas mandate does not work, either. That is another option. MTBE would continue to be used and the potential adverse impact on ethanol would be there. I am committed, I say to my colleagues, to a solution that, one, cleans up our Nation's drinking water, and, two, preserves the environmental benefits of the reformulated gasoline program, which is the most cost-effective option for the whole Nation. And that is shown right there with the green line. That is the one we can get it done with. I wish it were here with what is depicted with the blue line, but this will get us there with what is depicted with the green line; and we will do it. So I am convinced this is the right approach. I look forward to working with my colleagues. This is an honest attempt to sit down with everybody and get to a resolution, because to continue to argue about this and debate this, while more and more wells every day get polluted with MTBE, is irresponsible. It is totally irresponsible. We should not be talking about somebody's profit at the expense of somebody's well being polluted. Let's compromise. We will work with you. You can make some profit, but you are not going to make so much profit that we have to stand around and have our wells polluted. That is simply wrong. It is unacceptable. It is irresponsible. I am not going to stand for it. I don't think anybody would who had these kinds of problems. It is irresponsible. So we are going to work together. I am very encouraged by the folks, especially the ethanol Senators, who I have talked with, and their staffs. We have talked to folks in the oil industry. They are not real thrilled about some of this, but, again, this is a solution that we must find. We cannot continue to say we will talk about it next week or we will deal with it in conference or we will deal with it next year. We need to deal with it now. This is a responsible effort to do that. So, again, I look forward to working with my colleagues, and I look forward to that markup on September 7. I intend to be ready for it, and to send that bill out of the EPW Committee and on to the calendar in the Senate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Walter John Gallo, Vice President for the Endowment at Saint Anselm's College, upon his retirement. Gallo, who graduated from Saint Anselm's College in 1958, has faithfully served the college and the surrounding community for the past thirty years. In addition to holding the position of Vice President of the Endowment, he has also been Alumni Director and Vice President for Development. I applaud his hard work and dedication in these positions, raising more than 2.5 million dollars over the last fundraising goal and establishing a nationwide alumni network for the college. In addition to giving to Saint Anselm's College, Gallo is an active member of both the local and state communities, as well as several national organizations. He has been active with the Council for the Advancement and Support of Education, the National Society of Fund Raising Executives, Catholic Medical Center, New Hampshire Center for the Preforming Arts, the National Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse, New Horizons for New Hampshire, the Manchester Diocese School Development Committee and the Bedford Library Foundation. Walter Gallo is truly an extraordinary individual. He has worked tirelessly and selflessly for Saint Anselm's College, the surrounding communities, the state and several national organizations while still finding time for his family and his personal hobbies which include Italian culture, reading, carpentry and sports. I commend Walter and wish him the best upon his retirement. It has been a pleasure to work with him in years past, and it is truly an honor to represent him in the United States Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, today I have introduced legislation, S. 2962, which I believe will deal once and for all with the MTBE problem that is facing us all across America, specifically New England. In the Northeast, as well as California and other areas of the country, we are beginning to see evidence of MTBE in ground water. This is a serious environmental problem that must be addressed. It is certainly a problem in New Hampshire. I rise today to speak for my constituents in New Hampshire who are now having their wells, several a week by the way, being contaminated by MTBE. This is my home State. This is a serious problem there. I am here to offer this legislation to help my constituents in New Hampshire get relief from MTBE, which is a pollutant in their wells. But I am also here to speak for all Americans across the country who have MTBE in their wells, whether they be in California or New Hampshire. MTBE has done more damage to our drinking water than we would care to know. MTBE has been a component of our fuel supply for over two decades. In 1990, we amended the Clean Air Act to include a clean gasoline program. Unfortunately, we did not look at the science that was probably more evident than not. Because we did not look at that science, we have now created another environmental problem of a huge magnitude, which is probably going to cost billions of dollars to clean up. If there is a moral here, or lesson, it should be: Use good science. Look carefully before you leap into some of these environmental dilemmas. That program in the 1990 Clean Air Act amendment mandated use of 2 percent oxygen in the gas, by weight. In other words, 2 percent of the weight of a gallon of gasoline should be oxygen. That was put in the fuel. MTBE was one of two options that could be used. The problem with MTBE is that it has this ability to migrate through the ground very quickly and then into the water table. What is MTBE? It is an ether, and in the event of a leak or gas spill, the MTBE will separate from the gas and migrate through the ground very quickly. The real problem starts when MTBE finds its way into the ground water, which it frequently does. Several States have had gasoline leaks, or spills, that led to the closure of wells because of MTBE. It smells. It tastes horrible. It is not the kind of thing you want to see come out of your shower or your faucet when you are ready to use your water. This is a serious problem. Some have made light of it, frankly, in this body, in the sense that maybe it is not such a serious problem and maybe we should look at some other alternatives other than banning it. But we need to ban MTBE. The legislation I am introducing today will do that. It does it in a responsible manner, which I will explain. Several States have had these leaks or spills, as I said. So this bill will address the problems associated with MTBE, but--and this is a very important point--will not reduce any of the environmental benefits of the clean air program. That cannot be said with every option that has been presented on this issue. Again, we can ban MTBE, but we will not reduce any environmental benefit that the MTBE has brought to clean the air and that is important. Briefly, this bill will allow the Governor of any State to waive the gasoline oxygen requirement of the Clean Air Act--waive it. But it will preserve the environmental benefits. It will also grant the State and the Federal Government authority to ban MTBE. It authorizes an additional $200 million out of the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Fund to clean up MTBE where these wells have been contaminated because of these leaking tanks. In other words, if we could repair those leaking tanks, we are going to cut back on the amount of problems we are going to have in the future. So it is important we have this as part of the legislation to get the money there to fix these tanks, to cut back on the amount of MTBE that gets into the ground water. If it does not leak out of the tank, the gasoline tank, it will not get into the ground water. But it is leaking out of tanks and we have to fix it. The bill also authorizes an extensive study of numerous environmental consequences of our current fuel use. It was my hope to have marked up and sent to the floor from the Environment and Public Works Committee, which I chair, a bill this past week. In fact, it was our goal to do it yesterday, but we could not get the parties together who I needed to make this bill a reality, in the sense that it would pass. We could have introduced a bill, could have marked a bill, perhaps, but it would not have passed because we would not have the support. This problem is too serious to play politics. MTBE is a pollutant in our wells. We need to get it out. We have to have legislation to do it and it has to pass. There is no point introducing a bill that will not pass. There are people who are dug in on all sides of this issue for various reasons. But the point is, we need to compromise. We all cannot get what we want, but the end result must be that we get MTBE out of our ground water. That is the bottom line. So I agreed, reluctantly, but I agreed, in the interests of working together with my colleagues, to hold off until September in order to resolve the few remaining issues, but I intend to hold that markup in September. In fact, the specific date is September 7. In that legislation that we mark up, we will ban MTBE. The issues that are in this legislation include the treatment of ethanol. I am pleased with the recent progress we have made on this. But there is a serious problem that we have to deal with, those who advocate more ethanol in fuel. I expect these issues to be resolved. We are working behind the scenes very hard to resolve these issues before the September 7 markup. It will give the staff something to do during the August recess. I know they will work out the details. But I thank the many Senators on both sides of the aisle I have been working with very closely to resolve these issues. This is a tough, tough issue, and it is hard to get agreement. Everybody is not going to get what they want, but the bottom line is, we have to get MTBE out of the water. Let me address the ethanol issue for a moment. Some weeks ago I circulated a draft that included a clean alternative fuels program. This is a very complex issue. What are alternative fuels? It could be premium gasoline. It could be natural gas. It could be electricity. It could be fuel cells. It could be ethanol. But if you say ``renewable fuels,'' then you are talking for the most part only ethanol. So when we are talking alternative fuels, what alternatives do we have to MTBE that would help us meet these requirements in the Clean Air Act? This has proven to be a good step toward addressing the ethanol question. The program will also enhance the development of cleaner and more efficient cars which will help with the Clean Air Act issues as well. There has been growing support for this alternative fuels approach since the time we first brought this up. We do not want to create more MTBE problems. We do not want to create dirtier air by eliminating MTBE because we created dirty water by putting MTBEs in gasoline. So last week in an effort, again, to reach out, I received a letter supporting that approach from 32 States represented by air quality planners in the northeastern States and the Governors' Ethanol Coalition. So for the first time we now have ethanol, and the Northeast, you have specific problems here with the MTBE issue, talking, working together, and, as we said, from this letter of support from 32 States, they support this approach. We have not dotted every ``i'' and crossed every ``t'' yet, but in concept they support the approach. The bill I am offering today, while that bill does not include the exact language they are talking about in that letter--and I want to make that clear--it is a bridge. It is a bridge from where my legislation is to where they are. Actually, simultaneously to the bill I have introduced, I have also offered an amendment No. 4026, which crosses that bridge. I have introduced what I would like to have, what I believe is the most cost-effective method to deal with this problem, but I recognize that even though it is the least costly, it does not have the amount of support I need to pass it. So I have offered another amendment to my own bill, which is my way of saying: OK, you offered me the bridge. I am willing to walk across it and meet you at least halfway. I will describe this bill in a little more detail first. This is a complex issue. The Environmental and Public Works Committee has been struggling with this, certainly in the last 7 or 8 months I have been chairman of the committee, and I am sure they were struggling with it many months before that. I have tried to craft a solution that is direct and balanced. I believe I have accomplished that. That is my goal. It is not to ramrod anything through to make anybody angry. It is a legitimate attempt to get a consensus to deal with a serious environmental problem, not to deal with everybody's own opinions. If anybody comes to the table and says: If I do not get this, I will leave the table--I tell the people who say that: Don't bother coming to the table; you are wasting my time and yours. If you want to, talk, compromise, and reach a rational conclusion. I am willing to talk, and Senators on all sides of this have done just that. We have talked to many industry folks and environmental people as well on this very issue. The bill waives the oxygen mandate. The Reformulated Gasoline Program, or RFG, requires at least 2 percent of gasoline by weight to be oxygen. MTBE and ethanol are the principal additives that help satisfy this mandate. It is ethanol or MTBE. They will bring us to that 2 percent oxygenate requirement. Because MTBE is rarely used outside the Reformulated Gas Program, a sensible starting point was to allow each State, if they wish, to waive the oxygen requirement. What about the so-called environmental backsliding; in other words, slipping back and allowing more dirty air? There is concern that if the Governors waive this mandate that this will affect the environmental benefit--clean air--of the Reformulated Gas Program. Let me be very clear: My bill ensures there will be no environmental backsliding. We are not walking away from the requirements of the Clean Air Act. If this bill is adopted, the environment--at least the air-- will not know the difference. There will be no negative impact on the air, and the water will be cleaner. Phaseout of MTBE: Eliminating the 2 percent oxygen mandate alone does not mean the elimination of MTBE. MTBE is an effective octane booster, and refiners still may want to use it. Since only a very small amount of MTBE will cause a tremendous amount of damage, it is important to consider the fate of MTBE. This bill will give the EPA Administrator the authority to ban it immediately. If EPA does not do so in 4 years, then this bill will, by law, ban MTBE. The EPA has 4 years to ban it. If they do not, the bill will. EPA could, however, overturn the ban if it deemed it was not necessary to protect air quality, water quality, or human health. If it gets to the point that it is not a problem, then EPA does not have to ban it. Notwithstanding EPA's decision, the bill gives the States the authority to ban the additive. Since there is already massive contamination caused by MTBE, this bill will authorize, as I said, $200 million to be given to the States from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program for the purpose of cleaning up MTBE-caused contamination. Since a Federal mandate caused this pollution--remember that a Federal mandate caused this pollution. This is not the fault of the oil companies. It is not the fault of the MTBE producers. They did what they were asked to do. They produced this additive to clean up the air. Since a Federal mandate caused the pollution, it would be irresponsible for the Federal Government not to bear some of the financial burden associated with the cleanup. Unfortunately, that is the case. I do not like to spend taxpayers' dollars, but this was a mandate, and because of that mandate, we have a problem. It is also important to point out that although it is not part of my legislation, it is reasonable to think of some way of perhaps trying to work with the MTBE producers to help them through this transition if, in fact, MTBE is banned. I certainly am willing to work with them to come up with some solution, some help in terms of their movement from one industry to another, or whatever the case may be. Finally, the bill authorizes a comprehensive study of the environmental consequences of our current fuel supply. In order to be better informed to make future environmental decisions regarding fuel policy, the bill directs EPA to undertake a study of our motor fuel. I will talk a little bit about the cost, a very important point. Lately, we have heard a great deal about gasoline prices, certainly fuel oil prices, as well, in New England. These concerns underscore the question of the costs associated with limiting MTBE use. MTBE, like it or not, is clean, it is cheap, and it helps to clean up our air. Placing it in our fuel supply and keeping the fuel supply clean will have a cost. We have to replace it. We cannot backslide. We do not want to dirty the air while we take MTBE out. It is my belief the Senate is not prepared to reduce our clean air standards or allow for the continued contamination of our drinking water. We have two issues: Contaminated drinking water and do we backslide off the clean air provision. I believe my colleagues in the Senate are willing to work with me to clean up the water to get the MTBE out of our wells and to preserve the integrity of the Clean Air Act and not backslide or move back from the cleaner air we have accomplished by using MTBE. The question, though, becomes: What is the most effective and cost friendly option for achieving this goal? I have a chart which will help illustrate the options. Each one of these options--the red line, yellow line, green line, and the blue line--bans MTBE, but it is a little more complicated than that. One option is simply the elimination of MTBE with no other changes in the law. That is the red line. These show costs. This is the highest cost option because it is about an 8-cent increase in gas prices per gallon. This is a ban of MTBE, and it replaces it with ethanol in the Reformulated Gas Program. One might think: That is fine, it is ethanol, produced by corn, a nice natural product; what is wrong with that? Let's do it. The problem is, in areas in the Northeast, such as New Hampshire, and in other States such as Texas, these States would have to use ethanol to meet that oxygenate requirement because there is no other option. In order to meet the 2-percent oxygenate requirement if MTBE is removed, they have to use ethanol. One may say: What is wrong with that? Ethanol makes gas evaporate more quickly and those fumes would add to smog and haze in New England and it would be serious. Obviously, California would have the same problem. Refiners would have to make gas less evaporative and thereby increasing the cost. In other words, they would have to do something to deal with that rapid evaporation and it would cost more to do that. This is not an option for New England nor California nor any other State that has this particular problem. If we are going to be responsible, then we should work with our colleagues who have these problems. I happen to have that problem because I am from New Hampshire, and as the chairman of the committee, I need to work with all regions of the country to get a compromise that is acceptable to everybody so that we do not have more environmental problems in New England or California or some other place by simply banning MTBE and letting ethanol take over. Some want that. Obviously, the ethanol producers would love it, but that does not help us. We do not want to create more problems. That is not a responsible approach, I say with all due respect. The next line is the orange line in terms of cost. That is the Clinton administration's position. That represents the cost of eliminating the oxygen mandate, but replacing it with a national ethanol mandate. You have no other alternative other than ethanol. The cost of mandating a threefold increase in ethanol sales is very expensive. So the options represented by the orange line shown on the chart cost less than what is shown with the red line because it does not mandate that the reformulated gas contain ethanol. It does not mandate it, but that is what is going to happen. But, shown with this orange line on the chart, it simply mandates the total ethanol market. So you are mandating the market here, and that is no good. That does not work. Unlike what is shown with the red line, there would be no regional constraint. It would not be acceptable. Now, what is shown on the chart with the blue line is legislation that I am introducing today, without the amendment initially. In my view, that is the cheapest and most responsible way to deal with this problem. However, for reasons which I respect--I might not agree with them, but I respect them--it does not have enough support, either, to pass the Senate. I recognize that, but I want everybody to know where I am coming from. I believe we should use the cheapest alternative that gets the job done. That is my view. But I understand, as I said before, I am willing to build that bridge to go from what is shown with the blue line to what is shown with the green line. I will not go to what is shown with the orange or red lines, but I am willing to go from what is shown with the blue line to what is shown with the green line. As I have said, what is shown with the blue line is the bill I have introduced. That bill will cost more to make clean gas without MTBE, but because we place the fewest requirements on the refiners on how to achieve that clean gas, this bill would cost the economy less than all other options. It is very important for me to repeat that. We place the fewest requirements on the refiners on how to achieve the clean gas. We want clean gas achieved. That is the goal. This bill would cost the economy less than all of those other options. While my bill addresses all of the concerns with MTBE, I am also sensitive to the concerns of the Senators who understand that this bill might have an impact on ethanol. So in order to address these concerns, I have prepared an amendment to my own legislation, amendment No. 4026, which I have already sent to the desk. This amendment seeks to address the concerns over ethanol that Members have. I am hoping that over the course of the next 30 days we will be able to build this bridge from what is shown by the blue line to what is shown by the green line, to get to what I think is an acceptable and responsible approach. I indicated earlier there is a lot of interest. Thirty-two States have expressed interest in this, in my letter. This amendment seeks to address the concerns of the ethanol industry by establishing a segment of the fuel market that must be comprised of either ethanol or fuel used to power superclean vehicles. About 10 days ago, I had the opportunity to ride in a fuel-celled bus. It had hydrogen cells. I had never experienced anything like it: No fumes, no smell, very little sound, and no pollutants whatsoever. I road several miles in it. The current occupant of the Chair, the Senator from Utah, Senator Bennett, drives a hybrid car which is part electric, part gas. You see, we are moving in the right direction. Hybrid cars, fuel cells--they are the future. The more we do that, the less we need of any type of gasoline, whether it is ethanol or just oil based. It does not matter. The point is, we are moving in the right direction. That is what we want to encourage. This bill will establish a segment of the fuel market that must be comprised of either ethanol or fuel used to power those clean vehicles. We do not want to stop them from having that option. If we just go with the renewables that the administration wants, all they can use is ethanol. What we want them to do is use ethanol, if they wish, but to use hybrid cars if they wish. Encourage that, encourage fuel cells, whatever, or premium gas, but let the market deal with it. So there are a lot of exciting things happening. This amendment is going to create competition. There is nothing wrong with competition, good old competition. You pick winners and losers--no guarantees--with competition between the ethanol industry and the clean vehicle market. So why mandate ethanol and exclude clean vehicles? It does not make any sense. So the estimated cost of this approach is represented by the green line on the chart. This is a very good approach that I believe is a compromise that gets us there. It costs us a little more, but it gets us there. Because we can't get there with what is represented by the blue line, I am willing to go here, with what is represented by the green line. Mr. President, I know my time is pretty close to expiring, I am sure. To those who will ask, why does this have to be so complicated, I did not create the issue. I have spent the last 6 months trying to understand it and learn about it. I think I am getting there, with a lot of help. It is a complex issue, with many competing interests. That is the thing. But a simple ban of MTBE does not get everybody there-- all the regions of the country. It does not get it done. So a simple ban of MTBE makes gas more expensive and air more dirty. It is not acceptable. We cannot do that. A stand-alone mandate of ethanol does not get you there, either. Smog concerns, cost concerns-- particularly in New Hampshire, and other areas of the Northeast, as well as California--that does not get you there. Simply eliminating the reformulated gas mandate does not work, either. That is another option. MTBE would continue to be used and the potential adverse impact on ethanol would be there. I am committed, I say to my colleagues, to a solution that, one, cleans up our Nation's drinking water, and, two, preserves the environmental benefits of the reformulated gasoline program, which is the most cost-effective option for the whole Nation. And that is shown right there with the green line. That is the one we can get it done with. I wish it were here with what is depicted with the blue line, but this will get us there with what is depicted with the green line; and we will do it. So I am convinced this is the right approach. I look forward to working with my colleagues. This is an honest attempt to sit down with everybody and get to a resolution, because to continue to argue about this and debate this, while more and more wells every day get polluted with MTBE, is irresponsible. It is totally irresponsible. We should not be talking about somebody's profit at the expense of somebody's well being polluted. Let's compromise. We will work with you. You can make some profit, but you are not going to make so much profit that we have to stand around and have our wells polluted. That is simply wrong. It is unacceptable. It is irresponsible. I am not going to stand for it. I don't think anybody would who had these kinds of problems. It is irresponsible. So we are going to work together. I am very encouraged by the folks, especially the ethanol Senators, who I have talked with, and their staffs. We have talked to folks in the oil industry. They are not real thrilled about some of this, but, again, this is a solution that we must find. We cannot continue to say we will talk about it next week or we will deal with it in conference or we will deal with it next year. We need to deal with it now. This is a responsible effort to do that. So, again, I look forward to working with my colleagues, and I look forward to that markup on September 7. I intend to be ready for it, and to send that bill out of the EPW Committee and on to the calendar in the Senate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Ruth Griffin for being named the ``2000 Citizen of the Year'' by the Greater Portsmouth Chamber of Commerce. Ruth's dedication to the citizens of Portsmouth and its surrounding communities has spanned an impressionable thirty years. She exemplifies what is good about today's society and proves that everyone can become involved in his or her community in some small way. Ruth genuinely cares for the people of the seacoast and thinks of everyone as her children to some degree. Her unfaltering commitment to assisting those in need or in crisis has touched the lives of many and garnered her an award for her efforts. Aside from participating in countless community service events and programs, Ruth served on the Portsmouth School Board and the Police Commission. She extended her service beyond the seacoast to all of New Hampshire by serving terms in the New Hampshire State House and Senate. She currently serves as one of the governor's executive councilors. Ruth gives one hundred percent of her time and efforts to bettering the lives of those less fortunate. Her kind-hearted care and concern for the well-being of all she encounters proves her deep commitment to making New Hampshire a better place to live. Such dedication to her community and state is heart-warming and truly inspirational in a time where civic responsibility seems to be waning. It is citizens like Ruth who make our communities stronger and exemplify what is good about America today. It is an honor to serve Ruth in the United States Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the Belknap County Economic Development Group for receiving the 2000 United States Small Business Administration's New Hampshire ``Financial Services Advocate of the Year'' award. Financial service advocates play an integral role in the success of a small business, particularly in their assistance with access to credit. The Belknap County Economic Development Group is no exception. They have been assisting small businesses in surrounding communities with great success since 1992. Initially formed to address economic issues plaguing the area at the time, it later expanded to assisting small businesses struggling to get off the ground. It currently operates a revolving loan fund and two micro-lending programs, as well as provides technical assistance and counseling. As a former small business owner in the state, I commend the Belknap County Economic Development Group for their hard work and dedication. It is truly an honor to represent them in the United States Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Lillian ``Billie'' Noel for her recognition as the Portsmouth Rotary Club's ``Paul Harris Fellow'' award winner. Billie's deep commitment to preserving New Hampshire's precious woodlands is truly commendable. Instead of selling 35 acres of land to developers, Billie sold it at a reduced price to preservationists, ensuring the land will remain untouched for a long time. It is because of her dedication to assuring the future of New Hampshire's forests that she was honored by the Portsmouth Rotary Club in option for preservation over profit. Billie made the decision to sell her property for $600,000 to the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire's Forests, even though it is worth three times that amount. This generous sale will ensure that the scenic waterfront property is not touched by developers. One of the last remaining undeveloped pieces of land in the fast-growing seacoast area, residents would have lost a treasured piece of their New Hampshire heritage had it been sold to developers. The Society plans to add walking paths and areas to picnic and bird watch, preserving the land's charm and scenic appeal. Billie's contribution to New Hampshire's citizens proves that there are still people dedicated to saving nature's delicacy rather than making a mere profit. It is this type of private initiative which keeps New Hampshire as the beautiful ``Live Free or Die'' state. New Hampshire is lucky to have citizens like Billie who are committed to saving our state's beautiful lands. Our state's scenic areas are too precious to lose and I commend Billie for her hard work and dedication to the environment. It is an honor to represent Billie in the United States Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Olde Port Bank for its recognition as a 2000 New Hampshire ``Business in the Arts'' award winner in the small company category. Olde Port Bank proves that time and money are not the only key factors necessary for the successful continuation of arts programs. They have provided exhibit space in its offices and lobbies and promoted the activities of employees and customers who are artists as well. It is this sort of personal attention and support that make various programs available to the local community. The bank also understands the importance of a strong financial backbone, and helps to secure loans and credit lines so that the arts can remain part of the seacoast community. The Children's Museum of Portsmouth is one such grateful recipient of Olde Port Bank's efforts. The bank has given generous financial support for an endowment fund to the museum and established corporate membership and sponsorship. Bank employees spend countless hours assisting the museum in many of its events and activities. This sort of high participation is a testament to the staff's deep dedication to making the arts more accessible to the Portsmouth community. Olde Port Bank recognizes the importance of arts in education and the community. Forty percent of the bank's contributions budget is earmarked for arts organizations in the Portsmouth area, and this support is consistently growing each year. This company recognizes their power to lead by example, both economically and physically. Without the support of dedicated businesses like Olde Port Bank, the arts would not be able to flourish in New Hampshire. Olde Port Bank truly signifies the deep personal commitment of small businesses across the state to supporting the causes that make New Hampshire one's chosen place to call home. It is an honor to serve them in the United States Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to the Honorable Susan B. Carbon upon receiving the ``Frank Rowe Kenison'' award for her contributions to New Hampshire citizens through the field of Law and Justice. The ``Frank Rowe Kenison'' award was established to recognize those individuals who, through the administration of justice, the legal profession or the advancement of legal thought, have worked towards improving the lives of New Hampshire citizens. Susan has bettered the life of hundreds if not thousands of New Hampshire citizens through her pursuit of justice. Her personal and professional journeys have inspired her to seek an end to family violence. As president of the New Hampshire Bar Association, Susan was instrumental in establishing the Family Violence Conference. She has also served as a member of the Executive Committee for the Governor's Commission on Domestic & Sexual Violence and a trustee for the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. This involvement has allowed her to combat domestic violence on a national level. Susan's tireless dedication to domestic violence prevention is a testament to the philosophy of Frank Rowe Kenison, who stated ``The Supreme Court and the Judiciary of this State will continue to maintain and guard its house justice for the humble as well as the powerful, for the poor as well as the rich, for the minority as well as the majority and for the unpopular as well as the popular.'' In her many years in the legal profession, Susan Carbon has carried out Rowe's vision of justice. She has turned to the most sacred and powerful groups within society and the family in order to ensure that each individual is able to live without the fear of impending violence. Susan's dedication to her profession, ending domestic violence and to her surrounding community is remarkable. It is both an honor and a great pleasure to represent her in the United States Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Michael Hickey, for his recognition by the Yankee Chapter of the Public Relations Society of America as the 2000 Yankee Award Recipient. Mike is the president and CEO of Bell Atlantic New Hampshire, a company that faithfully upholds the ideals of corporate responsibility, good citizenship and core values. Mike has taken the role of CEO to a whole new level of relationship building by embracing those around him, not only within his company, but within the surrounding community as well. He consistently works hard to ensure that all employee and business concerns are met and addressed. It is his dedication to relationship building that exemplifies what public relations is all about. Mike is an extraordinary leader who leads by example, most notably by his involvement with numerous non-profit organizations. As chairman of Kids Voting New Hampshire and the former campaign chairman of the Greater Manchester United Way, Mike demonstrates the importance of civic responsibility and giving back to the community. He listens carefully to others and diligently tries to bring the disenfranchised into the inner circle. He makes people feel included and valued. His board membership in the Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce, the NH Business & Industry Association, and the NH High Tech Council prove his true commitment to the advancement of New Hampshire's businesses and economy. He is the type of leader who encourages those around him to give above and beyond one hundred percent of themselves. As a result, Bell Atlantic sponsors a number of community events aimed at educating and guiding youths and adults throughout the state, such as the Smithsonian Folklife Exhibit from New Hampshire and the Celebrate New Hampshire Culture Festival. Mike's hard work, determination and ability to motivate those around him to reach greater heights are truly commendable. His strong concern for the common good is admirable. He has truly illustrated the qualities of strong leadership and interpersonal relationship skills. Mike, it is an honor to represent you in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Lauren E. Sirois, of Salem, NH, for being selected as a 2000 Presidential Scholar by the U.S. Secretary of Education. Of the over 2.5 million graduating seniors nationwide, Lauren is one of only 141 seniors to receive this distinction for academics. This impressive young woman is well-deserving of the title of Presidential Scholar. I wish to commend Lauren for her outstanding achievement. As a student at Phillips Academy in New Hampshire, Lauren has served as a role model for her peers through her commitment to excellence. Lauren's determination promises to guide her in the future. It is certain that Lauren will continue to excel in her future endeavors. I wish to offer my most sincere congratulations and best wishes to Lauren. Her achievements are truly remarkable. 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 McLane, Graf, Raulerson and Middleton upon their recognition as a 2000 New Hampshire ``Business in the Arts'' award winner in the medium-sized company category. The firm has been a long time contributor to the development of the arts in New Hampshire. They not only donate time and money to various arts events, but they have established themselves on numerous boards and sponsorships and are well-known for distributing complimentary tickets to clients and friends. This extensive sponsorship of different arts programs is carried out on a more personal level by the firm's employees, whose individual contributions of time and money make a significant impact on the organizations they support. The firm has placed a considerable interest in promoting musical events throughout the State, and avidly supports the Opera League of New Hampshire, the New Hampshire Symphony Orchestra, the Portsmouth Music Hall, the Concord Community Music School and the Nashua Symphony, to name a few. Their list of achievements stretches even further to other venues of the arts as well, such as the Palace Theater in Manchester, the Currier Gallery of Art and Strawbery Banke, a historical site in Portsmouth. This strong commitment by the firm to providing the opportunity for arts programs to come to the State is truly commendable. The firm understands the true importance of the arts in communities, and without their generous support, these programs would not be possible. The firm has taken on new projects, most notably a year 2000 celebration with cultural activities such as a Black Heritage Trail and a YMCA art auction. These sort of events enrich the lives of the entire community and prove that private businesses can indeed make a huge impact on bringing the arts to all citizens. It is an honor to serve the firm and its employees in the U.S. Senate.