Bob Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the town of Salem on its 250th anniversary, an important and historic milestone. Since being incorporated as a town on May 11, 1750, Salem has provided its residents with a safe place to raise families in a convenient location on the border of New Hampshire and Massachusetts. This thriving community boasts countless recreational opportunities. Canobie Lake attracts boaters, fishermen and those just looking for a peaceful place to relax. People from all over New England flock to Canobie Park to enjoy a day of games and fun during the summer months, and those who are looking for a little history can visit America's Stonehenge. Salem's 26,000 residents have seen a great amount of change throughout its 250 years. The town is now home to numerous industrial firms, and will soon welcome Cisqo to the growing number of businesses that call Salem home. Salem also offers numerous shopping outlets, most notably the Mall at Rockingham Park, with opportunities for great tax- free shopping. Salem is also home to some very talented athletes. Olympic Women's Hockey Gold Medalist Katie King was a multi-sport star at Salem High before the world took notice in Nagano in 1998. And Salem High's softball team is a perennial state power, taking the state title once again this year. Salem is also a very politically active town as it recently opened its Republican Town Committee offices. Also, the town has come together to celebrate its 250th anniversary, celebrating with events that began with a tremendous First Night party to mark the year 2000 and will culminate with a party on the Fourth of July. Once again, I want to congratulate the town of Salem on its 250th anniversary. 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 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. I rise in support of the Enzi amendment. Senator Enzi's amendment would delay the costliest mandate ever imposed on small businesses. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, has published a rule that is the broadest and most expensive rule ever, let me say that again, ever proposed by OSHA. There needs to be more study of this rule before it is implemented. Ergonomics is the science of fitting the job to the worker. The OSHA proposed ergonomics rule would require employers to eliminate or materially reduce hazards in the workplace that lead to injuries such as carpal tunnel, tendinitis, and back injuries. OSHA's cost estimate is $4.2 billion a year. Clinton administration's own Small Business Administration reports that the true cost would be $40-$60 billion a year--at least 10 times OSHA's estimate. The Heritage Foundation estimates that the cost would be $5.7 billion to $10.8 billion per year without adding in the cost to state and local governments, and $6.6 billion to $12.5 billion per year if public- sector workers are included. Private industry estimates the bill's cost would be even higher. OSHA expects that the proposed rule will significantly increase the number of requests for state compliance assistance and consultation services. That means this regulation will cost even more money. The ergonomics rule probably would expand state workers' compensation systems, increasing claims and fraud. This is yet again, an unfunded mandate on the states. Yet the OSHA has a limited public comment period that does not take into consideration the huge cost to business and the probable stress to the unprecedented economic growth that the U.S. is currently experiencing. I urge your support for Senator Enzi's amendment, so that OSHA can reassess their proposed regulation that would burden the business community with a costly regulation. On the prescription drug plan, I oppose the Robb plan. In my hand is a report, the actuarial report from Norman and Robinson, which says it will cost seniors $40 per month, up to almost $500 a year, and cost hundreds of billions of dollars to the taxpayers. That is the Robb plan. Senator Allard and I have a plan and we want to try to get the attention of the Finance Committee. This plan has no premium increases on seniors. It saves seniors $550 a year. It is budget neutral. It covers 50 percent of the cost of drugs, up to $5,000. Those are the two alternatives. This was done by King Associates. Guy King was a former actuary at HCFA. I think the distinction is clear. How did we help seniors by raising premiums, when we don't have to raise premiums with this plan? I hope my colleagues pay close attention to what Mr. King has said. This plan is sound. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on the expiration of the 2 minutes Senator Warner, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, be allowed to speak for 5 minutes.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, in closing, I want to respond to a few remarks that have been made. The Sun-Sentinel, in an article entitled ``Why Trade With Such A Deadbeat?'' says: If the U.S. trade embargo is lifted and Castro gets fresh U.S. lines of credit to buy American products that Castro can't and won't repay, it will be the American taxpayer who will then be stuck with the bottom line. Our colleagues should be reminded of the fact we will extend credit, but we will wind up paying for it because Castro will write off the debt and will not bother taking the time and trouble to pay us back. Also, the School of International Studies, University of Miami, points out: Without major internal reforms in Cuba, the Castro Government and the military, not the Cuban people, will be the main beneficiary of lifting of the embargo. I respond to my colleague who made a point of saying Nixon went to China in 1972. Look at China today: forced abortions and some of the worst human rights violations in the history of mankind. There is still a regime in power that represses human rights worse than any regime in history. Let's compare that to Ronald Reagan who stood up to the Soviet Union and said: This is the evil empire, and I will not back down in doing the right thing, which is to keep the pressure on them until they fade away. The differences in history are pretty obvious. It is not that difficult to understand. Cuba was a small country when Fidel Castro took power, and now 1.5 million people have left that country. We should not be working at all to remove the embargo from that country.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the Murray amendment. Under current law, performing abortions at military medical facilities is banned, except for cases where the mother's life is in jeopardy or in the case of rape or incest. So what this amendment would do is strike this provision from the law, thereby, in my view, turning military medical treatment centers into abortion clinics. I think we have to think hard about that, whether or not that is really the purpose of military medical treatment centers because that is the bottom line. That is what this would do. The House recently rejected a similar amendment by a vote of 221-195. It was offered by Representative Loretta Sanchez of California. A number of pro-life Democrats joined with Republican colleagues to defeat this amendment. In 1995, the House voted three times to keep abortion on demand out of military medical facilities before the pro-life provision was finally enacted into law. Over and over again in Congress, we had votes. Last year, I think it was 51-49. It was very close. I will not be surprised to see the Vice President step into the Chamber, anticipating a possible tie vote, because this administration is the most abortion-oriented administration in American history. I think we can be treated, probably, to that little scenario as well. I think that shows a stark difference between the two candidates for President of the United States, I might add. When the 1993 policy permitting abortions in military facilities was promulgated, many military physicians as well as many nurses and supporting personnel refused to perform or assist in these abortions. In response, the administration sought to supplement staff with contract personnel to provide alternative means to provide abortion access. This is a very sensitive situation. You may have a military nurse or person who is a member of the military who works at that hospital who may be opposed to abortions, does not want to perform them. So when that happens, the President now has asked that we get contract personnel to come in because people opposed to this on a moral basis, because of conscience, refuse to perform them. That is basically the way it is in American society today. The dirty little secret about the abortion industry is the doctors who perform them are not really considered to be the top of their profession. In fact, it is usually the dregs who are performing the abortions, not the good doctors. So if this amendment were to be adopted, not only would taxpayer-funded facilities be used to support abortion on demand, but resources, Government resources, would be used to search for, hire, and transport new personnel simply so abortions could be performed on demand. It would be nice if we could spend a little time debating the defense budget on the Defense bill. I sat through 2 hours of one nongermane amendment a while ago on Cuba sanctions, now abortions on demand, where we are talking about bringing all kinds of new people, a new bureaucracy, if you will, who are to hire, transport, search for personnel to perform abortions because people of conscience in the military do not want to perform them, so we, therefore, have to replace them. As the Congressional Research Service confirms, a 1994 memorandum from the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs directed the Military Health Services System: . . . to provide other means of access if providing prepaid abortion services at a facility was not feasible. This is absolutely wrong. It is wrong morally, No. 1. But it is also a waste of precious military resources, which are so much needed today. By the way, because of this amendment and other nongermane amendments, we are holding up the passage of this bill, which includes a pay raise for our military that this President has sent all over the world time and time again. So this is an unnecessary amendment. The DOD has not been made aware of a single problem arising as a result of this policy. American taxpayers should not be required to pay for abortions. In 1979, the Hyde amendment was passed to prohibit the use of taxpayer moneys to fund abortions. In Harris v. McCray, the U.S. Supreme Court held the right to an abortion does not include the right to have the taxpayer moneys pay for it. It is DOD policy to obey the laws of the nations in which bases are located. Thus, even if the Murray amendment is adopted, abortions will still not be available on all military bases. Spain and Korea prohibit abortion, for example. The ban is not intended to and does not block female military personnel from receiving an abortion. As the Senator from Arkansas has pointed out, DOD has a number of elective procedures for which it currently does not pay. As the Senator said, any woman can fly on a military aircraft for $10 on a space-available basis to have an abortion somewhere else, unfortunately. In other words, the woman could still get an abortion if she wanted one, again, unfortunately. In fact, many women often travel back to the U.S. to receive their abortions. The question is, Should we pay for it at the hospital? That is the question. Should we hire more people, more support people just for the purpose of performing abortions in these military hospitals? I say the answer to that is no. Some would argue the woman would be inconvenienced, that she would have to have her leave approved, she would have to get her transportation. But she could still get her abortion. I am not sorry, frankly, that someone has to be inconvenienced for having an abortion. Frankly, I wish somebody would give them the time and counsel to discuss this issue so they could fully realize what they are doing, taking the life of an unborn child who has no voice, who has no opportunity to say anything. I wish we would have that opportunity to provide that woman that kind of counseling so she would not do it and regret that decision for the rest of her life. Abortion should never be convenient because when a woman chooses an abortion, she is choosing to kill her baby. It is not a fetus, it is a baby. It is an unborn child. Her baby never had a choice. Military treatment centers, which are dedicated to healing and nurturing life--healing and nurturing life--should not be taking the lives of unborn children. Also, these hospitals treat the combat wounded in war. Those who are hurt are treated. There have been so many hospitals throughout the years that have been so outstanding in their treatment, saving so many lives. The great attributes they have received for doing that should not now become a part of this abortion debate and be involved in killing innocent children, that some of the people who were treated in those hospitals, if not all, fought so they could be free, so those children could be born in freedom. Those people who were wounded and treated in those hospitals did not do it to take innocent lives. They did it to allow those innocent lives to be born into freedom. That is the bitter irony of all this: the taking of the most innocent human life, a child in the womb, taking place in a hospital that treated those who fought to allow that child to be born into freedom. What a dramatic irony that is. The bottom line is it is immoral to make hard-working taxpayers in America pay for abortions at military hospitals, and it is immoral to perform those abortions. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Murray amendment. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Yes.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Helms.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Torricelli.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Florida, Mr. Graham.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I compliment my colleague from Florida for his leadership. He has been stalwart over the years he has been a Senator from the State of Florida, as well as a Congressman, in his efforts to bring the end to the Castro regime. I applaud his leadership on that issue. We will miss him when he leaves the Senate. This amendment establishes a commission on U.S. Cuban policy. The problem is it is totally irrelevant to the underlying legislation. It is an important issue, no question. But this deals with a controversial foreign policy matter, not a defense matter. It doesn't belong on the Defense authorization bill where we are funding programs that are vital to our national security. This is just one more issue that comes before the Senate and causes heartburn for all who are trying to get a Defense authorization bill passed. I know it is of great frustration to the chairman of the committee, Senator Warner, who is a strong and steadfast supporter of the fine men and women in our Armed Forces. We have the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; we have the House International Relations Committee. They are composed of Members who have been duly elected, as we were, by the American people. It is their responsibility to examine United States policy toward Cuba. I think those committees have done a commendable job in overseeing U.S. Cuban policy. This administration has had almost 8 years to reexamine or redirect, if they so choose, a policy towards Cuba. Why a commission now, in the twilight hours of the administration, providing 8-4 representation of the President's party to ``reexamine U.S. policy toward Cuba''? As the Senator from Florida said, it is political. Why should this administration, with 6 months left, tie the hands of the next administration, whatever that administration is? As the Senator from Connecticut said on the floor last Friday, the commission is supposed to take a new look at Cuba because the Senator believes current policy is not working. That leaves me to suspect that this commission is stacked and will have a predetermined outcome based on its flawed composition. We can make that case. I believe its objective is to support lifting the embargo originally supported by John F. Kennedy but given teeth by passage of the Helms-Burton law, signed by President Clinton. President Clinton wants to open relations now with Castro, appoint six members of the commission and, for the minority, two more. It is pretty obvious what the objective is. I don't understand how the Senator from Connecticut could have so vigorously supported economic sanctions against South Africa, because of apartheid, but believes we should lift sanctions against Communist Cuba. As a matter of fact, Jeff Jacoby, in an article in the Boston Globe in 1998, said it best when talking about those who support this lifting of the embargo: When they looked at the Filipino dictatorship, America's foreign policy said, ``Marcos must go.'' When they look at Chilean dictatorship, they said, ``Pinochet must go.'' When they looked at the Haitian dictatorship, they said, ``Cedros must go.'' Of Zaire they say, ``Mobutu must go.'' Of South Africa they said, ``Apartheid must go.'' Of Burma they say, ``SLORC'' (as the dictatorship is called) must go. Of East Timor they say, ``The Indonesian occupiers must go.'' But of Cuba, which bleeds under the bitterest and most implacable tyrannies on the planet, they say: The U.S. embargo must go. You can't say it much better than that. The Senator from Connecticut believes the embargo has impoverished Cubans. This is the old ``blame America'' argument. It is Castro who impoverished Cuba, no one else. We know that. Cuba trades with the rest of the world and its economy is still a basket case. That is because the Soviet Union is no longer in existence and no longer propping them up. The Senator from Connecticut says U.S. policy should not be focused on one individual. But it is that individual who dictated that trade with Cuba could only be conducted with himself and its ruling elite--no one else. So it is Castro who is the issue. Cuba, according to the standards of the Department of State, is a state cosponsor of international terrorism. Why should America reward a declared terrorist nation by reconsidering our appropriate tough stance toward Fidel Castro and its cruel regime? Cuba is a major international trafficker of illegal drugs, drugs which fuel crime in this country, spousal and child abuse in this country, and other social ills in America which result in the deaths of some 14,000 young people every year. Congressman Ben Gilman, who chairs the International Relations Committee, called for a thorough investigation of Cuba's link to drug trade, noting seizure of 7.5 metric tons of cocaine consigned from Cuba. I don't understand the logic of this issue, aside from the fact it is on the wrong legislation. Our Drug Enforcement Administration testified that such a massive shipment did not represent the first time Cuba was involved in transiting illegal drugs. Regrettably, despite this enormous seizure, the administration declined to include Cuba as a major drug transit nation. Imagine, declining to include 7.5 metric tons of cocaine from Cuba, and yet we didn't see fit to list them as a major drug transit nation. We don't need a taxpayers' subsidized commission to figure out what is wrong with Cuba. We have plenty of evidence, and it is Fidel Castro. The State Department lists Cuba in its annual State Department country reports on human rights practices, citing the deplorable record of abuse by the Castro regime. Amnesty International has condemned Cuba's human rights violations. Last month, the United Nations Human Rights Commission condemned Cuba for the eighth time for its systematic violation of human rights. Let's not forget something that is very important, which I do not think anyone else will bring up here today but I will. It has been stuck in my craw for a long time. That is how Cuba treated American POWs during the Vietnam war. I want to get into a little bit of detail because these people who did this are still free in Cuba, still have the opportunity to conduct their lives as usual. We have never brought them to justice. From August 1967 until August 1968, a small detachment of Cubans, under the direct leadership of Fidel Castro, brutally tortured a select group of American POWs at a POW camp on the outskirts of Hanoi known as the Zoo, appropriately named. The goal of this Cuban detachment was most likely to test new domination techniques and involved a combination of brutal physical torture and cruel psychological pressure. During the first phase of this program, 10 American POWs were selected and separated from the remainder of the prison population. The POWs were then unmercifully beaten and tortured in ways I will not even discuss here on the floor of the Senate they were so bad. Other prisoners were often forced to watch what the Cubans did, torturing their cellmates. Despite their heroic efforts, by Christmas all 10 POWs were broken. Not satisfied with breaking the 10 American POWs, the Cubans began to select a second group of POWs in early 1968 and the torture started again. John Hubbell, in his classic study of the POW experience in Vietnam, described one of the Cuban's victims: The man could barely walk; he shuffled slowly, painfully. His clothes were torn to shreds. He was bleeding everywhere, terribly swollen, and a dirty, yellowish black and purple from head to toe . . . his body was ripped and torn everywhere; hell cuffs appeared almost to have severed the wrists, strap marks still wound around the arms all the way to the shoulders, slivers of bamboo were embedded in the bloodied shins and there were what appeared to be tread marks from a hose across the chest, back and legs. That POW later died as a result of his torture, and those individuals who did that still survive in Cuba. They still have not been brought to justice. We will lift the embargo right after we find out who those people were and we bring them to justice, Mr. President, with all due respect. The Cuban program ended in 1968. The North Vietnamese continued to utilize the barbaric methods that the Cubans taught them under the direction of Fidel Castro. They learned their torture well. Who were these barbarians? Only Castro knows for certain. We should also demand that the Cuban murderers of the ``Brothers to the Rescue,'' unarmed civilian American pilots whom President Clinton promised would be punished in 1996, be brought to justice as well. In Castro's Cuba, the Code for Children, Youth, and Family, provides for a 3-year prison sentence for any parent who teaches a child an idea contrary to communism. Imagine that, a 3-year prison sentence for any parent who teaches a child ideas contrary to communism. The code states that no Cuban parent has a right to ``deform'' the ideology of his children. And the State is the true ``father.'' That is parental rights, Cuban style. Welcome back to Cuba, Elian. At the age of 12, children are separated from their parents for mandatory service in a work camp. According to the renowned Cuban dissident Armando Valladares, children in these camps suffer from venereal diseases and teen pregnancies which inevitably end in forced abortions. You know what. We don't need a commission to figure this stuff out. We know what is going on. The best way to bring it down is to keep the pressure on Castro. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I yield such time as he may consume to the Senator from Florida, Mr. Mack.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Hutchinson of Arkansas, I ask unanimous consent that Lt. Col. Tim Wiseman, a legislative fellow on Senator Hutchinson's, staff, and Andrea Smalec, also a member of Senator Hutchinson's staff, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of today's debate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I yield myself 1 minute. It is not our fault that Cuba is repressive. It is Castro who is to blame. Appeasing Castro by instituting the commission whose stealth objective is to lift the embargo without Castro having undertaken any reforms is nothing more than a unilateral and unwarranted concession to a regime which refuses to concede even the smallest effort to reform human rights. This is not the appropriate vehicle for this bill, the Armed Services Committee. There are other important things with which we need to deal. Cuba should first change its policy toward its own people, and after that, the United States can change its policy toward Cuba. I yield to Senator Mack.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the outstanding leadership of PSNH President and CEO Bill Frain. The core qualities of a great leader--vision and values--are often overlooked in the hustle of today's corporate society. PSNH President and CEO Bill Frain is one leader whose accomplishments and dedication to both his vision and values have gained him the respect and admiration of individuals across the state. After years of service to PSNH and its surrounding communities in the great state of New Hampshire, Bill Frain is retiring from the company. It has been both a great honor and a distinct pleasure to work with Bill over the years, and I salute him for his unwavering dedication to New Hampshire, its citizens and its economy. Bill often quotes the adage, ``Storms make oaks take deeper roots.'' Through his navigational skills and constant perseverence, Bill brought PSNH to a level where it is currently one of the most respected companies in the state and that earned him the honor of being named ``Business Leader of the Decade'' by Business New Hampshire Magazine. Bill is often described by his peers as a strong leader who is able to motivate those around him to continued success. Over the years, I have seen first-hand his ability to inspire, and I applaud his talents and dedication to New Hampshire. I wish Bill much happiness as he embarks on this new journey in life, as he will be missed. I want to leave Bill with a poem by Robert Frost, as I know that he has many more miles to travel and endeavors to conquer. The woods are lovely, dark and deep. But I have promises to keep, And miles to go before I sleep. And miles to go before I sleep. Bill, it has been a pleasure to represent 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 make a point of order that the pending amendment is legislating on an appropriations bill in violation of rule XVI. I ask my colleagues to stand with me so that we can put a stop to this practice of legislating on appropriations bills.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I yield to the Senator 5 minutes.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I yield the Senator another 5 minutes.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I yield the 3 minutes.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, an amendment was inadvertently left off the list of eligible amendments in order to the bill. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that a Murkowski amendment on an Alaska railroad be added to the list. This has been agreed to by the minority.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, this is one of these issues that gets convoluted. Unfortunately, in my role as the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I must object to this authorizing amendment to the appropriations bill. I join several of my distinguished colleagues, including my ranking member, Senator Baucus, in this regard. I point out upfront I am a cosponsor of S. 1144. I support State flexibility. I support a cost-effective rail system that is efficient. And I encourage Amtrak to move towards privatization. The States do have an interest in developing passenger rail. I want the States to have that flexibility, which is why I cosponsored S. 1144. Rail funding flexibility is a complex subject central to the so- called TEA-21 legislation which was debated and negotiated over many months in the last Congress. This issue is squarely in the jurisdiction of the authorizing committee, not the Appropriations Committee. We have had this fight many times before. The majority leader has spoken eloquently on this matter time and time and time again. We basically render the authorizing committees powerless, useless. What is the purpose? I have spent days and days and days and weeks and weeks in an effort to resolve a matter that deals with buses, an amendment or some language that would be acceptable so we could vote for this. If we had done that, perhaps we wouldn't be here now. Instead, we are now faced with a decision. I have to oppose something that in essence I support, but for some language that would deal with the problems the bus companies have. This is an authorizing committee matter. Time and time again we legislate on appropriations bills, and time and time again the authorizing committees become useless. Since it has been reported, I have spent several months working on substantive amendments to this bill. This bill has holes. On behalf of rail flexibility and the railroads, I have tried my best to get around the holes, to no avail. This provision requires more thought, more consideration, better timing. Members of the Environment and Public Works Committee have a difference of opinion on this amendment. I respect that. That is the way the process works. I have no problem with people having their own views, and I am sure they don't have a problem with me having mine. We ignore the authorizers' concerns if we shove this through on an appropriations bill. The House appropriations bill had another version of rail flexibility, and it was struck by a point of order. I am very concerned about continuing Amtrak competition with intercity bus service, which is why I have spent with my staff on the committee weeks and weeks negotiating, working, trying to come up with language that would be acceptable. Rail service will prosper if it is integrated with feeder bus service. That is how rail will prosper. The rails have limits as to where they can go. Feeder buses have more flexibility. That enhances the rail. Not included in this amendment is a specific prohibition against these funds being used for Amtrak operating subsidies. Not included in this amendment is any mechanism to prevent below-cost pricing that damages existing bus service. And not included in this amendment is any mechanism to ensure rail and bus service are integrated. This amendment in its current form leaves many holes in this important policy, without protecting the buses or the State government from the influence of Amtrak. Balanced intercity transportation is important. This amendment cannot strike the right balance, I regret to say. I ask my friends in the Senate to keep this provision in the jurisdiction of the Environment and Public Works Committee where it belongs. If you are on the committee, do what I am doing, even though in essence, with the exceptions I noted, I support S. 1144. Keep this matter in the jurisdiction of the committee where it belongs. We will continue our hard work on making it good legislation for all the competing interests. If this provision goes on the appropriations bill, my committee cannot work on negotiations in conference. All who worked so hard to craft this, going back to when my predecessor was chairman of this committee, Senator John Chafee, when the process began, S. 1144 was marked out of committee and put on the Senate calendar. The idea behind that is, if there is a conference on this bill with the House Members of the Environment and Public Works Committee, which brought the bill out, we would have a right to conference. We are not even going to be in the conference now. We are totally shut out of the process. I say to my colleagues, I don't care where you are on the issue itself--whether you are for rail, bus, no rail flexibility, total rail flexibility--the right thing to do here is to support a rule XVI point of order because it is legislating on appropriations. Senator Lott has spoken about that issue over the past several weeks. I encourage my colleagues to support the rule XVI point of order. I am not sure who yet will raise that point of order. I may do it, Senator Baucus may do it. We will talk about that. The point is, the rule should be raised and will be raised. I encourage my colleagues to support the rule XVI point of order to this legislation on appropriations bills. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, today I rise along with Senators Durbin, Kerrey, Lautenberg, and Jeffords to introduce the Chimpanzee Health Improvement, Maintenance and Protection (C.H.I.M.P.) Act. This legislation will create a nonprofit sanctuary system for housing chimpanzees that federal researchers have decided are no longer needed for their research. Our bill, establishes a public/private matching fund which will provide for the permanent retirement of these animals. This is a wonderful opportunity for the Senate to support the sanctuary concept which is backed by many distinguished scientists, including Dr. Jane Goodall and humane people across the country. Mr. President, in the wild, the chimpanzee is an endangered species. We are fortunate that we have an opportunity now to provide decent, humane care for a species which is, sadly, on the decline in its natural habitat. At this point in time we have a tremendous surplus of research chimpanzees in the United States. It began in the 1980's, when the terrible AIDS epidemic first appeared. Researchers in Federal agencies created breeding colonies of chimpanzees in five regional chimp centers. The hope was that chimpanzees, because of their genetic similarity to humans, would be a good model for various AIDS vaccine experiments. Scientists discovered, however, that although the chimpanzees proved to be carriers of the virus, that once it was injected into them, the chimps do not develop full-blown AIDS. For this reason, many researchers are, in their own words, getting out of the chimp business. The chimpanzee does not serve as a model for how the disease progresses in humans and the researchers want to divest themselves of these intelligent animals. The problem is that there is really no place for the chimpanzees to go. Many of the chimps will live to be 50 years old! It is estimated that several hundred of the approximately 1,500 chimps currently in labs are ready to be sent to sanctuaries, but that we lack the sanctuary space to house them. In a sanctuary the chimps can be put in small groups rather than living in isolation as many do in labs. Small social groups enable the chimps to recover from research more quickly both physically and mentally, and it is far more cost-effective than housing them in the present laboratory system. We should remember that taxpayers are currently footing the bill for what is basically the ``warehousing'' of these animals in expensive and inhumane labs. I have based many of the features of the C.H.I.M.P. bill on a report entitled ``Chimpanzees in Research: Strategies for Their Ethical Care, Management, and Use,'' that was published in 1997 by the National Research Council. In this study of research chimps, the well-respected National Academy of Sciences (NAS) reported that there may be approximately 500 chimpanzees that are no longer needed in research. The NAS recommended that NIH initiate a breeding moratorium for at least 5 years, that surplus chimps be placed in sanctuaries rather than be euthanized, and that animal protection organizations, along with scientists, have input into the standards of care and the operation of the sanctuaries. Our bill has addressed all these issues and is supported by The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, The American Anti-Vivisection Society, The Humane Society of the United States, The National Anti-Vivisection Society and The Society for Animal Protective Legislation. I want to again point out that our bill does not interfere with any ongoing medical experiments involving chimps. The bill allows for the retirement of chimps only after the researchers themselves have decided that a chimp is no longer useful in research. This is the humane, ethical, and fiscally responsible way to handle the question of what to do with a surplus of intelligent animals who have contributed to the knowledge of science and the health and well-being of humanity. This really should be a nonpartisan issue and I am proud to ask for the support of all my Senate colleagues.