Bob Smith

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. Mr. President, I now ask for its second reading, and object to my own request.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I understand that S. 2886 is at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I am proud to come before the Senate today to introduce the ``National Wildlife Refuge System Centennial Commemoration Act of 2000''. This landmark bill commemorates the centennial of the first national wildlife refuge in the United States, established on March 14, 1903, by a great man and conservationist, President Theodore Roosevelt. By setting aside land at Indian River Lagoon on Pelican Island, Florida as a haven for birds, President Roosevelt began a conservation legacy known as the National Wildlife Refuge System. Today, the National Wildlife Refuge System has evolved into the most comprehensive system of lands devoted to wildlife protection and management in the world--spanning nearly 93 million acres across the United States and its territories. By placing special emphasis on conservation, our nation's network of refuges ensures the continued protection of our wildlife resources, including threatened and endangered species, and land areas with significant wildlife-oriented recreational, historical and cultural value. Currently, there are more than 500 refuges in the United States and its territories, providing important habitat for 700 bird species, 220 mammal species, 250 species of amphibians and reptiles, and over 200 fish species. The Refuge System also hosts some of our country's premiere fisheries, and serves a vital role in the protection of threatened and endangered species by preserving their critical habitats. Approximately 98 percent of the Refuge System land is open to the public. Each year, the System attracts more than 34 million visitors to participate in a variety of recreational activities that include observing and photographing wildlife, fishing, hunting and taking part in system-sponsored educational programs. By providing the public with an opportunity to participate in these activities, refuges promote a sense of appreciation for the natural wonders of this nation and emphasize our important role as stewards of these lands. The bill that I introduce today marks a milestone in the history of conservation and celebrates 100-years of the National Wildlife Refuge System on March 14, 2003. The bill commemorates the Refuge System by creating a Commission that will oversee the Centennial anniversary and promote public awareness and understanding of the importance of refuges to our nation. Additionally, the bill directs the Fish and Wildlife Service to prepare a long-term plan for the Refuge System that will enable the Service to look ahead and determine the future needs and priorities of the system network. This bill celebrates the legacy of our national refuge lands, and recognizes the tireless efforts of numerous dedicated individuals from both the private and public sectors who have worked to preserve this invaluable national heritage. I encourage my colleagues to show your support for the National Wildlife Refuge System by co-sponsoring this legislation. I ask unanimous consent to print the text of the bill in the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I am proud to come before the Senate today to introduce the ``National Wildlife Refuge System Centennial Commemoration Act of 2000''. This landmark bill commemorates the centennial of the first national wildlife refuge in the United States, established on March 14, 1903, by a great man and conservationist, President Theodore Roosevelt. By setting aside land at Indian River Lagoon on Pelican Island, Florida as a haven for birds, President Roosevelt began a conservation legacy known as the National Wildlife Refuge System. Today, the National Wildlife Refuge System has evolved into the most comprehensive system of lands devoted to wildlife protection and management in the world--spanning nearly 93 million acres across the United States and its territories. By placing special emphasis on conservation, our nation's network of refuges ensures the continued protection of our wildlife resources, including threatened and endangered species, and land areas with significant wildlife-oriented recreational, historical and cultural value. Currently, there are more than 500 refuges in the United States and its territories, providing important habitat for 700 bird species, 220 mammal species, 250 species of amphibians and reptiles, and over 200 fish species. The Refuge System also hosts some of our country's premiere fisheries, and serves a vital role in the protection of threatened and endangered species by preserving their critical habitats. Approximately 98 percent of the Refuge System land is open to the public. Each year, the System attracts more than 34 million visitors to participate in a variety of recreational activities that include observing and photographing wildlife, fishing, hunting and taking part in system-sponsored educational programs. By providing the public with an opportunity to participate in these activities, refuges promote a sense of appreciation for the natural wonders of this nation and emphasize our important role as stewards of these lands. The bill that I introduce today marks a milestone in the history of conservation and celebrates 100-years of the National Wildlife Refuge System on March 14, 2003. The bill commemorates the Refuge System by creating a Commission that will oversee the Centennial anniversary and promote public awareness and understanding of the importance of refuges to our nation. Additionally, the bill directs the Fish and Wildlife Service to prepare a long-term plan for the Refuge System that will enable the Service to look ahead and determine the future needs and priorities of the system network. This bill celebrates the legacy of our national refuge lands, and recognizes the tireless efforts of numerous dedicated individuals from both the private and public sectors who have worked to preserve this invaluable national heritage. I encourage my colleagues to show your support for the National Wildlife Refuge System by co-sponsoring this legislation. I ask unanimous consent to print the text of the bill in the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, the estate tax better known as the ``death tax'' is an onerous tax that should be eliminated. A recent poll revealed that 77 percent of the voters believe that the tax is unfair. This tax is slowly destroying family businesses by slowing growth. And it's unfair that families who have worked their entire lives to build a successful family farm or business should be penalized. Individuals who look forward to leaving something behind for their children should not be punished by confiscatory, anti-family taxes. In fact, after years or even generations, children are often forced to sell the family farm or business just to pay the tax. This is both unfair and unconscionable. However, not only is it the children who must suffer the loss of the family business, but the workers and their children who suffer when they lose their job because the business they've been working at is liquidated to pay the death tax. But it doesn't stop there. The local community, particularly small towns suffers as well because their customers can no longer afford to buy their products after having lost their job. The estate tax is outdated, it raises little money, and it imposes a large cost on the economy. In 1999 the estate tax generated about $24 billion. However, it is estimated that administrative costs to enforce the tax are over $36 billion. A recent analysis by the Heritage Foundation, found that the U.S. economy would average nearly $11 billion per year in additional output. The National Association of Manufacturers states that 40 percent of its members had spent more than $100,000 on attorney and consultant fees related to death tax planning. In addition 3 out of 5 members pay at least $25,000 a year to prepare for the death tax. A 1998 study by the Joint Economic Committee found that if the death tax was repealed, as many as 240,000 jobs would be created and Americans would have an additional $24.4 billion in disposable personal income. A February 2000 study by the National Assoc. of Women found that the death tax has a negative impact on female entrepreneurs. According to the study, business owners found that female entrepreneurs spent on average nearly $60,000 on death-tax planning. Some have argued that it is the rich who benefit from eliminating this tax. Mr. President, the wealthy and powerful, including many in this body, who can afford high priced legal and financial advise to avoid the taxes. Therefore, who's left holding the bag but the middle-class. This tax is unfair and it is anti-family. We must repeal this tax now. Mr. President, I urge passage of this legislation.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, the hearing the Armed Services Committee held April 6 on the issue of security clearances revealed a shocking lack of concern within DOD for protecting our national security secrets. As a result of that hearing, I proposed an amendment. My amendment, again, is simple. It would prevent DOD from granting security clearances to those who are under indictment for, or have been convicted in a court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year. It would also disallow a clearance for anyone who is a fugitive from justice; is an unlawful user of, or addicted to any controlled substance; has been adjudicated as a mental defective; or has been dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces. As I said on the floor earlier, in an investigative series by USA Today, it was reported that DOHA, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals, granted clearances routinely to felons, including a murderer, individuals with chronic alcohol and drug abuse problems, a pedophile and an exhibitionist, and a convicted cocaine dealer. All received security clearances to work for defense contractors. Another individual was awarded a clearance while on probation for bank fraud, yet another was allowed to keep his clearance after taking part in a $2 million fraud against the Navy. Another had a history of criminal sexual misconduct for which he was still undergoing therapy. Common sense dictates that one convicted murderer--or one convicted drug dealer with a security clearance--is one too many. One individual can wreak havoc on national security. The damaging legacy of Aldrich Ames, Jonathan Pollard, the Walkers, and now suspect spy, Wen Ho Lee, is well-known to all of us who deal with national security issues. We simply cannot afford to have loose standards when it comes to protecting our secrets--and protecting lives. Let me just add that during the Armed Services Committee hearing on this issue, the witness from DOD's C3I, which oversees the Defense Security Services, said this in response to my questioning: I agree wholeheartedly with your observation that one unqualified person for a clearance is one too many, and clearly, I think zero defects is the goals for all of us. Zero defects--that is what DOD said its goal is for security clearances--well, I agree with that completely, but we have to take measures to reach that goal--not just talk about it as an ideal. Realistically, we cannot take all of the risk out of the system, but we can at least take a practical approach to denying clearances to those people who have broken the law by serious infractions. And we can send a message to DOHA that it has been far too lenient in granting clearances. This amendment sends that message.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, in section 1402 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal year 2000, Congress required annual reports by the agency Inspectors General on the transfers of militarily sensitive technology to countries and entities of concern. The first report was issued this spring and focused on so- called ``deemed exports'' or the release of technical data to a foreign national working in or visiting a federal facility in the United States. The DOD IG found that Defense Department research centers released militarily valuable information to foreign visitors without ever determining whether export licenses were required. For example if foreign scientists (whether Chinese or Swedish) visit DOD or other federal labs, export licenses are not being requested before information is transferred. The IG found that Defense Department laboratories and research facilities lack procedures for determining whether export licenses are required, and the auditors found that the services were not even aware of the concept of ``deemed'' exports. During FY99, DOD never asked for a deemed export license and out of 783 deemed export license applications to the Department of Commerce, only five came from the federal government (2 from NASA and 3 from DOE) despite wide-ranging scientific exchange programs with foreign nationals coming to our labs. (The 778 other licenses were requested by industry.) The IG's report reveals another in a long line of security weaknesses recently uncovered. Militarily useful technology is leaking out of the U.S. in many different ways--either by direct commercial sale through relaxed export controls or by lax security procedures and information security polices that encourage effective espionage by nations who do not share U.S. interests. Deemed or knowledge exports are becoming ever more important to U.S. national security. It makes little sense for the U.S. to control the sale of weapon systems abroad, if we allow our potential adversaries to obtain the underlying know-how behind our weapons systems technology and manufacturing processes through scientific exchanges and knowledge transfers. The Inspectors General made a series of recommendations to address the problems with deemed exports policies and procedures in order to better protect U.S. technology. It is anticipated that the IGs will make many more recommendations regarding export control procedures over the next 7 years. Historically, there is always a problem with effective implementation of any oversight recommendation. Without effective follow-up or interest shown by Congress, many IG recommendations are only partially implemented or not at all. The amendment I am offering ensures that Congress will receive a record of the status of agency implementation of recommends made by the Inspectors General on not only this year's deemed exports report, but on the next 6 annual export control reports. This will serve as a basis for possible legislation next year and in the future if agencies are behind schedule in implementing the IGs' recommendations.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I thank the Senate managers for including my amendment in the managers' package. This amendment relates to the Request for Proposals (RFP) recently issued by the National Institutes of Health for the care of 288 chimpanzees recently acquired by NIH from The Coulston Foundation. The Coulston Foundation, an animal research facility in Alamogordo, New Mexico, has a very troubling record of animal care, and has been investigated and charged by the U.S. Department of Agriculture numerous times for egregious violations of the Animal Welfare Act relating to the deaths of several chimpanzees and other primates. At least 14 chimpanzees and 4 monkeys have died at the lab in the past seven years, due to negligence and a lack of appropriate veterinary care. Last August, following the deaths of several chimpanzees at Coulston, USDA ordered the lab to halve its chimpanzee colony, leading to the transfer of 288 chimps to NIH. However, the transfer was in title only. For the time being, the chimpanzees will remain in Coulston's physical possession, in direct defiance of the spirit and intent of the USDA order. I am eager, therefore, for NIH to proceed with its RFP to secure the services of an entity that can provide high quality care for the 288 chimpanzees. The easiest way to ensure this is to insist that bidders for the contract be accredited by the Association for the Assessment and Accreditation for Laboratory Animal Care, International, or AAALAC. AAALAC is a private, internationally recognized accrediting body. Its stamp of approval guarantees that a laboratory provides high standards of care to its animals. AAALAC accreditation is often required in Public Health Service (PHS) contracts and, in fact, is strongly based on strict compliance with NIH's own Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. In 1994, NIH made a site visit to The Coulston Foundation, and recommended that Coulston achieve AAALAC accreditation within 3-5 years. That was six years ago, and Coulston is still not accredited by this international organization, despite applying. Although I would expect that any entity selected by NIH to receive this contract would be highly qualified and therefore AAALAC- accredited, bidders for the contract that are not accredited may demonstrate their qualifications by holding a valid PHS Animal Welfare Assurance. In theory, an Animal Welfare Assurance shows that a laboratory is compliant with the federal Animal Welfare Act and PHS policy on animal care. Sometimes these assurances are restricted. For instance, Coulston's assurance is restricted because of its poor animal care record. However, it is still considered valid. I think it is important to stress that the recipient of NIH's contract should have a good record of animal welfare and should be compliant with federal animal welfare laws. As such, I have included language in my amendment which states that NIH cannot give its contract to a facility that has been charged multiple times with egregious violations of the Animal Welfare Act, as is the case with The Coulston Foundation. These animals can live to 50, even 60 years of age, and are very similar to humans in many ways. We should make certain that they receive the level of care appropriate to them. The amendment which I am offering will address these concerns. I would like to thank the managers for working out this language and for supporting my amendment. AMENDMENT No. 3711 (Purpose: To Provide an additional $800,000 for technology and media services and to provide an offset) At the end of title III, insert the following:

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I commend the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on this important piece of legislation. I believe that this legislation, and the electric reliability organizations created by this legislation, will significantly improve the reliability of our transmission system. I understand that a question has been raised, however, about the potential scope of authority of these electric reliability organizations and specifically their authority to waive environmental requirements. I would like to seek clarification of this issue. It is my understanding that nothing in this legislation in any way waives or modifies any environmental requirements, or exempts any facilities covered by the bill from any otherwise applicable federal or State environmental law or regulations, including the requirements of the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Endangered Species Act, or any other environmental law.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I thank the chairman for this important clarification.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for 4 minutes for the debate on the Smith amendment, which was agreed to. I was detained unavoidably in the car coming over here.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I appreciate that many of my colleagues, I am sure, as I, have been stuck in the tram coming over here. I thank the managers who have worked so hard to resolve the amendment that I had on fetal tissue research. I know Senator Specter is opposed to illegal trafficking of fetal tissue. This amendment, I hope, will get some information on the Federal Government's policies in this regard. I look forward to reviewing the study that we have set up in this amendment that was agreed to. It is my hope that we can ensure that the spirit of the law is being adhered to when it comes to fetal tissue research. This amendment will set up a GAO study of the practice of fetal tissue transfer to determine whether or not any fetal tissue is transferred illegally for research purposes. The GAO will conduct a comprehensive study of Federal involvement in the use of fetal tissue for research purposes. I am pleased that my colleagues have seen fit to work with me to agree to this amendment. I look forward to receiving a report from the General Accounting Office in the very near future as to how much, if any, illegal trafficking is occurring in the area of fetal tissue. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 3610, As Amended

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, today is a historic day. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Graham, Mack, Voinovich, and Baucus, in introducing a measure to restore, preserve and protect one of America's unique ecosystems: the Everglades. More than six months ago, I went to Florida and made a promise to the people of that state and this nation. I promised to make Everglades restoration my top priority as the new chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. I am proud to say that after many months of hard work, intense negotiation, and through it all, uncompromising dedication, we have before us the bill to restore America's Everglades. Our bill not only has the support of the two Senators from Florida, the chairman and ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee and the chairman of the subcommittee of jurisdiction, it has the support of the State of Florida and the administration. It truly is bipartisan. It truly is historic. We all know that the Everglades face grave peril, but such dire situations do not always serve to motivate Congress to act, particularly in a presidential election year. The truth of the matter is that the federal government is partially responsible for the condition of the Everglades and it is our obligation to fix what we helped break. The Everglades cannot afford for Congress to delay. The unintended consequence of the 1948 federal flood control project is the too efficient redirection of water from Lake Okeechobee. Approximately 1.7 billion gallons of water a day is needlessly directed out to sea. The original Central and Southern Florida Project was done with the best of intentions--the federal government simply had to act when devastating floods took thousands of lives prior to the project's construction. Unfortunately, the very success of the Central and Southern Florida Project disrupted the natural sheet flow of water through the so-called ``River of Grass,'' altering or destroying the habitat for many species of native plants, mammals, reptiles, fish and wading birds. Well, we are going to recapture that wasted water, store it, and redirect it, when needed, to the natural system in the South Florida ecosystem. It sounds simple, but in actuality, the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan is quite complex and will take 30 years to construct. Each step in the Plan was carefully chosen and the bill my colleagues and I have introduced today represents the first stage of that process. A project of this size is not without uncertainties. Our bill authorizes four pilot projects to get at some of those unknowns. In addition, this bill authorizes an initial suite of ten construction projects. These projects were carefully selected by the Army Corps of Engineers and the South Florida Water Management District and included in the plan as the projects that would, once constructed, have immediate benefits to the natural system. Almost right away, the plan gets at restoring the natural sheet flow that years of human interference has interrupted. Our bill goes farther, by authorizing programmatic authority for the Corps and the non-federal sponsor to move forward with critical projects that will have immediate, independent, and substantial benefits to the natural system. Together, these components represent the first phase. The rest of the projects will come to Congress for authorization as part of the biennial Water Resources Development Act. One of my favorite aspects of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan is its inherent flexibility. If we learn something new about the ecosystem, perfect our modeling techniques, or just plain see that something isn't working right, through the concept of adaptive management, we can modify the plan based on the new information on hand. Is this bill expensive? I suppose that depends on your point of view. I am well-known as a fiscal conservative and I certainly do not believe in wasting the taxpayers' money. The total cost of implementing the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan is $7.8 billion dollars. The total cost to the Federal government, however, is $3.9 billion. That's right. The State of Florida is picking up fifty percent of the tab. $3.9 billion over the number of years that this project will be constructed amount to an average of $200 million a year. That is about a can of coke, if you can find the right machine, for each American each year to restore this national treasure. It should be noted that I fully support increasing the budget of the Corps of Engineers so that it can comfortably fund not only this project, but the numerous other meritorious projects within the Corps mission. I hear my colleagues asking: how do we know the natural system is going to be the primary beneficiary of the water made available by this project? I'll tell you how. Our bill contains painstakingly negotiated ``assurances language'' that provide the mechanism by which water is reserved and allocated for the natural system. The Secretary of the Army and Governor of the State of Florida will enter into an up-front, binding agreement that will ensure that water available from the plan will be available for the natural system. Furthermore, the Secretary of the Army, in concurrence with the Governor of the State of Florida and the Secretary of the Interior will promulgate programmatic regulations to ensure that the goals and purposes of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan are achieved. I repeat for the benefit of my colleagues, this bill has the support of the State of Florida, the administration, and a bipartisan group of co-sponsors. This truly is a remarkable feat that deserves recognition by the Senate in the form of swift passage. I am afraid too often people forget that the Everglades is a national environmental treasure. Restoration benefits not only Floridians, but the millions of us who visit Florida each year to behold this unique ecosystem. We need to view our efforts as our legacy to future generations, as my dear friend and predecessor, the late John Chafee so exemplified. Many years from now, I hope that this Congress will be remembered for putting aside partisanship, politics, self-interest and short-term thinking by answering the call and saving the Everglades while we still had the chance. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleagues, Senators Voinovich and Baucus, in the introduction of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000. As many of you know, the administration presented a proposal to Congress in April of this year, which I introduced by request at that time. The bill we introduce today includes a number of the provisions contained in the Administration's request, in addition to those Member requests which met the criteria agreed to by myself, Senator Voinovich, the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee, and Senator Baucus, the ranking member of the Committee. In responding to questions regarding what projects were included in this bill, I remind my colleagues that it has been the policy of the Committee to authorize only those construction projects that conform with cost-sharing policies established in the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, and amended by subsequent WRDAs. In addition, it has been the policy of the Committee to require projects to have undergone full and final engineering, economic, and environmental review by the Chief of Engineers to ensure that the project is indeed justified. In ensuring the integrity of the WRDA process, that criteria served as the base to guide us to where we are today. S. xxxx is a responsible bill that provides for the traditional mission of the U.S. Army Corps of engineers and which also recognizes the Corps' expanding presence in the area of environmental restoration. This bill contains 23 authorizations for flood control, navigation, shoreline protection, and environmental restoration projects for which a Chief's Report is expected by the end of the calendar year. In addition, there are approximately 31 project-related modifications and provisions, as well as 35 feasibility studies. While half of the projects in this bill are in the navigation mission, nearly a quarter are dedicated to environmental and ecosystem restoration projects, demonstrating this chairman's belief that the Corps is moving in the right direction. This bill strongly adheres to the fundamental purposes and principles of the Army Corps of Engineers. This sound bill deserves prompt action by not only the Senate, but our counterparts in the House of Representatives, The number of legislative days left this year is dwindling. If we are to enact water resources legislation prior to adjournment, it will take the full cooperation of both Chambers of Congress and our respected leadership. I look forward to working with my colleagues to move the WRDA process forward as expeditiously as possible.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I offer a second-degree amendment to the pending amendment and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, do I still have the floor? Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, the amendment I have offered is a very simple one. It says that none of the funds made available in this act may be used to pay--either directly or indirectly--reimburse, or otherwise compensate any abortion provider, fetal tissue procurement contractor, or tissue resource source for fetal tissue or the cost of collecting, transferring, or otherwise processing fetal tissue if that tissue is obtained from induced abortions. So this amendment is not going to shut down any research using fetal tissue. Some will say that, but that is not the case. It will not do that. I believe it is morally wrong to take the life of an innocent child, an unborn child, in order to advance the health needs of another human being because that child has given no consent for that. So, to be perfectly honest, it would be fine with me if fetal tissue research, using elective abortions, were abolished, but that is not what this amendment is about. I am absolutely in favor of using fetal tissue obtained from spontaneous abortions or miscarriages. There is a difference between a miscarriage and an induced abortion. The difference is that one innocent human life was not deliberately destroyed for the sake of another. In fact, Georgetown Hospital currently conducts research using only spontaneous abortions--very successfully I might add. So this is a reasonable amendment. I am hoping I will be able to work with the other side on this issue to come to some conclusion so it will not be a huge controversy on this bill. We have been working with the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania on that. But I want to make it clear I am not prohibiting the use of aborted fetuses for research. I am only advocating that Federal taxpayer funds should not be used to pay an abortion clinic or middleman who acts as a fetal tissue procurement contractor for such tissue. Let me repeat this important point. My amendment allows the Federal Government to use fetal tissue from induced abortions, but they cannot pay an abortion provider or a middleman for that tissue, which includes his costs associated with preservation, storage, processing, and so on, because, according to the NIH, there does not seem to be a necessity for a middleman. So the amendment I am offering is really quite simple: No purchasing of fetal tissue from induced abortions. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleagues, Senators Voinovich and Baucus, in the introduction of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000. As many of you know, the administration presented a proposal to Congress in April of this year, which I introduced by request at that time. The bill we introduce today includes a number of the provisions contained in the Administration's request, in addition to those Member requests which met the criteria agreed to by myself, Senator Voinovich, the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee, and Senator Baucus, the ranking member of the Committee. In responding to questions regarding what projects were included in this bill, I remind my colleagues that it has been the policy of the Committee to authorize only those construction projects that conform with cost-sharing policies established in the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, and amended by subsequent WRDAs. In addition, it has been the policy of the Committee to require projects to have undergone full and final engineering, economic, and environmental review by the Chief of Engineers to ensure that the project is indeed justified. In ensuring the integrity of the WRDA process, that criteria served as the base to guide us to where we are today. S. xxxx is a responsible bill that provides for the traditional mission of the U.S. Army Corps of engineers and which also recognizes the Corps' expanding presence in the area of environmental restoration. This bill contains 23 authorizations for flood control, navigation, shoreline protection, and environmental restoration projects for which a Chief's Report is expected by the end of the calendar year. In addition, there are approximately 31 project-related modifications and provisions, as well as 35 feasibility studies. While half of the projects in this bill are in the navigation mission, nearly a quarter are dedicated to environmental and ecosystem restoration projects, demonstrating this chairman's belief that the Corps is moving in the right direction. This bill strongly adheres to the fundamental purposes and principles of the Army Corps of Engineers. This sound bill deserves prompt action by not only the Senate, but our counterparts in the House of Representatives, The number of legislative days left this year is dwindling. If we are to enact water resources legislation prior to adjournment, it will take the full cooperation of both Chambers of Congress and our respected leadership. I look forward to working with my colleagues to move the WRDA process forward as expeditiously as possible.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, today is a historic day. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Graham, Mack, Voinovich, and Baucus, in introducing a measure to restore, preserve and protect one of America's unique ecosystems: the Everglades. More than six months ago, I went to Florida and made a promise to the people of that state and this nation. I promised to make Everglades restoration my top priority as the new chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. I am proud to say that after many months of hard work, intense negotiation, and through it all, uncompromising dedication, we have before us the bill to restore America's Everglades. Our bill not only has the support of the two Senators from Florida, the chairman and ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee and the chairman of the subcommittee of jurisdiction, it has the support of the State of Florida and the administration. It truly is bipartisan. It truly is historic. We all know that the Everglades face grave peril, but such dire situations do not always serve to motivate Congress to act, particularly in a presidential election year. The truth of the matter is that the federal government is partially responsible for the condition of the Everglades and it is our obligation to fix what we helped break. The Everglades cannot afford for Congress to delay. The unintended consequence of the 1948 federal flood control project is the too efficient redirection of water from Lake Okeechobee. Approximately 1.7 billion gallons of water a day is needlessly directed out to sea. The original Central and Southern Florida Project was done with the best of intentions--the federal government simply had to act when devastating floods took thousands of lives prior to the project's construction. Unfortunately, the very success of the Central and Southern Florida Project disrupted the natural sheet flow of water through the so-called ``River of Grass,'' altering or destroying the habitat for many species of native plants, mammals, reptiles, fish and wading birds. Well, we are going to recapture that wasted water, store it, and redirect it, when needed, to the natural system in the South Florida ecosystem. It sounds simple, but in actuality, the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan is quite complex and will take 30 years to construct. Each step in the Plan was carefully chosen and the bill my colleagues and I have introduced today represents the first stage of that process. A project of this size is not without uncertainties. Our bill authorizes four pilot projects to get at some of those unknowns. In addition, this bill authorizes an initial suite of ten construction projects. These projects were carefully selected by the Army Corps of Engineers and the South Florida Water Management District and included in the plan as the projects that would, once constructed, have immediate benefits to the natural system. Almost right away, the plan gets at restoring the natural sheet flow that years of human interference has interrupted. Our bill goes farther, by authorizing programmatic authority for the Corps and the non-federal sponsor to move forward with critical projects that will have immediate, independent, and substantial benefits to the natural system. Together, these components represent the first phase. The rest of the projects will come to Congress for authorization as part of the biennial Water Resources Development Act. One of my favorite aspects of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan is its inherent flexibility. If we learn something new about the ecosystem, perfect our modeling techniques, or just plain see that something isn't working right, through the concept of adaptive management, we can modify the plan based on the new information on hand. Is this bill expensive? I suppose that depends on your point of view. I am well-known as a fiscal conservative and I certainly do not believe in wasting the taxpayers' money. The total cost of implementing the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan is $7.8 billion dollars. The total cost to the Federal government, however, is $3.9 billion. That's right. The State of Florida is picking up fifty percent of the tab. $3.9 billion over the number of years that this project will be constructed amount to an average of $200 million a year. That is about a can of coke, if you can find the right machine, for each American each year to restore this national treasure. It should be noted that I fully support increasing the budget of the Corps of Engineers so that it can comfortably fund not only this project, but the numerous other meritorious projects within the Corps mission. I hear my colleagues asking: how do we know the natural system is going to be the primary beneficiary of the water made available by this project? I'll tell you how. Our bill contains painstakingly negotiated ``assurances language'' that provide the mechanism by which water is reserved and allocated for the natural system. The Secretary of the Army and Governor of the State of Florida will enter into an up-front, binding agreement that will ensure that water available from the plan will be available for the natural system. Furthermore, the Secretary of the Army, in concurrence with the Governor of the State of Florida and the Secretary of the Interior will promulgate programmatic regulations to ensure that the goals and purposes of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan are achieved. I repeat for the benefit of my colleagues, this bill has the support of the State of Florida, the administration, and a bipartisan group of co-sponsors. This truly is a remarkable feat that deserves recognition by the Senate in the form of swift passage. I am afraid too often people forget that the Everglades is a national environmental treasure. Restoration benefits not only Floridians, but the millions of us who visit Florida each year to behold this unique ecosystem. We need to view our efforts as our legacy to future generations, as my dear friend and predecessor, the late John Chafee so exemplified. Many years from now, I hope that this Congress will be remembered for putting aside partisanship, politics, self-interest and short-term thinking by answering the call and saving the Everglades while we still had the chance. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Joseph C. Leddy, CEO of Work Opportunities Unlimited, Inc., for being named the 2000 ``Small Business Person of the Year'' by the United States Small Business Administration. Joseph founded the company in 1982, where it began as a local leader in the field of vocational training and employment placement. Presently, it brings in approximately $12 million a year and employs over 500 people in 27 offices throughout four New England states. Work Opportunities Unlimited assists individuals with disabilities, veterans, young adults, at-risk youth and others with locating employment, and has used previous Small Business Administration funding to catapult their business to the forefront of the field. In addition to his work with Work Opportunities Unlimited, Joseph has held numerous positions in the Department of Education, worked as a Blind Rehabilitation Specialist with the Veterans Association and taught at New Hampshire Technical College. A valuable resource to the state and to New England, it is my honor and a great pleasure to represent Joseph Leddy 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 an individual who has distinguished himself in the State of New Hampshire by performing the outstanding heroic act of saving the life of a resident of the town of Bedford. Ryan Belanger acted selflessly on April 9th, 2000, to rescue resident Paula Halla, only moments before her car exploded. Paula's car had been struck off the road by a tree that fell during a storm, leaving her trapped in the burning vehicle anxiously awaiting rescue crews. Belanger, who noticed the vehicle after also striking the fallen tree, checked on the passengers in his vehicle and immediately rushed to the aid of Paula. Without hesitation, Ryan Belanger began to attempt to put out the fire, and pulled Paula from the burning car only moments before it exploded. Citing his late grandfather's influence and love of life, Belanger stated, ``He was my father, and made me who I am. If it wasn't for him, I wouldn't have pulled that lady out of the car.'' Had Ryan not acted with haste, Paula would have most likely been killed in the incident. Instead, she escaped with minor bruises and cuts. I am honored to recognize a true American hero, and to commend him on his successful efforts to rescue a fellow resident of the state. He quickly rescued Paula Halla from her vehicle, saving her life. He is an inspiration to the town of Bedford, his home town of Manchester, and the state and nation as a whole. I applaud his courage and perseverence in the daring rescue. It is truly an honor and a pleasure to represent him in the United States Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Eileen Kennedy, a business reporter for the Nashua Telegraph, for receiving the United States Small Business Administration's 2000 ``Women in Business Advocate of the Year'' award. Eileen's hard work and dedication clearly placed her at the top, as this was the first time a reporter has been selected for this award. Through profiling local small business women, she has demonstrated compassion and understanding for the difficulties they face, and has acted as an advocate of their accomplishments. A staff reporter at the Nashua Telegraph since May 1998, Eileen has frequently written on issues involving high-tech businesses, with particular attention paid to those owned and managed by women. She has effectively educated the surrounding community on small business leaders throughout the state. As a former small business owner in the state, I commend Eileen Kennedy for her contribution. It is truly an honor to represent them in the United States Senate.