Bob Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

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

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 pay tribute to Mark Levenson upon being appointed the Director of the VA Medical Center in Manchester, NH. As director, Dr. Levenson will have the responsibility of leading the VA Medical Center into the 21st century. The level of dedication and commitment required by such a prestigious position would seem overwhelming to many, yet Dr. Levenson has proven himself willing and capable of providing the best leadership for the center. Prior to his appointment as the director for the VA Medical Center, Dr. Levenson served as the acting director of the center. During that 22 month period, Mark dedicated his time to improving medical care access for veterans. His efforts to expand clinics in Manchester and Portsmouth are just some examples of his loyalty and commitment to America's veterans. Dr. Levenson has used each and every day of his career with the VA Medical Center to remind his peers and the surrounding community of their commitment to those men and women who served our great nation. As a veteran of the U.S. Armed Forces and a friend of the VA Medical Center, I salute the selfless efforts of Dr. Levenson. His leadership will prove invaluable as he assumes the position of director, and I wish him all the best in his endeavors. It is truly an honor to represent Dr. Levenson in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Mary Noucas, for her recognition as an Outstanding Volunteer by the New Hampshire Partners in Education. In a world full of waning civic responsibility, it is always heartwarming to hear of selfless citizens devoting time to their communities. Mary's tireless dedication to Portsmouth schools has garnered her state-wide recognition for her efforts. She initially started working at the Dondero Elementary School when her children started kindergarten seven years ago in order to become more fully involved in their education. She offered to sign up for everything to get to know the teachers and the parents better, and hasn't stopped since. Her work now stretches to other schools in the area as well. Mary has established a number of successful programs at the school, such as the Class Popcorn Giveaway and the Magical Mailbox program, heads numerous committees, and has overseen countless art shows, bake sales and book fairs. She puts together the middle school newsletter and continues to do publicity for the elementary school. She truly enjoys volunteering and cites her love of children as the driving force behind her efforts. Mary's work is truly inspirational and typifies what is good about American citizens today. Without the help of dedicated volunteers, our schools would not be able to run smoothly, and it is the children who ultimately would suffer. It is truly 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 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 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.

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 honor the Mount Washington Hotel and Resort for their designation as one of the Businesses of the Decade by Business New Hampshire Magazine. For the past ten years, under the direction of partners Joel and Cathy Bedard, the Mount Washington Hotel and Resort has become a cornerstone of the White Mountain Community, providing not only a place for the people of New Hampshire to rest and relax, but giving back to the surrounding community as well. The Mount Washington Hotel and Resort had not been locally owned until 1991, after several failed business ventures attempted to capitalize on the property. The hard work and dedication of each individual who worked on renovating and revitalizing the hotel is truly commendable. As a result, the Mount Washington Hotel and Resort was saved from demolition and currently thrives as one of New Hampshire's greatest treasures. The Mount Washington Hotel and Resort is the largest employer in the local economy, providing 450 jobs in the summer months and 550 throughout the winter season. They are also an active member of their community, lending their support to programs such as New Hampshire Public Television, the Littleton Regional Hospital Auxiliary and other worthy programs and causes. The Mount Washington Hotel and Resort is a true friend to the people of New Hampshire. Their efforts over the past ten years are truly commendable, and it is 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 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, 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, 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 would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the hearing to conduct oversight on the status of the Biological Opinions of the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the operations of the Federal hydropower system of the Columbia River regarding the National Marine Fisheries Service's draft Biological Opinion and its potential impact on the Columbia River operations, which had been previously scheduled for Tuesday, July 25, 2000, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC has been indefinitely postponed. For further information, please call Trici Heninger, staff assistant, or Colleen Deegan, counsel, at (202) 224-8115.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the outstanding leadership of Tom Schwieger, President and CEO of the Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce. Tom's seventeen years of service have been marked by integrity, vision and dedication, earning him the respect and admiration of the people of New Hampshire. During his tenure at the Manchester Chamber, Tom has initiated and overseen some of the most important revitalization projects of the last fifty years. He was the driving force behind the development of the Manchester Airport and the newly approved Civic Center. In 1998, as a testament to the success of Tom's efforts, Manchester was named the best small city in America in which to live. When I speak with Tom, I am always left with the impression that he truly loves what he does. His energy and enthusiasm is contagious and Tom has assembled a very prestigious Board of Directors. As BJ Eckhardt of Business New Hampshire Magazine remarked, ``people are honored to serve on the board; no one says `no' to Tom.'' In addition to his many professional achievements, Tom has served as a mentor and an inspiration to many members of the Chamber staff. Many current New Hampshire community leaders credit Tom with giving them their start and helping to shape their careers. Walter Lippman once said, ``The final test of a leader is that he leaves behind him in other men, the conviction and the will to carry on.'' In his seventeen years at the Chamber, Tom has given the organization direction, drive, and a sense of mission. He has served with spirit and devotion, and his legacy will serve as an example to his successors for years to come. Tom, it has been an honor and a pleasure to serve you in the United States Senate. I wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors. May you always continue to inspire those around you.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Sitesurfer Publishing upon its recognition as a 2000 New Hampshire ``Business in the Arts'' award winner in the microenterprise category. Sitesurfer Publishing has proven that a little bit of time and energy is all it takes to make a significant impact in the arts. This company has allowed such organizations as the Capitol Center for the Arts in Concord to become more competitive in today's high-tech world of on- line business. Sitesurfer created a website for the Capitol Center which resulted in thousands of dollars worth of contributions and tickets sold. This type of competitive edge has attracted worldwide visitors and increased the appeal of corporate sponsorship packages, proving to be the sort of revenue needed to continue the Capitol Center's many programs. Sitesurfer has gone a step further in assuring the future of the Capitol Center's newest technology by providing the necessary hands-on training for the Center's staff to maintain and update the website, while still making itself available for support and hands-on work when it is needed. Sitesurfer understands the importance of making the arts accessible to others by providing memberships and complimentary tickets to their employees and clients. Without the support of dedicated businesses, the arts would not be able to flourish in the state. Despite its small size, Sitesurfer Publishing has demonstrated that even small businesses can take an active role in the community not only by donating money, but by investing time and hard work into civic causes. Sitesurfer truly signifies the deep personal commitment of small businesses across the state to supporting the causes that make New Hampshire the place to call home. It is 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 Lou Sisson upon her recognition as the Wakefield Citizen of the Year by the Greater Wakefield Chamber of Commerce. Lou's tireless efforts to better her community are truly inspirational in a time where civic duties are declining. Aside from her duties as owner of the Wakefield Inn, Lou has been an active member of the Lions Club, the Women's Club, the Heritage Commission and a founding member of the Wakefield Arts Club. Her long list of involvements are a testament to her strong dedication to the community and her commitment to making various events and programs available to all Wakefield citizens. Lou's hard work on the Sidewalk Committee led to the construction of numerous sidewalks throughout downtown Wakefield, making the streets safer for pedestrians. She is also involved in a summer youth program which recently created a two-mile heritage trail that outlines information about the town's historic sites, providing educational and recreational opportunities for all town residents. Lou truly enjoys volunteering and cites the friendly, personable town atmosphere as the true motivation for her efforts. It is citizens like Lou who make our communities stronger and exemplify what is good about America today. Lou's dedication to making her community a better place to live is commendable. It is truly an honor to serve her in the United States Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the town of Bedford on its 250th anniversary, an important and historic milestone in New Hampshire's history. The town was incorporated on May 21, 1750. Once an unsettled wilderness located in the heart of New Hampshire, Bedford has grown into a booming residential and commercial community. Its close proximity to the center of Southern New Hampshire makes it very convenient for residents to commute to bigger cities like Manchester and Nashua. Bedford is a thriving small town with a strong commitment to family and community values, evidenced by a first-rate school system and active participation by many residents in civic groups such as the Rotary Club and the Lions Club. The town has come together to celebrate its anniversary with year- long events, such as town picnics, exhibits and a parade marking the town's official birthday. A 250th anniversary ball is planned as the cumulation of the year's events. These celebrations strengthen town organizations' staying-power and provide an opportunity for residents to congregate and enjoy all the town has to offer. The overwhelming number of Bedford residents who attended these events is a testament to their commitment to town and civic affairs. Slowly but surely, this quiet former farming town has seen tremendous commercial growth within the last 50 years. Bedford is now home to many small businesses and office parks, but has certainly not lost that small-town charm. With 16,500 citizens, it is easy to meet familiar faces in passing. Although the town may be steadily expanding its collection of businesses, the residents have not let them overwhelm their beautiful scenic community. Once again, I want to congratulate the town of Bedford on its 250th anniversary. Stable and secure communities such as Bedford are essentially the backbone of this great nation. It is an honor to serve its citizens in the United States Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Paul Montrone upon his recognition as the 2000 New Hampshire ``Business in the Arts-Leadership'' award winner. In order for arts programs to run smoothly and efficiently, there must be a strong leader behind the operation. Paul has been instrumental in the development of the arts in New Hampshire for many years. He has been a leading figure in enhancing corporate and individual financial support both regionally and nationally, and has a demonstrated interest in improving the operation and effectiveness of arts organizations. Paul's strong leadership has proven to be an effective model for others to follow. He gives generously of his time by serving on the boards of many non-profit organizations such as the Wang Center in Boston and the New England Conservatory, and also serves as the president and CEO of the Metropolitan Opera. He personally assists the Mayer Arts Center at Phillips Exeter Academy which attracts visiting artists to display their work on campus and establish residencies and workshops in the surrounding community. He also supports the scholarship program at Phillips Exeter Academy, designed to help support gifted students pursue their dreams in the arts. His early and consistent support of the Music Hall in Portsmouth is yet another testament of his vision and long-term commitment to the community. Without the support of generous financial donations, arts programs would suffer tremendously. Paul has long patronized arts organizations and has convinced major corporations to do the same through ``challenge'' grants. These grants are made at significant points of the fund drive, thereby motivating other potential donors to donate. His keen business skills are evident in the large amounts of financial support he earns for particular programs. It is citizens like Paul who exemplify the importance of civic responsibility. His work in making the arts more accessible to the community is commendable. Without the support of such dedicated people like Paul, the arts would not be able to thrive in New Hampshire. It is an honor to serve him in the United States Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Smith-Boxer amendment on Wildlife Services was accepted to the Agriculture appropriations bill. Our amendment will create a pilot study in four States that will examine the effectiveness of nonlethal predation control methods under Wildlife Services. Our amendment is reasonable and fair. Let me briefly talk about the lethal predator control program administered under the Wildlife Service program. With our scarce tax dollars, Wildlife Services personnel kill more than 80,000 mammalian predators a year, mainly coyotes, but also black bears, mountain lions, foxes, and bobcats. They conduct this killing by engaging in aerial gunning, poisoning, and trapping. Since 1993, there have been 18 aerial gunning crashes. In addition, the aerial gunning program has caused the deaths of seven individuals, both Federal and contract employees. Banned in 89 nations because it is so inhumane, leghold traps catch any animal unlucky enough to trigger the device. Animals caught in traps languish and suffer for days, sometimes resorting to twisting off or chewing off a leg to escape its vice grip. I am not standing before you today saying that every program that Wildlife Services executes is harmful or a waste of taxpayer money. There are some valuable programs dealing with property protection, human health and safety, crop protection, natural resources, forest and range protection, and aquiculture which are not affected by this amendment. However, Wildlife Services spends more than $10 million a year on lethal predator control programs. But does the lethal predator control program really work? It does not seem to be controlling the coyote population, it has tripled in number and increased in range because the surviving coyotes will breed more often and produce larger litters. In fact, according to a recent article in the Washington Times, coyotes have now spread to Virginia and Maryland. In addition, this program has been under scrutiny for decades. Several presidential commissions, including commissions in the Kennedy, Johnson, and Carter administrations have criticized the program's needless reliance on lethal predator control. In 1995, the General Accounting Office came to the same conclusion, stating the Animal Damage Control had failed to opt for non-lethal programs. I am well aware that ranchers need to protect their livestock, their investment. During the last 2 decades, there have been a variety of practical and effective nonlethal husbandry techniques developed and put into practical use: The use of guard animals, such as dogs, donkeys, or llamas; the use of electronic sound and light devices; predator exclusion fencing; shed lambing; and night penning, et cetera. By deploying these techniques, ranchers can minimize the need for lethal responses to predators, which are indiscriminant and cruel to animals. In closing I would like to read you a quote from the Tulsa World newspaper, which says it all: Despite steady increases in the Wildlife Services annual budget, and an 8 percent increase in the coyote kill in the past decade, livestock losses to predators have not declined. The statistics show that in every state where predator control was practiced, the agency spent more money on control than the value of livestock lost. It would be cheaper simply to compensate ranchers for their losses. I will repeat that last sentence: ``It would be cheaper simply to compensate ranchers for their losses.'' In short, the lethal predator control program doesn't work, it is dangerous for humans, cruel to animals, and a waste of taxpayer dollars. I thank the managers of the bill for including this pilot study of nonlethal predator control methods in the Agriculture appropriations bill.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Did we just pass the bill?

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendments to the Stafford Act in the form of H.R. 707. I would like to thank Senators Inhofe and Graham and their staff for all their hard work in developing a good bipartisan bill. I am proud the committee I chair was able to report a bill to the floor with strong bipartisan support. I am also very pleased the version the Senate passed will save the taxpayer money both in the short and long term. This bill makes great strides to enhance FEMA's ability to better serve the public in times of disaster. It will also help local communities to better prepare and mitigate potential problems prior to a disaster. The mitigation focus in this bill will ensure better protection of life and property as well as providing savings to the taxpayer. The substitute H.R. 707 that has been agreed to by the Senate is identical language to that in S. 1691 as amended by the Committee on Environment and Public Works with the additional Technical and Managers' amendments that were filed. Those who wish to research the legislative history of H.R. 707, as passed by the Senate, should refer to the legislative history of S. 1691 and the report, number 106-295, filed by the Committee on Environment and Public Works on S. 1691.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, as have so many of my colleagues, I rise today to pay tribute to a friend, Paul Coverdell. It is very difficult to look at those flowers, which are silent. As my colleagues do, I find it difficult to deal with. It is something that is very hard for all of us to understand. We are here to pay tribute to Paul Coverdell and to express our sincerest condolences to Nancy and his entire family. They say true friends are there when you need them most. We know Paul Coverdell was there when we needed counsel. I remember about a year ago I went through some rather difficult times on the floor of the Senate. Paul was there to counsel me and to give me a lot of advice through all that--for which I will always be grateful--in a political world often poisoned by partisanship. Paul was always there for counsel and friendship. He was there for all. He was not a partisan person. He could be partisan when he had to be. There is a difference between being partisan and being mean. The Atlanta Journal Constitution said it best when they said: There is a lot of meanness in politics. But he wasn't one of the mean people. I don't think it can be said much better than that. He was a fierce partisan on the battlefield of ideas but not among friends. We are 100 people here who are friends. Even though we have our partisan differences from time to time, we don't take it off the floor. Paul was certainly a stalwart in leading the way in that. He knew what friendship was and what it meant. Friendship to Paul couldn't be obscured by any party label or disagreement or an argument. That is why so many of our colleagues have been here today to make tributes. It is also one of the reasons why history will record Paul Coverdell as a great Senator. I remember vividly the first time I came to the well and signed the book, being joined with a very distinguished few individuals, a little over 2,000 people throughout the course of our country who have become U.S. Senators. Senator Robert Byrd came over to me and said: Don't ever forget that. That is something that they can never take away from you. When you think through the years of all those people, Paul will be remembered in that way as one of the best in terms of friendship, in terms of his own issues he felt so passionately about--drugs, what drugs were doing to our society, especially to our young people, and education for which he fought so hard. He was a passionate man, a caring man. I don't believe anyone who has ever served here who wasn't compassionate and didn't care could ever be considered an outstanding Senator. Paul was the best when it came to that. He had the disarming personality, the humor, the quick mind. He had rock solid philosophical groundings. These are traits that made for a great and potent legislator. Most importantly, if he gave you his word, that was it. You could trust his judgment. You could trust his instincts. Most of all, you could trust his motivations were right. They were heart felt; they were sincere; they were honorable. I think that is the most important. There is a campaign slogan that Senator Coverdell had: Coverdell works. Those who worked with him every day knew he was tireless. He was working on the day that he was stricken. He was a hard worker. He worked hard for his State and he worked hard for his country and the people in whom he believed. In 1732, when the colonists came to Paul's great State of Georgia, they came on shore, touched the shore, they kneeled down and said: Our end in leaving our native country is not to gain riches and honor but singlely this--to live in the glory of God. I think Paul Coverdell has lived up to that about as well as any human being could, certainly as well as any Georgian could. You can certainly be proud of this Georgian. Abraham Lincoln, on the passing of Henry Clay, said about the ardent patriot and profound statesman: He had a quality possessed by few of the gifted on Earth. His eloquence has not been surpassed in the effective power to move the heart of man. Paul Coverdell was without an equal. I think I agree with Abraham Lincoln on that. We all have vivid memories of the last time we spoke to Paul Coverdell. I remember on the Senate floor, with all the confusion of the votes on Friday, all the things going on, and although I can't recall a specific conversation, you can always remember Paul engaging somebody in a conversation. The worst part for me, when I reflect on a sudden death, is if I had the chance to say goodbye, what would I have said? I also find myself wishing I had known so I could take the time to say goodbye. I didn't get that opportunity to say goodbye to a friend that I loved and respected, but if I had the chance, I would have thanked him for his friendship because it means more than anything else here. I would have said: Thanks, Paul, for being there for me. In his letter to Mrs. Fairbanks, Mark Twain wrote about friendship: . . . I remember you and recall you without effort, without exercise of will; that is, by natural impulse, undictated by a sense of duty or of obligation. And that, I take it, is the only sort of remembering worth having. When we think of friends, and call their faces out of the shadows, and their voices out of the echoes that faint along the corridors of memory, and do it without knowing why save that we love to do it, we can content ourselves that that friendship is a Reality, and not a Fancy, that it is built upon a rock and not upon the sands that dissolve away with the ebbing tides and carry their monuments with them. That is how I feel about Paul Coverdell today. The second thing I would have thanked Paul for, if I had had the chance to say goodbye, was his sense of humor. He had a great sense of humor. Lord knows, one needs a sense of humor serving in this place. It gets intense from time to time. I remember two cases, one recent and one a long time ago, which I will recall. I will take the long time ago first. Some of my colleagues will remember Paul had a very interesting election. Georgia, at that time, had a law that candidates had to get 50 percent of the vote to win. Paul got a little less than that. His opponent got a little bit more than Paul but less than 50 percent. So Paul was here and he was talking to Members, saying: I want to join you guys, but I need a little help, a few contributions. We need to have another election and I have to face this guy again with the third guy out. I said: I will help you, but I am not sure that law is right. Maybe the other guy should have won; he got more votes than you the first time. Paul said: Well, it is all right to change but not yet. I remember that. Paul said that in his gregarious way, not meaning anything malicious. The second memory I have of his humor was more recent, about 2 or 3 weeks ago. Paul, who is the conference secretary, came out with this little card. He held the card up proudly. He wanted people to have this for the Fourth of July recess. It proudly boasted ``The Republican Priorities for the Surplus,'' and he want down through the list. We all looked at them and after he finished, Senator after Senator stood up and said: I don't know where you got that, that is not my priority. Who gave you this. And on and on and on for 10 minutes. Paul took it well. After it was over, I walked up to him and I said: Do you regret you printed the card? He said: Were those guys drinking something; what was going on here? It was a fond memory, but so typical. There was no animosity, no anger, just rolling with the punches. He said: Next time, I will check with a few people before I print the card. If I had the chance to say goodbye, I would have thanked Paul for that. Let me close by referring to comments that were made several years ago on this floor by our distinguished colleague, Robert Byrd, who was talking about the death of William Fulbright. He quoted Longfellow. In quoting Longfellow, Senator Byrd said: There is no death! What seems so is transition; The life of mortal breath Is but a suburb of the life Elysian, Whose portal we call death. Then he went on to say about William Fulbright the same thing I would say right now about Paul Coverdell: Life is only a narrow isthmus between the boundless oceans of two eternities. All of us who travel that narrow isthmus today, must one day board our little frail barque and hoist its white sails for the journey on that vast unknown sea where we shall sail alone into the boundless ocean of eternity, there to meet our Creator face to face in a land where the rose never withers and the rainbow never fades. To that bourne, from which no traveler ever returns, [Paul Coverdell] has now gone to be reunited with others who once trod these marble halls, and whose voices once rang in this Chamber--voices in this earthly life that have now been stilled forever. Peace be to his ashes! Paul Coverdell loved his God; he loved his country; he loved his native Georgia; he loved Nancy and his family. He served them all, and he did it well. I am proud to be called a friend of Senator Paul Coverdell.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a legislative hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Water and Power. The hearing will take place on Tuesday, July 25, 2000, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 2877, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a feasibility study on water optimization in the Burnt River basin, Malheur River basin, Owyhee River basin, and Powder River basin, Oregon; S. 2881, to update an existing Bureau of Reclamation program by amending the Small Reclamation Projects Act of 1956, to establish a partnership program in the Bureau of Reclamation for small reclamation projects, and for other purposes; and S. 2882, to authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to conduct certain feasibility studies to augment water supplies for the Klamath Project, Oregon and California, and for other purposes. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Subcommittee on Water and Power, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, 364 Dirsken Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please call Trici Heninger, Staff Assistant, or Colleen Deegan, Counsel, at (202) 224-8115.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I suggest the absence of a quorum.