Bob Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a resolution concerning our trade relationship with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. On June 2, 2000, the President of the United States formally recommended a waiver of the application of the Trade Act of 1974 with respect to Vietnam. I am deeply troubled by the President's decision to grant this waiver in light of Vietnam's continuing poor record on human rights. One need only look at the 1999 U.S. State Department report on human rights practices in Vietnam to recognize that the Vietnamese Government once again has failed to meet recognized standards with respect to such fundamental rights as freedom of emigration, freedom of speech and freedom of religion, to name only a few, which are so often taken for granted in our great country. I would like to quote from this revealing report to emphasize my point. The State Department declared the following regarding Vietnam: ``The Government's human rights record remained poor; . . . and serious problems remain . . . The Government continued to repress basic political and some religious freedoms and to commit numerous abuses . . . the Government arbitrarily arrested and detained citizens, including detention for peaceful expression of political and religious views . . . The Government significantly restricts freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and association . . . The Government restricts freedom of religion and significantly restricts the operation of religious organizations other than those entities approved by the State . . . Citizens' access to passports frequently was constrained by factors outside the law, such as bribery and corruption. Refugee and immigrant visa applicants sometimes encountered local officials who arbitrarily delayed or denied passports based on personal animosities or on the officials' perception that an applicant did not meet program criteria or in order to extort a bribe.'' The list of violations outlined by our State Department goes on, but I will stop here. Mr. President, the resolution I have introduced keeps faith with the original Congressional intent of the Trade Act of 1974. Our dedication to fundamental human rights must be resolute, even when it means one powerful interest group or another does not get its way. Unfortunately, the President's decision to grant this waiver once again undermines the United States' long-standing dedication to human rights and sends a message to the rest of the world that the United States is more interested in profits over principles. Finally, rewarding Communist Vietnam by allowing U.S. tax dollars to subsidize business operations in Hanoi, while at the same time their leaders hold back key POW/MIA records from the war, is a disgrace to the men and women who valiantly served our country and were honored just last week on Memorial Day. This Presidential waiver should be overturned by the Congress, as is our right under the law.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the nominations of both Mr. Dyk and Mr. Lynch. But I also rise to briefly discuss the role of the Senate in judicial nominations, the issue of advice and consent. What is the appropriate role for the Senate? Should we be out here opposing nominations? You can be criticized for it because they say: Well, the President is in the other party; therefore, every time you oppose a nomination, it is for political reasons. The truth is, by either voting for or not asking for a recorded vote, I have allowed many Clinton nominees to move forward. But I think we have an obligation under the advise and consent clause of the Constitution that if we don't think the judge is qualified to be on the Court, or perhaps he or she is too much of an activist and not really upholding the Constitution as it was written, then I think we have an obligation to say that. It is with some reluctance I must do that. That is my view. When I say ``qualified,'' we don't merely look at the educational background of the nominee or to the employment history to understand qualifications. I am more interested in the judicial philosophy: Is this nominee going to be an activist judge for one issue or another? Whether conservative or liberal, is that the purpose of a judge--to go on the Court and be an activist for some particular issue--or is it more appropriate for the judge to go on the Court and be an activist for the Constitution of the United States and interpret that Constitution correctly? The latter is what I believe is the appropriate thing to do. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I have searched through many of the nominees this President has sent forward. I must say I am shocked at the amount of judicial activists. We have had some great clashes in this body on Presidential nominees for the Court--Robert Bork, to name one, and Clarence Thomas was another. It seems that when the liberal side of the aisle goes after a judge, it is always appropriate, but if we go after a judge because we think he or she is too far to the left in terms of activism, then, of course, it is wrong. But article II, section 2, of the Constitution states that the President ``shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law.'' That means the lower courts, to put it in simple terms. The Senate is not a rubber stamp for any nomination, nor should it be. We have a right to speak out, and I specifically, along with Senator Sessions, asked for a recorded vote in the case of Mr. Dyk and Mr. Lynch because I believe the Senate should go on record. Sometimes if the nominees are not controversial but simply share a different philosophical view from mine and are not activist, and based on their background I believe they will look at the Constitution as fairly as possible, in an objective manner, I don't object to those nominees. I don't expect President Clinton to appoint a judge I might appoint. I respect that, and I understand that. That is not the reason for the advise and consent clause, to simply disapprove every single nominee because you disagree with the President's politics. The framers of our Constitution settled on a judicial selection process that would involve both the Senate and the President. Remember, these are lifetime appointments. There is no going back, unless some horrible thing happens in terms of malfeasance, where the judge is impeached. But for the most part, a judicial appointment is lifetime. A Federal judge is a Federal judge for life. So if a few of us come down to the Senate floor, as Senator Sessions and I have done, and talk about these nominees, I don't think that is so bad. They are appointed for life. So if we have concerns, I think they should be raised. That is legitimate on either side of the aisle. Nominees who are a danger to the separation of powers, who have shown evidence of legislating from the bench, those are the kinds of nominees to whom I am opposed. I am not opposed to nominees based on a President's political philosophy. I am opposed to nominees who have shown evidence of legislating from the bench. That is a very important point to make. I might also say, before discussing specifically the two nominees just for a moment, that there is some irony in this debate today because this is the first time nominations have come before the Senate for a vote since the President of the United States has been recommended for disbarment as an attorney by the State of Arkansas. Now, I don't know if that has happened in American history before. I don't believe so. So I think I am correct in saying this is the first time in American history that a sitting President has been recommended for disbarment from the State he came from, and then that same President is submitting nominees to the courts in our land. I do not mean to imply anything by this in terms of the qualifications of the nominees, about their conduct in office or anything such as that. That is not the intention. The intention here is to point out that it is somewhat ironic that a man who showed total disregard for the law, according to the law in the State of Arkansas, would now be sending judges up to the Senate for approval. So I bring this to the attention of my colleagues because it is the first time in American history this has ever happened. We are standing here in judgment of people who are appointed by a President who has been recommended for disbarment. The Arkansas bar, as you know, a day or so ago recommended this. A committee of the Arkansas Supreme Court recommended this past Monday that the President be disbarred because of ``serious misconduct'' in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case. A majority of the panelists who met Friday to consider two complaints against the President found that the President should be disciplined for false testimony about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, the Arkansas Supreme Court said. He was, indeed, fined by another judge from Arkansas for lying under oath. So it is ironic we are debating the qualifications of many fine jurists, frankly, before us today, and in the newspapers we read about how our President is facing disbarment. So it is a unique situation we face here and one I want everybody to understand. We break a lot of ground here. We do a lot of things that have never been done before. We had an impeachment trial in the Senate a few months ago. The Senate, in its infinite wisdom, said the President was not guilty, but the Arkansas bar said otherwise. So it is a very interesting twist of fate that now nominees are being sent to the Senate by a man who is recommended for disbarment, and probably will be disbarred, from the practice of law in the State of Arkansas. Let me conclude on a couple of points on the nominees. I have spent a lot of time on the nomination of Timothy Dyk, and I am very much opposed to Mr. Dyk being a District Judge for the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Some of the material I looked at I am not going to go into on the Senate floor. But a couple of things in which Mr. Dyk was involved concerned me. In a Washington Post article appearing in May of 1984, the Post reported that Timothy Dyk ``agreed to work for free for the anti- censorship lobby, People for the American Way, to sue the Texas Board of Education over the board's 10-year-old rule that evolution be taught as ``only one of several explanations of the origins of mankind.'' People for the American Way is pretty much a liberal activist, anti- Christian group that seeks to rid public education of any mention of God at all in its educational language and literature, or in schools. The president for the People for the American Way, Ralph G. Neas, spoke in January of 1999 about his vision of the People for the American Way. Listen to what he said because you have to remember that Mr. Dyk worked for them pro bono, for nothing. Mr. Neas said: As you may know, People for the American Way has always carefully monitored the radical religious right and its political allies. Mr. Neas believes that most if not all Republicans are members of the ``radical right.'' He further said: The effort by some elements of the conservative religious and political movements to undermine support for public education goes back decades before Phyllis Schlafly and Gary Bauer and Pat Robertson came on the scene, before the days of the Heritage Foundation, back before Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America. As you can see by his comments, People for the American Way is now and has always been an anti-Christian, anti-conservative organization. He continues by attacking Orrin Hatch, Governor George Bush, and Senator John McCain for supporting schooling voucher legislation. Let me repeat that. He attacked Senator John McCain, Senator Orrin Hatch, and Governor George Bush for supporting school vouchers. I guess Timothy Dyk might turn out to be one of the greatest judges in the history of the world, for all I know. I can't predict that. I am not in the business of predicting the future. I am trying to take a look at what I have before me to make a decision on whether or not a person is fit to be on the court. I understand that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is a staunch supporter, but I have to vote no because I don't believe that a potential judge who uses that kind of language and who makes those kinds of decisions with those kinds of organizations on a pro bono basis is the kind of person I want on the court. I must say that there are thousands of judges--and thousands of people who want to be judges--all over America who serve, do it honorably, and interpret the Constitution as fairly and as equitably as possible. Why is it that time and time again before this body come these outrageous judicial activists appointed by this President? Some have said, well, the other side of the aisle gave you a lot of judges during the Bush administration. A lot of those judges, if not most, were not judicial activists. It is one thing to have a different philosophical view and to be nominated by a President of a different philosophical view. We are not interested in philosophy on the Supreme Court, or on any court. We are interested in supporting the Constitution and interpreting the Constitution the way the founders would have wanted us to do it. They are not your activists. I don't care about your activists. But I think when you hear people representing on a pro bono basis--for no money; you are doing it because you want to do it; you are not getting paid-- there is a difference. When somebody retains you as a lawyer, you have every right to do that. That is the American way, and you have every right to do it pro bono. But it tells you about somebody when they represent somebody pro bono. Terrorists were represented pro bono by Mr. Dyk. I think when you are looking at these things, you have to say to yourself, well, these are the people with whom he wants to surround himself with pro bono services. I guess I have to ask, isn't there anybody out there somewhere that we could have as a nominee who doesn't have to be out there talking about and criticizing Members of the Senate because they support school vouchers and are representing groups that do that, or even on the issue of evolution? I think it is going too far. I think it is sad, frankly, that we have to deal with it. The other nominee before us who has been talked about already is Gerald Lynch for the Southern District of New York. The reason I oppose his nomination is for the same reasons. As my colleague, Senator Sessions, quoted, Attorney Lynch wrote: Justice Brennan's belief that the Constitution must be given meaning for the present seems to me a simple necessity; his long and untiring labor to articulate the principles of fairness, liberty, and equality found in the Constitution in the way that he believed made most sense today seems far more honest and honorable than the pretense that the meaning of those principles can be found in eighteenth or nineteenth- century dictionaries. That is a pretty legalistic phrase. Let's put it in English. It means what the founders said in the 1700s isn't relevant. It is not relevant. It is relevant today. What is relevant today is relevant today. And, frankly, the Constitution those guys wrote in the late 1700s doesn't apply to us today. The Constitution is not the same. It is totally wrong. Why is it that we criticize those who wrote the Constitution when we attribute time and time again to some great people who profess to be scholars on the Constitution? They come down here on the Senate floor saying: You know, the founders didn't mean that; that isn't what they meant; they didn't mean to say that; if you look at it literally, it does not mean that. When you go back and find the comments of the founders, over and over again the founders say exactly what they meant. Not only did they write it in the Constitution but they explained it in their own words in the debate. And they still say they didn't mean what they said. I think if you find a document that was written by somebody and then you find the explanation, and it says what they meant--they said, ``This is what I meant''--that is pretty obvious. I think we are seeing evidence here again of a person who will be another judicial activist who is going to say the Constitution isn't relevant today, so, therefore, I can put my interpretation into the Constitution. That is the kind of nominees that we are talking about here. This is very troubling. That is why I rise today to oppose both the nominations of Timothy Dyk and Gerard Lynch, and I will also oppose a couple of other nominees in the future.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Bell Atlantic for their designation as one of the ``Businesses of the Decade'' by Business New Hampshire Magazine. For the past ten years, under current President and CEO Michael Hickey, Bell Atlantic has faithfully upheld the cornerstones of their company: corporate responsibility, good citizenship, and core values. It has instilled this sense of giving back to the surrounding community not only in their management, but to their employees on every level. Bell Atlantic's commitment to the surrounding community is evident through their participation in Kids Voting, their Adopt-A-School relationship with Beech Street School and their participation in Manchester's School-to-Work Program for electrical workers. They also worked with Cabletron and Project WINGS to ensure that schools throughout the state were wired to the Internet, sponsored the Smithsonian Folklife exhibit from New Hampshire and worked closely with various other community groups to educate and guide youths and adults throughout the state. Additionally, Bell Atlantic has worked tirelessly over the past ten years to achieve the newest technological links for both businesses and homes across the state. Over the past five years, Bell Atlantic has invested nearly $100 million in technological upgrades, and will continue to do so well into the future. Bell Atlantic is a true community leader and a 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 honor Fleet Bank upon their designation as one of the ``Businesses of the Decade'' by Business New Hampshire Magazine. For the past ten years, under the leadership of President Michael Whitney, Fleet Bank has made phenomenal inroads to assisting the surrounding community, and I applaud the hard work and dedication of each and every employee of the company. The greatest examples of this are ``Team Fleet,'' a group of more than 200 staff members who have donated thousands of hours to over 375 non- profit organizations and efforts within the state from Special Olympics to NH Public Television, and their financing of one of the largest community development projects undertaken by the City of Manchester in order to rehabilitate one hundred low-income rentals on Elm Street. Fleet Bank gives back to the community on a continual basis, forming the ``Fleet All-Stars'' in 1996, a company-funded, community-wide, public/private partnership developed in order to revitalize neighborhoods in various communities through volunteerism in youth organizations and other civic groups. In 1999 alone, they were able to reach out to over 30 youth programs and approximately 2,381 children throughout the state. Fleet Bank is a true community leader and a 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 honor Central Paper Products for their designation as one of the ``Businesses of the Decade'' by Business New Hampshire Magazine. For the past ten years, and for many before that, under the direction and guidance of President Fred Kfoury Jr., Central Paper has donated time and experience to economic development and civic improvement projects across the state. They were actively involved in many of the major projects in the state, namely the Airport Initiative, the Civic Center, the Manchester Housing Authority, United Way, Easter Seals and the Manchester School System. Central Paper, because of their ability to be flexible in the technological field, is often working at a rate more efficient than companies three times their size. Their dedication to technological advancement has brought them to the forefront of their field, and I commend them for it. Employees of Central Paper Products helped to found the Science Enrichment Encounter and FIRST, and continue to work with these programs on a national scale. In 1991 and 1992, Central Paper Products was named ``Best of the Best'' by the National Paper Trade Association for their commitment to community service, and President Fred Kfoury, Jr., was named ``Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce Citizen of the Year'' in 1998. Central Paper Products is a true community leader and a 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 honor William T. Frain, Jr., upon his recognition by Business New Hampshire Magazine as the ``Business Leader of the Decade'' in the state of New Hampshire. William, or ``Bill'' Frain, is the President and CEO of a company that has seen New Hampshire through many of its most difficult economic periods, Public Service of New Hampshire. Although faced with adversity throughout his tenure with the company, Frain successfully pulled them through near bankruptcy, an acquisition by Northeast Utilities, and industry deregulation. Bill is an extraordinary leader, the type that does not always manifest itself, but who motivates and encourages those around them to give above and beyond one hundred percent of themselves. As a result, over 150 of his employees sit on boards throughout the state, and many more volunteer their time to give back to communities throughout the state. In addition, employees at PSNH have contributed more than 1.3 million to the United Way since 1990. Bill's most notable achievements include winning the Yankee Chapter of the Public Relations Society of America Yankee Award for demonstrating leadership during a crisis, earning the Special New Hampshire District Advocacy Award from the United States Small Business Administration, acting as a key facilitator in forming the Amoskeag Fishways Partnership in order to bring life back into the Merrimack River, and being a co-founder of the Junior Achievement of New Hampshire Advisory Council in 1995. A member of too many organizations to list, he has truly exemplified the qualities of strong leadership. It has been a pleasure and a privilege of mine, during my time in office, to have worked with a leader as extraordinary as Bill Frain. His hard work, determination, and ability to motivate those around him to reach greater heights are truly commendable. Bill, it is an honor to represent you in the United States Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Tyco International Ltd. for their designation as one of the ``Businesses of the Decade'' by Business New Hampshire Magazine. For the past ten years, under the leadership of Chairman Dennis Kozolowski and Senior Vice President Dave Brownell, Tyco has effectively continued their tradition of growth through increased efficiency and technology. With more than 100 acquisitions worldwide, they have truly become dominant on the international market as well as within the United States. For all its growth, Tyco has not forgotten its role in the surrounding community. Tyco has donated money and time to United Way of the Greater Seacoast and the Greater Piscataqua Community Foundation's Jeffery Gutin Fund for Young Adults. Furthermore, Tyco's contribution of $500,000 was critical in the transformation of the Strawberry Banke Museum into a year-round educational and community resource. Their commitment to community does not end with donating money to worthy causes. Tyco's employees, from senior staffers to entry-level workers, volunteer their time and energy to many non-profit organizations across the state. Perhaps more important, Tyco makes this commitment to service possible by allowing its employees to incorporate volunteerism into their busy schedules. Tyco's success is irrefutable proof that a company can give back to its community while improving its ``bottom line.'' I commend the employees of Tyco for their efforts. It is an honor to serve them in the United States Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Lakes Region General Hospital for their designation as one of the ``Businesses of the Decade'' by Business New Hampshire Magazine. For the past ten years, under the leadership of President Thomas Clairmont, the Lakes Region General Hospital has become known for encouraging area agencies and organizations to work together, combining resources and taking risks in order to meet not only the health care needs of the Lakes Region, but of the entire state. Mr. Clairmont has gone above and beyond the call of duty to give back to the group. In fact, he was recently honored with the American Hospital Association's PAC Award for outstanding service in the area of public policy, as well as the NH Hospital Association's Leslie A. Smith's President's Award. Mary Jo and I commend and congratulate him on his hard work and dedication to the Lakes Region General Hospital. A key player in the Rural Health Coalition of New Hampshire, their HealthLink program has received national recognition as a model program that allows people to take charge of their own health, and provides health care for those individuals without health insurance. The efforts of the management and staff at Lakes Region General Hospital, in conjunction with this program, earned them recognition by the American Hospital Association through its 1994 NOVA Award. Lakes Region General Hospital is a true community leader and a 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 honor The H.L. Turner Group for their designation as one of the ``Businesses of the Decade'' by Business New Hampshire Magazine. For the past ten years, under the leadership of President Harold Turner, Jr., the Turner Group has truly struck a balance between business success and social responsibility. Incorporated in 1990, they have made significant inroads into the community and will surely continue to do so in the future. The Turner Group has won national recognition for their commitment to the environment, a commitment that I echo as Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee of the Senate. They have been recognized for their Indoor Air Quality standards, and received the 1996 United States Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental Merit Award in ``recognition of demonstrated commitment and significant contributions to the environment'' for their design of the Boscawen Elementary School. The Turner Group has pledged itself to achieving environmentally friendly designs at the same cost as less efficient designs with questionable air quality. Employees of the Turner Group have donated countless hours to the Audobon Society as board members, the Silk Farm Center Building Committee as members, Concord's Conference and Trade Center as visionaries for planning and design, and as ``educational consultants'' for New Hampshire's Junior Achievement's collaboration with U.S. FIRST, the LEGO Corporation and three Manchester schools for the first-in-the- nation business and robotics program. The H.L. Turner Group is a true community leader and a 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 honor Todd Rossetti for receiving his high school diploma from Concord High School. For some, a high school diploma is taken for granted. For Todd Rossetti, it is a celebration of the trials and tribulations that he has endured his entire life. Although Todd was born with cerebral palsy, his illness has not prohibited him from accomplishing anything that he has set his mind to. In the Concord School System, Todd was immersed in a new ``inclusion'' program, allowing him to participate in the mainstream curriculum. Though Todd's illness hinders his ability to communicate, his peers, teachers and administrators have grown to love him and take pride in ensuring that he is able to remain in mainstream classes. This support web has enabled Todd to attend school, follow through with scholarly activities, and find employment. When it was believed that Todd might not be able to receive his diploma with his class, it was that support network that spoke out. Because of the love and efforts of his peers, Todd will be able to graduate. As a former teacher, I feel great compassion for his struggle. He is a courageous and dedicated student, and it is an honor to represent him in the United States Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Mrs. Georgina Leland for being honored with Ossipee's Citizen of the Year Award for 2000. This award recognizes one who is dedicated to reaching out to his or her community. Georgina Leland is just such a person. She is noted for her gregarious nature, her gritty honesty and her love of her community. Georgina has been a pillar of Ossipee's community for fourteen years. Over the course of these years, Georgina has made her name made known among both the young and the old. She is a member of both her church choir and her Bible study group, and she is a regular volunteer at church functions. Allowing elderly residents to experience life to its fullest, Georgina volunteers as a driver for the Clipper Home in Wolfeboro, for R.S.V.P. and for Families Matter. When this vibrant woman isn't in her car driving around the state of New Hampshire, she is consumed with her work at the Public Library and at the Mountain View Nursing Home. Georgina, too, takes a special interest in her community's governmental affairs. She is a noteworthy volunteer at Ossipee's Concerned Citizens events where she never fails to make herself noticed with her efforts or her words. Acting as the Past President of the Ossipee Valley Women's Club for four years, Georgina was charged with bringing to life the scholarship program. In addition, Georgina volunteers her summers to the Chamber of Commerce's information booth. Her efforts as a volunteer and as a citizen have earned Georgina numerous commendations. In 1998, she was named the Volunteer of the Year by the Clipper Home. She also received recognition from both R.S.V.P., Families Matter, VFW Post 8270 and Auxilary for her efforts as a volunteer. Georgina is a role model for us all. It is certain that she has set an example for those of her community, for all of us and for her seven children and fourteen grandchildren. Though her family is quite large, Georgina has made efforts to invite the entire community into her family fold. Her efforts and achievements are to be commended. It is an honor to represent Georgina Leland in the United States Senate. Mary Jo and I wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors. May you always continue to inspire those around you with your dedication to the community.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, new revelations from ``Newsweek'' and ``Inside the Pentagon'' show that the air war against Serbia was inaccurately portrayed. These reports allege hyper-inflating of reports of damage done by allied bombing. Now we are awakening to the realization that we expended a small fortune in precision munitions with very little effect--but the administration felt it necessary to exaggerate grossly the results of the air campaign in an attempt to buy public support for the war. This is shameful--and the individuals involved in this deceit ought to be reprimanded. The bombing triggered a refugee crisis--that was its main result. There was never any threat to NATO from the conflict in the Balkans. In fact, the real threat to NATO is that it has abandoned its traditional role of being a defensive alliance, and under this administration has blundered and contorted into a post-cold war crisis management agency with a lost sense of mission. NATO's bombing killed innocent civilians and raised regional tensions. Like Haiti and Somalia before, the war in Kosovo has cost the taxpayers billions, exhausted and demoralized our men and women in the armed forces, and accomplished nothing, yet damaged our image in the region as a nation that believes in democracy and justice. As a result of demonizing Milosevic in Serbia, we have become tacit allies with the Kosovo Liberation Army, a group in the recent past acknowledged to be an organization which commits terrorist acts and which appears to be supported by the Albanian mafia, which is said to be a major supplier of heroin in the European market. In our zeal to ``stop the killing'' in the Balkans, we, as a result, aligned ourselves with a terrorist mob with links to drug traffickers and killed a lot of innocent people. This is peacekeeping run amok, and it has to be brought to an end as quickly as possible. I support the Byrd-Warner amendment, not that it goes far enough. It does not. We should have never gotten involved in the Balkans, and we should have gotten out long ago recognizing that our intervention was damaging, and like too many other missions from which we have failed to learn any lessons, open-ended, and lacking any clear objectives. We are using our young men and women in uniform as police officers, something which they are not trained to be and which they understandably resent. They are not policemen, they are soldiers. If they had wanted to be police, they could have signed up in their local towns and at least have been home with their families at night. I want to make one thing perfectly clear. I am tired of hearing those who support the Balkan blunder say that we are ``undercutting'' our troops by seeking authorization for the mission's continuation. I believe that sending our armed forces into harm's way into a conflict in which we have no identifiable national security objectives undercuts our troops. I believe that wasting our precious military resources in a futile peacekeeping mission undercuts the troops. I believe that we undercut the troops when we plunge into a conflict without Congress making a declaration of war. Did we learn anything from Vietnam? Finally, I warn my colleagues that rather than admitting to a colossal mistake in Kosovo, which this administration would never be willing to do, it is likely that it will blunder more deeply, possibly into Montenegro, even if the Byrd-Warner amendment were to pass the Congress. General Wesley Clark's latest comments, as well as a reading of Agence France Press and some of the other foreign news sources, including comments by some of Europe's war hawks, reveal that Montenegro and the Presovo Valley might be the next jumping off point. In fact, the KLA can read between the lines. If they create yet another provocation, and force the Serbs to respond, creating an atmosphere charged with allegations of atrocities or another humanitarian crisis, it will give NATO the excuse it needs to blunder more deeply into the Balkan quagmire. We need to start pulling down our forces in Kosovo and winding down this operation. We need to be able to admit to a mistake when we make it. Our military forces are stretched as thin as they have ever been. This year, the services' unfunded requirements list was in the realm of $15 billion. We cannot afford to squander our limited military dollars in Kosovo.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Idaho for yielding. I should have known that as election season approaches we would have to be down on the floor with more debate on gun control, and, unfortunately, the hostage held here--for our service men and women who are waiting--is the military construction appropriations bill. It is now being held hostage by this debate. It is unfortunate that some of our colleagues would do this to our military who we know are very much in need of a lot of the dollars and programs that are in that budget. Frankly, there is nothing more politically expedient or coldly opportunistic or blatantly unconstitutional, frankly, than gun control. It is pretty clear. I do not know how our colleagues can say the first amendment is all right and the second amendment isn't. Of course, it is an unmistakably and an unspeakably horrible tragedy when someone is killed. And it is very difficult to sometimes respond to the emotionalism of those who have lost a loved one in a tragedy such as a shooting or any other tragedy. But our response, my colleagues, should not be to disregard our oath of office and to walk away from the Constitution of the United States. We took an oath right there in the Well to ``defend and support'' the Constitution. The last time I looked, the second amendment was part of that Constitution. I would have more respect for my colleagues if they came down and offered an amendment to remove it. At least that would be more honest. Our response should be to encourage gun safety, too, and to crack down on the scum, the criminals, who commit these horrible acts against us, and to take an introspective look at ourselves and our children. We need to restore respect for all human life ourselves. We need to stop calling gratuitous and indiscriminate violence in the popular media, in TV, movies, and in videos ``art'' and start calling it the trash that it is because it is corrupting young people's minds, and it ruins their souls. These are the problems about gun violence--not guns. My colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, a few minutes ago on the floor, made some very interesting remarks. She said, and I am using her words: Debunk certain myths that the National Rifle Association has developed; the first is the myth they have developed with respect to the second amendment of the Constitution. She said: ``Well-regulated militia'' refers to the National Guard. She said: No individual right to keep and bear arms under the second amendment. She said the second amendment is a: [F]raud on the American public by special interest groups. She said: The second amendment refers to the right to keep and bear arms only in connection with a state militia. In other words, the National Guard, not an individual. She also said: The second amendment does not guarantee an individual's right to keep and bear arms. Those are startling, shocking statements from a colleague whom I respect immensely. She is entitled to her position. But my colleague mentioned various court rulings that supposedly decided that the right to keep and bear arms is only for the Government. It is exactly the opposite. The courts said so; so it must be right. But let me tell you about some decisions that the courts made that weren't right. No. 1, they said in Dred Scott in 1857 that a black man couldn't sue in Federal court because he was property. Do you know what. The courts were wrong when they said that--dead wrong. I also point out that in Plessy v. Ferguson they said ``separate but equal'' public facilities for blacks and other facilities for whites. The courts said that, too, and they were wrong. I don't think my colleagues would have argued on the floor of the Senate that the Supreme Court was right in those cases. There are plenty more cases where the courts were wrong--morally, legally, and constitutionally wrong, wrong, wrong. So don't come down to the floor of the Senate and say just because some court said it that it is right, right, right, right, because it isn't. My colleague also mentioned various judges. There are many judges who have upheld the individual right to keep and bear arms. There is a long list of them. I am not going to go through the list. I would rather quote instead of the judges, those fine people who wrote the Constitution, and who lived it. They know what they meant. They said what they meant: Inalienable right to keep and bear arms. Let's hear from a few who I think knew what they were talking about. Thomas Jefferson: ``no free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.'' That was when he proposed the Virginia Constitution in 1776. Any uncertainty about that statement? Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. That was Thomas Jefferson's ``Commonplace Book,'' 1774-1776, quoting from ``On Crimes and Punishment'' by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764. George Mason, of Virginia: [W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually . . . I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.--Virginia's U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788. Further: ``That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free state.''-- Within Mason's declaration of ``the essential and unalienable Rights of the People,'' later adopted by the Virginia ratification convention, 1788. Samuel Adams, of Massachusetts: The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceful citizens, from keeping their own arms.--Massachusetts' U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788. In other words, freedom of the press, Freedom to bear arms--yes, yes, yes. William Grayson, of Virginia: ``[A] string of amendments were presented to the lower House: these altogether respected personal liberty.''--Letter to Patrick Henry, June 12, 1789, referring to the introduction of what become the Bill of Rights. Richard Henry Lee, of Virginia: A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms . . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms . . . The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.--Additional Letters From the Federal Farmer, 1788. James Madison, of Virginia: The Constitution preserves ``the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation . . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.''--The Federalist, No. 46. Tench Coxe, of Pennsylvania: The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them.--An American Citizen, Oct. 21, 1787. We could go on and on. Noah Webster, of Pennsylvania: Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword . . . Don't come down to the floor and tell me the founders meant that the second amendment didn't mean anything. They put it in because they knew the dangers of an unarmed citizenry. Just because we have these terrible acts of violence perpetrated upon innocent people in this country--by criminals, by scum who prey upon us--is not a reason to take away our rights under the second amendment. It is a reason to put them away, put them in jail and throw the key away and leave them there, and stop having sympathy for these people who do this. I have a long list of people, founders who knew what they were talking about. They wrote the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is about individual rights, not about government rights. It is about individual rights. That is why they put all 10 amendments in the Constitution. Does my colleague mean to say that the right to free speech, the right to free expression, the right to the freedom of religion or trial by jury or freedom against cruel and unusual punishment belongs to the State? That sounds like Communist Russia. One member of the Supreme Court, Justice Joseph Story, appointed by James Madison, in his ``Commentaries on the Constitution,'' considered the right to keep and bear arms the ``palladium of the liberties of the republic'' which enables the citizenry to maintain and defend a free society. And now let's take a look at the Thesaurus. A synonym for infringed, as in ``the right to the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,'' is encroach. Encroach is defined by Webster's New World College Dictionary as ``in a gradual or sneaky way''; ``to advance beyond the proper, original, or customary limits; make inroads on or upon.'' That sure sounds like what some of my colleagues are trying to do, trying to sneak around or circumvent the second amendment. They are using terrible tragedies that we all deplore to do it. I would like to punish personally, if I could, every single one of those people who committed those atrocities, but we must not trample the Constitution of the United States while we do it. Let's remember that oath we took: Uphold the rule of law and uphold the Constitution.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I was very proud to report out just a couple weeks ago a bill to designate the federal building at 500 Pearl Street in New York City, New York, as the ``Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse.'' When I first joined this committee, the chairman's seat was occupied by the Senator from New York. His generosity and kindness in helping me, a freshman Senator from the other side of the aisle, is something I will always remember and for which I will be forever grateful. I have since come to rely on his advice, counsel and wisdom on issues ranging from transportation to Superfund, as have so many of my colleagues. Our friend, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, is someone who has served this nation with great integrity and true patriotism. He is the only person in our nation's history to serve in four successive administrations as a member of the Cabinet or sub-Cabinet. He served two Republicans and two Democrats--but he would rather tell you that he simply served four Presidents of the United States. He was Ambassador to India, as well as the President of the United Nations Security Council. And since 1977, he has been the cerebral center of the United States Senate. He is among the most intelligent Senators ever to serve in this body. He has taught at MIT, Harvard, Syracuse, and Cornell, and has been the recipient of over 60 honorary degrees. Few can match his resume and none can surpass his commitment to this nation. He will be sorely missed. The building to be named for Daniel Patrick Moynihan is a magnificent structure in New York City that will be a fitting tribute to the distinguished Senator. Completed in 1994 and built to last 200 years, the courthouse is an extraordinary work of art inside and out. It will serve as an enduring monument to our good friend Senator Moynihan and his 47-year career in public service.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate and honor two young New Hampshire students who have achieved national recognition for exemplary volunteer service in their communities. Julia Tobias, 17 of Exeter and Gustav Owen, 14 of Barlett have been named State honorees in the 2000 Prudential Spirit of Community Awards program, an annual honor conferred on only one high school student and one middle-level student in each state. Ms. Tobias is being recognized for founding ``Youth Across Borders'' a nonprofit fund to benefit a youth center in Bosnia and to raise awareness in her own community about issues of prejudice, tolerance and the Bosnia cause. Though thousands of miles away, Julia felt she could make a difference for these young people by providing money for school supplies, teachers and other materials needed to support the center's ethnic reconciliation programs. She then expanded her mission to promote racial harmony among youth in her city. So far, she has raised $2,500 through various school and community fund-raising for her project. Mr. Owen is being recognized for conceiving and organizing a school- wide assembly on bus safety and emergency procedures. During his school's semiannual bus evacuation drills, Gustav noticed that his fellow students did not fully understand what to do or why the drills were necessary. He felt that if the students were more aware, they would be better prepared for a true emergency. So Gustav approached his principal with the idea of conducting a school assembly on the subject, and began researching the bus driver's handbook for more information on emergency procedures. He then called a meeting with the bus drivers, the fire chief, and a police officer to discuss how to involve the students. Finally, he wrote a plan for assembly, recruited volunteers to help, and hosted the actual event, which was followed by bus evacuation demonstrations for the entire school. Mr. President, in light of numerous statistics that indicate Americans today are less involved in their communities then they once were, it's vital that we encourage and support the kind of selfless contributions these young People have made. People of all ages need to think more about how we, as individual citizens, can work together at the local level to ensure the health and vitality of our towns and neighborhoods. Young volunteers like Ms. Tobias and Mr. Owen are inspiring examples to all of us, and are among our brightest hopes for a better tomorrow. I applaud Ms. Tobias and Mr. Owen for their initiative in seeking to make their communities better places to live, and for the positive impact they have had on the lives of others. It is an honor to serve both Ms. Tobias and Mr. Owen in the United States Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Dennis Pope upon receiving the New Hampshire Superintendent of the Year Award for the 1999-2000 school year. This honor was awarded to Mr. Pope by the New Hampshire School Administrators Association, and both Mary Jo and I applaud the hard work and dedication that has earned him such high esteem. Dennis Pope was chosen from eleven other nominees, and it was ultimately his actions and the respect of his peers that elevated him over the competition. He has dedicated nearly three decades of his life to education, the past eleven years of which have been as the Bedord, New Hampshire, Superintendent of Schools. Dennis Pope's goal has always been to make a difference in the lives of his students and in the education process, and he has succeeded. Mr. Pope's efforts exemplify the Association's motto ``Champions for Children.'' Dennis is a champion of both our children and New Hampshire school systems. Dennis Pope's presence in the Bedford community extends far beyond the walls of its schools. Dennis is an individual who leads by example. He has been a member of the Rotary club, numerous town committees and is currently the Vice-Chairman of the Visitation Committees for the NEASC. Dennis has illustrated that one can't be a passive participant and prosper. He has taken the initiative of reforming the scholastic curriculum, and he has encouraged community involvement in school affairs. He has shown that being fiscally conservative doesn't detract from an academically rich school system. Again, I commend Dennis Pope on this very special honor and on his service to the Bedford School System. His work is greatly beneficial to the Town and the State, and I wish him all of the best as he continues to make a difference in his community and in the lives of its young citizens. It is truly an honor to represent Dennis Pope in the United States Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today with my colleague from Idaho, Senator Mike Crapo, the ``Water Pollution Program Enhancements Act of 2000.'' I believe this bill will significantly improve water quality and, over the long term, reform the way the Environmental Protection Agency and the States implement the Total Maximum Daily Load, TMDL, program for impaired waters. I emphasize at the outset that I strongly support the goals of the Clean Water Act. I believe all Americans should be able to enjoy clean water to drink, and that our rivers and lakes should be ``fishable'' and ``swimmable.'' And we have made substantial progress over the past 25 years since the Clean Water Act was enacted in cleaning up our nations rivers, lakes and streams. According to EPA, 60-70 percent of our nation's waters are now safe for fishing and swimming. Certainly, there's more work to be done. How we control runoff from agricultural and urban areas, and forests--so-called nonpoint source pollution--is our challenge for the future. I also support the original concept underlying the TMDL program of helping ensure that water quality standards are met on all of our nation's rivers and streams and lakes. However, I believe that there may be other tools to help us achieve those laudable goals; TMDLs are not the only answer. We should be looking to the States for alternative, innovative solutions, particularly in the area of controlling nonpoint source pollution. And I believe that if we look, we will find that the States have better, more cost effective solutions to improving water quality. Is there a role for the Federal Government in addressing nonpoint source pollution? Absolutely. The Federal Government--EPA--should work in partnership with States and the private sector to achieve our shared goal of fishable and swimmable water. EPA's approach to solving the nation's remaining water quality issues, however, continues to be based on more ``top-down'' regulations from Washington, D.C.; more confrontration, instead of collaboration; and more interference with State programs. We are taking the step of introducing this legislation today because EPA has made it clear that it plans to expedite the process for finalizing two controversial rules that it proposed last August that would make a number of significant changes to the existing programs to control the discharge of pollutants and to improve water quality. The first rule would significantly expand the requirements for establishing the total amount of pollutants that can be discharged to a waterbody--so-called ``total maximum daily loads.'' The second rule would expand EPA's authority to revoke or reissue state-issued permits under the Clean Water Act to implement the new TMDL requirements. The combined effect of these rules would be to dramatically expand EPA's authority over issues that have traditionally been within the jurisdiction of the States, such as farming, ranching and logging operations, and additionally to give EPA a potential new role in local land management use decisions. I have serious concerns about the substance of these rules. But I am also deeply troubled by the process that EPA has adopted here. It began last summer when EPA initially proposed the rules. At that time, it stated that it would only accept public comments on the proposed rules for 60 days. Such a short period of time for public review was obviously inadequate given the length of the proposed rules and their complexity. Congress intervened and EPA was ultimately compelled to extend the comment deadline for an additional 90 days. Even before the comment period had closed, however, EPA indicated that nothing would stop it from pushing the proposed rules through the process as quickly as possible. Over the past month, EPA has announced its plans to issue final rules before the end of June in spite of the fact that it received over 30,000 comments in February, at least 27,000 of which were critical of the rule, and can hardly have had an opportunity to give these comments serious consideration. There have been at least six hearings on the proposed rules in both the House and Senate in which serious concerns were raised about: the legality and practicality of the rules; the lack of reliable science underlying the existing TMDL program, not to mention any proposed expansion; the potential impact on successful State programs; the burdens that an expanded TMDL program would impose on individual landowners and small businesses; and the lack of a completed cost assessment of the proposed rules. Senator Crapo has held two hearings so far on EPA's proposed TMDL rules. Through that process, and in many meetings with stakeholders, I have heard about all of the problems with EPA's proposed rules--the lack of science, the overly broad scope, practical problems in implementing the rule, trampling of state programs, and the cost. Let me detail just a few of the comments that I heard. On the question of the science underlying the TMDL program, GAO recently issued a report, and provided testimony on the basis of the report, that States do not have the data they need to accurately assess the pollution problems in their waters and further, do not have the data they need to develop TMDLs. In his statement to Senator Crapo's subcommittee, Peter Guerrero noted specifically that the ``ability [of the States] to develop TMDLs is limited by a number of factors. . . . [S]hortages in funding and staff [were cited] as the major limitation to carrying out [the States'] responsibilities, including developing TMDLs. In addition, states reported that they need additional analytical methods and technical assistance to develop TMDLs for the more complex, nonpoint sources of pollution.'' He went on to state that only three states have the data they need to identify nonpoint sources of pollution, and only three States have the majority of the data they need to develop TMDLs for nonpoint sources. To me, this information from GAO sends a clear signal that TMDLs are not the answer for nonpoint source pollution. The science just isn't there. We also heard from a variety of businesses and landowners who told us of other substantive problems with EPA's proposed rules. For example, Tom Thomson, a certified Tree Farmer from my home State of New Hampshire and the owner of the Outstanding Northeastern Tree Farm of 1997, testified that EPA's proposal to regulate tree farming as a point source and impose TMDLs would just make it harder to do the job of improving water quality. He explained that through aggressive, private and voluntary stewardship, private woodlot owners all over the country are doing a good job to address water quality issues related to forestry. Compliance rates now approach 90 percent in many of the States where forestry best management practices, BMPs, are in place. Total river and stream miles impaired due to silviculture declined 20 percent just between 1994 and 1996. The number of miles deemed to have ``major impairment'' from silviculture fell 83 percent. In 1996, EPA dropped silviculture from its list of 7 leading sources of river and stream impairment. That same year, silviculture contributed only 7 percent of total stream impairment. In Tom's word's this seems to be a classic case of ``if it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' In this case, it would seem clear that water quality issues related to forestry are being addressed and progress is being made through State BMP programs and other voluntary, non-regulatory measures undertaken by landowners. To his credit, EPA Assistant Administrator for the Office of Water, Chuck Fox, has recognized that the proposed rule caused confusion and does have many problems. I met with Mr. Fox last week and was pleased to learn from him that EPA has heard at least some of the concerns that were raised and is ready to make some changes to their rule. He indicated that in any final rule, EPA would ``drop threatened waters; allow more flexibility in setting priorities; drop the offset requirements for new pollution; and revise the approach for forest pollution.'' Some of the changes may be significant and that's good news, but as always, ``the devil is in the details.'' I am still concerned that many of the major problems have not been addressed. I also wonder why, if EPA is willing to acknowledge that many of the concepts included in the proposed rule were indeed flawed, it hasn't been willing to withdraw the August draft and reissue a new proposed rule that reflects its current thoughts. Surely doing that and seeking public comment on a revised rule would result in a better, more informed end product. It would almost certainly enhance public confidence in EPA's process. However, EPA has consistently declined to consider this approach. In my opinion, EPA simply hasn't done the work that must be done to justify and explain the rule to the public. States and the regulated community deserve to have their comments and concerns considered seriously by EPA, as well as to have an opportunity to review and provide comment on the cost assessment in the context of the proposed rule. Now apparently, EPA may be making significant changes that will never have been subject to public comment. In its desire to rush to judgment on a final rule, EPA is effectively neutering the role of public participation in the rulemaking process. Therefore, Senator Crapo and I have drafted legislation that will address several of the key problems with EPA's proposed rules and, in addition, defer any further EPA action on the rules until the National Academy of Sciences has conducted a study of the scientific issues underlying the development and implementation of the TMDL program. Senator Crapo and I are taking the first step to not only address some of the problems raised by EPA's proposed rules, but also to improve water quality on the ground right now. Our bill will do three fundamental things. First, it significantly increases federal funding to $750 million for States to implement programs to address nonpoint source pollution, to assess the quality of their rivers and streams, and to collect the data they need to develop better TMDLs. This will represent a significant increase from current funding levels for Fiscal Year 2000 of $155 million for nonpoint source programs under section 106 and section 319 of the Clean Water Act. More money now will enable landowners, businesses, and States to do things now on the ground to improve water quality--things like putting in buffer strips and water retention ponds. With this approach, we won't have to wait 10 or 15 years for EPA to impose new regulatory requirements on landowners after a lengthy and onerous TMDL process. Second, the bill directs the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study on the science used to develop TMDLs and make recommendations about how to improve it. The NAS will also evaluate existing State programs to look at what works, particularly for nonpoint sources. Better science will make for better TMDLs. Third, it includes a pilot program for EPA to compare different State approaches to improving water quality. TMDLs should not be the only tool that we rely on to meet our water quality goals; they may be appropriate and effective for a chemical company, but not for a farmer or woodlot owner. There are better solutions out there, particularly to deal with the problems associated with nonpoint source pollution. For example, States are using their own authority and incentive-based programs under the Safe Drinking Water Act and the farm bill to work together with farmers, ranchers, loggers and their cities to substantially reduce runoff. The bottom line is that States, public utilities, landowners, and businesses now are spending billions of dollars to improve water quality. If we are going to ask them to spend billions more--and we are--Congress and EPA have a responsibility to make sure that the programs we create are based on good, reliable science, and make the best use of limited resources. Again, it's not a question of challenging the goals of the Clean Water Act; it's a question of seeking the best way to achieve them. The bill also includes a provision to defer the finalization of EPA's proposed TMDL and related permit rules. We're serious when we say that we want EPA to base its regulations on good science. And we're serious when we say that we want EPA to respect the role of the States in solving the problem of nonpoint source pollution. That's why the bill provides for the National Academy of Sciences to look into those issues. We believe that EPA also should welcome the NAS Study and look forward to the opportunity to use that Study to improve its rule. Therefore, the bill directs EPA to review the NAS Study and take into consideration the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences before it finalizes any new TMDL rule. We believe that in the long run, waiting 18 months for the NAS analysis will only improve the rule and increase public confidence in it. Mr. President, I know our critics will charge that we are undermining the Clean Water Act. They could not be more wrong. This legislation will enhance the Clean Water Act. By seeking better science and increasing needed Federal funding, this bill will strengthen programs on the ground that work--programs that improve water quality and help us achieve the fundamental goals of fishable and swimmable waters. I commend Senator Crapo for his leadership on this issue. I believe that in crafting this legislation, he is taking an important step in the right direction. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. This chart shows all the premiums seniors would pay. As you can see the drug premium is nothing. If a senior has Medigap, premiums substantially decrease from current law under Smith- Allard. Under the administration plan, they stay the same--averaging $230.75 per month. So, if you compare all premiums, a senior would save an average of $96.83 per month. I ask unanimous consent that this chart be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. There it is, folks. It's revenue neutral. Let me talk about the premium issue, because this I believe is the most explosive political side of this. Seniors watch their budgets closely. If you try to sock them with a new premium, they will not be happy. Let me remind my colleagues what happened the last time we tried to slap new premiums on seniors. This picture is an incident that occurred when seniors who were angry with the enactment of the so-called Catastrophic Act assaulted Congressman Rostenkowski's car. Congressman Rostenkowski wrote the legislation which increased premiums on certain seniors. It would be a grave mistake to interpret seniors' desire for prescription drug coverage as a call for new higher premiums. It would also be a huge mistake to think that there is any need for such premiums. Let me show you how my plan compares with the Administration's plan as far as premiums and benefits. This chart shows that the Clinton plan's benefits do not even start until 2003, and the benefits are not fully effective until 2009. These premiums are just the new added government premiums. They do not count other premiums such as Medigap. I ask unanimous consent that this chart be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Some might say this is not much money. But let's take a look. What could a senior do with $96.83 each month? You can see that this is a lot of money when you think of how it would impact other expenses seniors have. These numbers come from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Surveys. Finally, Mr. President, we will look at annual deductibles. Smith-Allard combines the hospital, medical, and drug benefits into a single deductible. Because seniors spend an average of $670 per year, they would just about reach the full hospital and medical deductible with just drug expenses. Under the Clinton plan, drugs don't count toward the deductible, so even though seniors would have a 50 percent drug benefit, they would not be paying down their deductible. I have talked about this plan with seniors, and they understand this concept. They love it. I ask unanimous consent that these charts be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Let me just conclude speaking on this bill by saying that the benefits in this plan are delivered by private companies and regional entities, such as pharmaceutical benefit managers. These entities would negotiate with large drug companies and provide the drugs to Medicare seniors. In addition, according to the actuaries who reviewed the legislation, there will be no adverse selection. Both the healthy and the sick will have an incentive to choose this plan. Everybody is in. There are many different methods of providing prescription drug coverage for seniors, but I urge my colleagues--I plead with my colleagues--to look to the revenue-neutral methods that fund this benefit by the elimination of waste in the present system. I urge my colleagues to resist the temptation to raise Medicare premiums on the people who can least afford it. I have vivid memories of seniors rocking Mr. Rostenkowski's car a few years ago when he decided to raise Medicare premiums. Let's look at it more specifically. The House's fiscal year 2001 budget--this is important--sets $40 billion aside for prescription drugs. In the Senate, we are expected to do a budget that is going to set aside $20 billion now for prescription drugs, and $20 billion later. We don't need either under my plan. We don't need any more money. We don't need $20 billion. We don't need $40 billion. We don't need $2 billion. Let's use the money for debt reduction or tax credits for the uninsured rather than providing for prescription drugs. Let's use my revenue-neutral prescription plan instead. I urge my colleagues to take a look at this approach. It provides prescription drugs in a way that will meet seniors' needs without hiking their premiums or adding more burden to the Federal treasury. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, first, I want to make my colleagues aware I have a resolution regarding the Holy See. This resolution would block any effort to remove or demean the nine-member permanent observer status at the United Nations held now by the Catholic Church. I want my colleagues and the American people to know this is being blocked from being heard by the other side of the aisle, which is a very interesting story considering the controversy on the House side regarding the Chaplain. It is interesting that this simple resolution that says we will not block or demean in any way the nine members of the permanent observer status at the United Nations by the Pope and the Catholic Church is being blocked on the other side of the aisle. I want the American people to know I can't get this to the floor because of holds on this bill on the other side. When we hear the stories about who is anti-Catholic and who isn't, we ought to shine the light where the light should be shined.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I want to pick up on a couple of points I made last night regarding Elian Gonzalez. My colleagues need to understand today this young boy is going to be yanked from the arms of his family, literally, at the direction of Janet Reno, and placed on an airplane and taken God knows where--we are hearing maybe to Bethesda--where he meets with Juan Gonzalez in the confines of the Cuban control which is where this Cuban diplomat lives, or perhaps ultimately on an airplane and headed for Cuba. There are no restrictions. We don't know. The speech I made on the floor last night I thought was very compelling regarding this situation. There is talk about how this young man is going to go back to his father. I will repeat briefly what I said last night. He is not going to go back to his father, if we let this young boy go back to Cuba. The Cuban diplomats have already said this young man is controlled by Cuba. He is a child of the state. He is a child of Cuba. He is not a child of Juan Gonzalez--only biologically. Beyond that, he is not the son of Juan Gonzalez; he is the son of Cuba. We have a 6-year-old little boy who survived a terrible incident at sea, watching his mother drown. Her dying words literally were: Please get Elian to the shores of America. The two survivors told me that themselves because they saw her die, as did Elian. Later they were separated and Elian floated for 3 days in an inner tube. When he was picked up by two fishermen, he was surrounded by dolphins. We know dolphins are a protection because sharks do not interfere with dolphins. He was being protected by the dolphins. He had no sunburn after 3 days at sea. He told me he saw the Virgin Mary while he was floating in this inner tube. This is a very special little boy who had never been inside a church until he came to America. We now have said, the Justice Department has said, Janet Reno has said, this boy has no rights under the law. She is wrong. She has discretion under the law to send him back, but there is no law that says he must go back. I want to make that very clear. I think the Senate should go on record, as tough as it is, and take a vote one way or the other, binding or nonbinding, but take a vote. Every Senator should let the American people know how they feel about this because Elian went through an awful lot--a lot more than most of us go through in our lifetimes. His mother died trying to get him to America, and we have now taken her rights away. She has no voice because she can't speak for herself. Perhaps ultimately in the custody court without the Justice Department would be the right way to resolve it. However, the Attorney General has chosen to be confrontational, as she did at Waco, and said he will be taken. She has made this statement over and over in the past several days. I read the polls that say 61 percent of the American people say Elian Gonzalez should go back to his father. This is not about polling. There were no polls out there when Elian was floating around in the ocean in rough seas for 3 days. I have met Elian Gonzalez and until yesterday I don't think Janet Reno had. He is a special boy. He is going to be Castro's main objective when he gets back to Cuba. This boy cannot succeed in saying good things about America to his classmates. This boy will go into a Communist education camp. He will be taken away from his father most of the time, probably 11 months out of 12, and he will be ``reeducated.'' Fidel Castro himself has said this boy will be reeducated. He will be reeducated all right. Ask some of the Vietnamese who came out of Vietnam what a reeducation camp is and ask some of the Cuban American community today what it is like in Cuba and why thousands have come here and thousands more have died trying to get here. Now because little Elian's mother drowned, he has no rights. I thought this was America. But I guess it isn't anymore. I want everybody to understand what happens to Elian Gonzalez. We hear about Fidel Castro. You would think he loved this little boy and would want to get the little boy back to his father. ``That is all I want,'' says Fidel. I will close on this point: On July 13, 1994, 72 Cuban men, women, and children boarded a tugboat called the 13 de Marzo and they set sail, hopefully, they thought, to freedom in the United States. Three hours later, 32 of them would be forced back to Cuba and imprisoned and another 40--23 children among them--would be killed by the Cuban goon squads of Fidel Castro. Do you know how it happened? I will tell you how it happened. We got this firsthand from the survivors: Two Government firefighting boats pummeled the helpless passengers, who were unarmed, with water from high-pressure firehoses 7 miles off the coast of Cuba. The passengers repeatedly attempted to surrender to Government officials, going so far as to hold their children in their arms up like this, saying: Please, these are my children, stop, stop. But the Cuban Coast Guard was relentless. The firehoses were enormous. Survivors said children were sprayed from the arms of their mothers into the ocean waters. Other children were simply swept off the deck by the firehoses and drowned in the sea. Desperate to protect their children, some of the mothers went down below deck with their children. What did they get for that? The Cuban Coast Guard rammed their vessel again and again and sank it with these people in the hold. Here is a picture of a little girl, Caridad Leyva Tacoronte, 4 years old. She was one of those children. If Castro's goons could have caught that boat, they would have done the same thing to Elian Gonzalez. So I don't want to hear any more of this talk about how this is going to be the nicest thing for Elian, to go back to his wonderful little home in Cuba and live happily ever after with his dad because that is a bunch of pure, unadulterated garbage. Let's face reality. If the Senate does not have the courage to stand up and vote and be on record against that, then what do we stand for? What do we stand for? Here is another one, Angel Rene Abreu Ruiz, 3 years old, sprayed from the arms of her mother by a high-pressure firehose and drowned in the ocean before her mother's eyes. Elian did not get caught, so Castro did not kill him. He made it to the ocean. The ocean, though, took the lives of his fellow passengers, all but two. One other couple and Elian survived. His mother died. So rather than send this to a custody court--I am not asking anybody to make a decision on where Elian should go. All my resolution does, that I have been trying to get a vote on now for a month and a half, is it gives permanent residency status to Elian, to his father, to his father's current wife, and to his child, to Elian's two grandmothers and grandfather--all the family. It lets them come here free of Castro, sit down as a family, talk with the Miami relatives, and decide how little Elian's fate should be resolved. That is all I am asking. But, oh, no, we cannot do that because Janet Reno and Fidel Castro have decided the kid has to go back to Cuba. I want everybody in America to know what is going to happen. I promise you, this is the kind of stuff that happens in Cuba. He is going to go into a little reeducation camp, and he is going to learn all about communism, and we are going to make mighty sure, in Cuba, that he does not tell his classmates about Disney World or anything else nice that happened here in America. He is not going to let that happen. So he is a special little boy, all right, to Fidel Castro. When I hear all this stuff about this nice little happy relationship with Juan Gonzalez, his father--where has his father been for 4 months? Has anybody stopped him from going to Miami and sitting down with the family and talking this out? Yes. Fidel Castro has stopped him. Do you know where Mr. Gonzalez' mother is right now? She is under house arrest in Cuba so she cannot move freely. Let's get real here. That is where she is. He is afraid to say anything because he fears for his mother's life. He has his wife and child here but he doesn't have his mother here. What a tragedy this is, that this little boy, who survived all of this, is now going to be forced back and he has nothing to say about it. I am never going to forget, as long as I live, no matter what happens, that little boy looking me in the eye about 2 months ago, 3 months ago, and saying: Senor, ayudame, por favor--help me, please. I don't want to go back to Cuba. I asked him: Elian, don't you want to see your father? He said: Si, senor--yes, but I want my father to come here to America because that is what my mother wanted. Frankly, that is what his father wanted, too, but he can't say it. His father knew Elian was coming. He spoke to the hospital the night Elian was rescued and he was in the hospital. The father spoke to the doctors and to the family and thanked the family and the doctors for taking care of him and said, ``I'll see you soon.'' But, oh, no. Then comes the Attorney General blundering into this thing: Oh, no, this is an immigration matter. Do you think he came in here by yacht? Once again, I plead with my colleagues, whoever the powers that be are around here: Bring this thing to a vote today before 2 o'clock. Don't block it. Bring it to the floor and allow us to be recorded so the American people will know where we stood on a matter as important as this.