Bob Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the Nashua Lions Club for devoting over 75 years to humanitarian acts of public service. I commend their fervent passion and aggressive dedication to improving the quality of life for fellow Americans. They have touched the lives of many through gifts of hope and continued support through countless charitable endeavors. I am proud to know many of the members in the Nashua Lions Club. I recently had the opportunity to address the club, and enjoyed the time I spent with them. They are great men who live by their motto of ``We Serve,'' and give others the chance to better their lives. The Nashua Lions Club was started in 1923 by a small group of businessmen led by William Hillman, Jr., and former Mayor Alvin Lucier. It became the first club in District 44-H and remains the second oldest Lions Club in New Hampshire. As a result of their foresight, these businessmen started a tradition of service and benevolence still exemplified today. The Nashua Lions Club has kept this 75-year old legacy alive by raising money and funding organizations like the Lions Sight and Hearing Foundation, Lions Eye Clinic and Lions Diabetes Awareness Programs. Also, major building projects have been realized like the ``Friendship Club,'' for the handicapped and ``Melanie's Room,'' for multiple handicapped young girls. Over the years, the Lions Club has raised over $750,000. Its members continue to develop new and innovative ways to invest that money back into the community. The above mentioned groups are just a few of the wonderful organizations for which the Nashua Lions Club have spent countless hours and dedicated service. This impressive list goes on and they should be very proud of these contributions. Mr. President, I want to congratulate the Nashua Lions Club for their outstanding work over the past three-quarters of a century. I am proud to represent them in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, as you know, earlier this week the full Senate began to deliberate expanding the NATO treaty to include the Czech Republic, Poland, and Hungary. While I have already presented some opening remarks on the floor about my concerns with moving forward now on this matter, I want to update my colleagues on a closely related issue which I personally think has some degree of relevance to what we are considering. In July, 1997, I was pleased to be a leader of a delegation to Prague and Warsaw whose primary mission was to seek information about missing American servicemen from the Cold War period. I was joined on this trip by my House colleague, Congressman Sam Johnson of Texas--himself a former POW from Vietnam--and also by one of our former Ambassadors to the Soviet Union, Malcolm Toon. Together, we are all members of a Joint Commission with Russia on the POW and MIA issue which was established by President Bush and President Yeltsin in 1992. One of our goals last summer was to broaden our search to the former communist Eastern Bloc nations who were allied with North Vietnam, North Korea, and the Soviet Union during the Cold War period. During our trip, we were received by the President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Havel, and the President of the Republic of Poland, Aleksander Kwasniewski. We also met with various ministers in each of these two countries. I want my colleagues to know that we were very impressed with the pledges of cooperation we received at all levels during all of our meetings. It appeared to us at the time that Poland and the Czech Republic clearly understood the importance that Americans attach to resolving lingering questions about the fate of our unaccounted for POWs and MIAs. These nations had suffered their own tragedies under communist domination, and we believed there would be a sincere, thorough effort to assist us with our humanitarian mission. I might also add that although we did not personally visit Hungary during that trip, we did send staff representatives to Budapest, and we later received similar pledges of cooperation from the Hungarian Embassy in Washington. Unfortunately, Mr. President, I must report that the follow-up actions that we had hoped would take place have not been satisfactorily fulfilled by these three nations. This is especially disturbing and troublesome to me as the full Senate now considers whether to guarantee putting more American military lives on the line for these republics in the former Eastern Bloc. It has been said by some NATO expansion advocates that we have an opportunity to ensure the Cold War never resurfaces in this part of the world. Yet, we still cannot seem to get the cooperation we need from this region to address vital questions about our missing and captured Americans from this same Cold War period. We still are not able to resolve this Cold War problem. If their pledges were indeed genuine, as I believed they were, then I, frankly, question Mr. President why the leaders of these countries cannot convince their respective bureaucracies to open their Cold War communist files and make relevant personnel available to us for interview. To me, this apparent inability to follow through on commitments has serious implications which we should be considering in the context of the NATO expansion debate. Since last summer, there have been follow-up communications by our Commission support staff at the Department of Defense and also by my own office with each of these nations urging them to follow through on their commitments. Most important is the fact that, based on current leads available to us, our Commission believes there is relevant information which likely exists in Eastern Europe, especially in the military, intelligence, security, and communist party archives of these three nations which we are considering bringing into NATO. We should remember that the Eastern Bloc was an active ally and supporter of the communist North Vietnamese and North Korean regimes during those respective U.S. wars. They had a significant presence in Asia and were probably privy to information about communist policy toward the disposition of American POWs, to include whether any were transferred to the territory of the former Soviet Union as we now suspect. Mr. President, today I appeal once again to the leaders of the Czech Republic, Poland, and Hungary to follow through fully with the commitments they have made to help us search for our missing American servicemen from the Cold War. And I urge my colleagues, on behalf of our veterans and POW/MIA family members, to join with me in continuing to push for more progress on this humanitarian issue. We simply cannot afford to lose sight of this issue of highest national priority in the context of the current NATO expansion debate. It has important ramifications which we should carefully consider.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Bode Miller, a distinguished athlete from Franconia, New Hampshire, for participating in the 1998 Olympics in Nagano, Japan. Bode had the opportunity to compete in the Olympics because of his dedication to precision, relentless drive for excellence and unswerving passion for skiing. It was a special honor to have Bode represent our country and the State of New Hampshire while competing in Nagano, Japan. He started skiing at the young age of three at his favorite and most frequented mountain, Cannon. As a young boy, his ability to ski caught the attention of many. He soon acquired the nickname, ``Kid Cannon,'' and dazzled his peers with his talent. Bode was then invited to a training camp at Sugarloaf Mountain and was soon targeted as a gifted athlete. As a result, he was offered a scholarship to the Carrabassett Valley Ski Academy where he was able to improve his abilities and work with experienced coaches to tune his skills. Bode burst into the international scene with an 11th-place finish, the best by an American, at the World Cup giant slalom at Park City in November. Before this outstanding finish, Bode was ranked internationally at 69th place. Bode's career then took off and he became a member on the Olympic Ski Team. Often times, the television announcers for the races raved about his athleticism and admired his aggressive style. At the age of 20, in a sport where racers are generally older, the media characterized him as a young rebel. According to Bode's coach, Bode is very good at figuring out what it takes to be successful and is exceptionally confident. He is aware of his own physical talents and incorporates this attitude in his style. I'm sure, because of his young age, he will continue to excel and impress the nation. Nonetheless, he still has achieved what most only dream about and has proven once again that Americans continue to achieve great feats. At a fresh age, Bode proudly represented our country and delivered a superb performance in the world arena of Olympiads. Mr. President, I want to congratulate Bode Miller for his youthful vigor and aggressive competition in the 1998 Olympics and I am proud to represent him in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise to request that my colleagues in the Senate conduct deliberative and thorough debate on NATO expansion before the expected vote next week. Many questions remain regarding cost, strategic objective and military requirements of the proposed expansion. If NATO enlargement makes sense, it will make more sense the more it is discussed. We should not casually rush through debate in the Senate. This should not be a sentimental decision about our historic relationship with Europe, but a hard-nosed decision about extending a military guarantee to a precise piece of territory under current strategic circumstances. Our moral obligation to these countries was abundantly met by generations of Americans, who spent trillions of dollars to win the cold war. This decision should be about the next 50 years, not the last 50. For this reason, I ask unanimous consent that several editorials and articles about the impact of NATO expansion be printed in the Record for the benefit of all Senators.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I assume the pending business is the NATO enlargement?

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, the Senate now is about to engage in a great debate, a debate that is very important to our country and, indeed, to the world. I had hoped that we could have postponed this debate somewhat, for a number of reasons. NATO itself is planning to put out a report on the requirements, costs and feasibility of enlargement sometime in May. Originally this debate was scheduled to come up in May, and now it has been moved up to mid-March. It is no secret that I am an opponent of enlargement, for reasons that I will go into somewhat today and, of course, later on as the debate continues. But I also feel very strongly--as some of my colleagues did who signed a letter to the leader, on both sides of the aisle--that we need more time to debate this, to understand fully what we are doing. I think that, when you first look at this issue, you might come to the conclusion that after being subjected to the tyranny of communism for 45 years, somehow these nations have earned a place in the NATO alliance. I think the nations certainly have earned their freedom, without question. They paid a heavy price for it. But so did the United States of America. We spent about $6 trillion in the Cold War to defeat Soviet communism. From the time I first came to the Congress, in 1985, I have been a strong supporter of our military and a strong supporter of the NATO alliance--which, by the way, is a military alliance, which sometimes I think people forget. It was a military alliance created to thwart the attempt of the Soviet Union to attack Western Europe and conquer it with its massive armies. But today there is no massive Soviet Army. There is no Soviet Union. Is Russia unstable? Of course it is. But it is not the Soviet Union and it is not the same threat that NATO was designed to contain. As we begin this debate, so many of our colleagues on the other side have said expanding NATO is a great idea, and that we need to move forward as quickly as possible. I have been around a few years on this Earth, and I have generally found that if something is a good idea today, it will probably be a good idea tomorrow. If it is a good idea tomorrow, it will probably be a good idea next month or perhaps even a year from now. So I wonder what the hurry is. I wonder why panic has set in among so many proponents of enlargement. It seems to me that, if it is a good idea, then a healthy debate ought not to ring the curtain down on it. But there appears to be some fear, I guess, that adding more time to the debate might change the outcome. I hope it does. I hope we have enough time to change the outcome, because I sincerely believe, after a lot of review on this issue, that we are making a serious mistake. Let me offer some of the reasons for opposing NATO enlargement. Given the administration's support and that of a lot of very prominent people of both political parties--there has been a very impressive outside lobbying effort by a lot of people--the political pressure has been very strong for moving this forward. Again, the date has been moved forward, from May to March. But I believe the Senate should take its advice and consent role with treaties very, very seriously. This is a matter for advice and consent, and I have a hard time understanding how one can adequately advise and adequately consent if we are being told that the resolution of ratification has to be voted on now, with minimum debate. The distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee is now on the floor. I know he had an extensive period of debate on this issue in his committee. Unfortunately, I am not a member of that committee. Sometimes I wish I were, because I admire the chairman greatly, but I am not. However, I am a member of the Armed Services Committee, and we are having a hearing this Thursday on NATO enlargement. I would like to be able to digest the information that we will receive there. Unfortunately, that hearing will now fall right in the middle of the debate, so it will be difficult to reflect on the hearing with the debate already underway. As doubts have begun to appear, it has been somewhat disconcerting to see the proponents of NATO enlargement, the expansionists, so afraid that the Senate might carefully deliberate on this issue. As I said, if it is a good idea today, it ought to be a good idea a month from now or perhaps even a year from now. I might also add, only two countries in NATO have voted to broaden the alliance and bring in new members. Some have suggested that those of us who are opposed to expansion are not committed to European security. If there is any Senator in the U.S. Senate who has a stronger record of support of the NATO alliance, or has a stronger anti-Communist record than I, I would like to know who that Senator is. Perhaps, Mr. President, they are really anxious for us to vote because they fear the case for enlargement might not bear the scrutiny that we are about to give it. I have no plausible ulterior motive for opposing enlargement, and I am as anti-Communist and tough on the Russians as anybody alive. But this is not about communism anymore, although it appears some still think it is. Since coming to Congress in 1985, I have enthusiastically supported spending billions of dollars for the defense of Europe. As a matter of fact, the United States spent roughly $6 trillion on defense during the Cold War, much of it directly for the defense of Europe. A lot of American lives were lost in wars against communists, and millions of Americans served in uniform at great sacrifice to their own families to contribute to the security of Europe. So, with the greatest respect for those countries that now seek membership in NATO, I do not think we owe anything to anybody. I have weighed all the alleged benefits, I have looked at the potential risks, and I have come to a number of conclusions which I would like to cite here. First, if Europe or North America were truly threatened by Russia, the question of financial cost would be as irrelevant now as it was during the Cold War. Would we have gotten into a debate about how much it was going to cost if the Soviet Union had attacked North America? or attacked Europe? I don't think so. But for the foreseeable future--and I emphasize ``foreseeable future''--Russia does not pose a conventional threat to any country in Europe. What is the conventional threat from Russia? They do not have a capable army. They have removed most of the conventional weapons, the tanks, and other items of warfare that would be associated with a standing army. I am unaware of any credible analysis of their military that disagrees with that conclusion. So, cost is an issue today because, unlike during the Cold War, we are not sure what we are buying. Second, I cannot imagine a worse long-term strategy for European security than jeopardizing United States-Russian relations. We have fought now for 50 years, first to defeat communism and to rid the world of the Soviet Union, and now to bring Russia and the Independent States back into the family of democratic nations. Russia is not there yet. We know that. Russia has many problems. But their once-mighty military is gone, for all intents and purposes. Regardless of what experts and even United States Senators may say, Russia opposes NATO expansion. Of course, that does not mean that we should. Russia does not dictate our foreign policy. In fact, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces in the U.S. Armed Services Committee, I routinely confront Russia on matters of arms control, proliferation, and national missile defense. These are important things to confront them about. But extending an alliance that she considers hostile to the countries that she cannot threaten is basically kicking the Russians for no reason. History tells us that this is unwise. You see, I think some are still in the Cold War looking at a 21st- century issue. I want to be talking to the Russians about national missile defense, about weapons proliferation, about arms control, about the ABM Treaty, and about how we can hopefully work together for the sake of keeping the peace in the world. This is far more important than picking 3 nations as winners--Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Poland-- and ignoring 14 or 15 others who could also make a compelling case to come in. And we have now said: ``You, you, and you, can come in.'' And to take this token step, we are putting at risk progress with Russia on arms control, proliferation, missile defense and the ABM Treaty. I think we could be engaging the Russians to promote a world in the 21st century that has no dividing line between Western and Eastern Europe or dividing line between all of Europe and Russia. In the 21st century, I want this to be a world of peace. The 20th century was a world of war. I want to try to build something in the 21st century by looking ahead instead of thinking in the past. How do we do that? We engage the Russians on these issues, instead of antagonizing them or insulting them; we engage them. I think then, when the 21st century comes, we will see a Europe that is united with all nations in the European Union--united, friendly, cooperative in their economies, for the most part; perhaps even in their monetary system; and certainly acting as democratic nations with a common military bond. But in addition, I hope to see a Russia that is a buffer between Islamic fundamentalism and China, a buffer between Europe and those two entities, Islamic fundamentalism and China, two very, very dangerous philosophies looming out there. One, China, has nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. Fundamentalist Islamic countries are getting these weapons. We want a Russia that is going to be a buffer against these threats. We want a Russia that is a part of the West. For 50 years we have dreamed of the day that we could make this happen. I am not some George McGovern liberal talking here. I am one who has been fighting the Soviet Union for 50 years, as many others have in both political parties. But we need to look ahead, think a little bit into the future about what we are doing. We are beginning to carve up Europe again, picking Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Poland and putting them on the right side of the line. But what is the threat to Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Poland today from Russia? I have not heard anybody tell me what it is. If Russia decides to build its defenses back up--and it very well may happen--if they decide to turn to communism again, or some other brute- force-type government, if that even begins to happen, we can take the necessary steps, including the expansion of NATO. But why do it before we have to? Why pass up the greatest opportunity we have had in 75 years to bring the Russian people into the West? We have that opportunity. It would be a crime to pass it up. Declining to expand NATO now does not in any way prevent us from doing so in the future. There is absolutely no reason why we cannot do this in the future --no reason. If somebody can come on the floor and explain to me why we cannot do this a year from now, or 2 years from now, if the danger so exists, I would like to hear that argument. It doesn't prevent us from doing it. Adding three insiders--Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary--creates a whole category of outsiders who say, ``Well, why not us? We were dominated by the Soviet Union. Why are you picking them over us?'' So you are going to subject NATO almost annually to the perpetual anguish of, ``Am I next?'' Latvia, Estonia, Romania, on and on down the line. ``When is it my turn to come into NATO?'' And meanwhile, while focusing on a cold war alliance, we continue to ignore what we want to do, which is to bring Russia into the Western World. With the end of the cold war, NATO now faces serious internal issues about its means and ends which should be aired and resolved before new countries are added. Enlargement is a token and, frankly, an unimaginative distraction from these real problems. We saw this in the debate in the Persian Gulf crisis last month. Many NATO countries weren't with us. Mr. President, I hope that we will think very carefully about this. It is a hardnosed decision about extending a military guarantee to a precise piece of territory under a specific set of strategic circumstances; it should not be a sentimental decision about a moral commitment to Europe. We already have that. What do we really want to accomplish? Do we really want to accomplish another line drawn through Europe this year, perhaps extending that line through another part of Europe next year and another line bringing in another nation the following year and continue this cold-war-era attitude? Or do we want to build a world where the United States and a strong Europe and a strong, democratic Russia can be a buffer, a source of power to confront Islamic fundamentalism and perhaps--perhaps-- Communist China? I think we are being shortsighted, and I am going to get into more detail as to why later in the debate. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I join the majority of my colleagues today in expressing strong support for the reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, otherwise known as ``ISTEA.'' I was a proud supporter of this legislation in 1991 and continue to support its goals today. While the acronym ``ISTEA'' is often joked about, it does share at least one quality of the popular summer drink--It is refreshing. ISTEA also represents a revolutionary change from past transportation legislation and a shift toward an integrated, intermodal transportation system to promote efficiency and economic growth. Some of its major provisions include: assurance that gas tax dollars are used for transportation purposes, greater planning authority for state and local governments, increased research for innovative technologies such as intelligent vehicle highway systems, and funding for environmental protection activities. A reauthorized ISTEA should continue to recognize regional differences, but at the same time, recognize that our transportation system is a national system. Certainly, every state wants to get its ``fair share,'' and we will need to balance each state's needs with the needs of the nation as a whole. While there is some merit to having various funding programs to serve specific needs, it is important to me in the development of this legislation that we refrain from creating new funding categories or set-asides, and allow for maximum flexibility between the various programs. I also believe we should not be adding onerous mandates or sanctions on the states. I firmly believe that state governments are capable of protecting the health and safety of their citizens. From New Hampshire's perspective, it is important to ensure that small states continue to receive adequate funding for their infrastructure needs. New Hampshire strongly supports certain programs, such as the Bridge Rehabilitation, Scenic Byway and Recreational Trail programs, that other states may not need as much. The strength of ISTEA is that it recognizes these varying needs and provides states with the flexibility to direct funding as they see appropriate. There are many challenges before us as we operate in a balanced budget environment--something for which I have fought long and hard. Our needs will always outweigh our resources. But, we also have to recognize how critical our transportation system is to our economy and social well-being. While it is difficult to balance these frequently competing goals, I believe this bill strikes the right balance in providing an adequate amount of resources within the context of the balanced budget agreement reached last year. There is one other subject that I want to touch on briefly, and that is the environmental review and permitting process. I believe S. 1173 makes good progress toward streamlining the environmental review process. However, I do not believe we have gone far enough in resolving this problem. As it stands now, it takes as long as eight years to complete the planning and permitting phase of a highway project. This is simply too long and too wasteful of taxpayer dollars. We must take steps to shorten this process while still maintaining high environmental standards. There are numerous examples from all regions of the country that show why the current system is broken. One of these examples is from my home state of New Hampshire. The Nashua Circumferential Highway project was in the planning and environmental review phase for more than 10 years and had received the necessary permits from the Corps of Engineers when, at the eleventh hour, EPA stepped in and exercised its veto authority. EPA vetoed the project even though a $31 million environmental mitigation package was committed by the state. A scaled back version of this project is finally back on the table. However, many years and a significant amount of resources were unnecessarily wasted. This is just one of many fiascoes that have occurred all over the country. We need to bring some common sense and reason to the environmental permitting process. Unfortunately, there are certain groups who consider the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, to be sacred and untouchable. But, I am pleased to say that we have at least begun a debate on this issue and that a bipartisan effort to improve the environmental review process has taken place. While I think the language in S. 1173 represents a good first step, I still believe we could do more to streamline and improve the review process without circumventing protections for the environment. In addition, I am pleased that the bill managers agreed to include my amendment to authorize a recycled materials research program at the University of New Hampshire, UNH. UNH has already begun extensive research into the use of secondary or recycled materials in transportation infrastructure. The data developed through the university's testing and demonstration of the feasibility of certain recycled materials in road building will be extremely valuable to state departments of transportation, the Federal Highway Administration, and the construction industry. On balance I believe this is a good bill and deserves Senate approval. I look forward to swift action by the House on its ISTEA reauthorization bill, so we can get to conference and reach final agreement by the May 1 expiration date. Thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor. air quality standards

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Jean Gorski for being named the 1998 Business Woman of the Year on February 5, 1998, by the New Hampshire American Business Women's Association. I commend her consistent drive and aggressive encouragement to improve the lives and opportunities of others. Jean is the Director of Development for the Northern New England Agency of Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company where she has held this position for seven years. She is also a member of the Small Business Association of New England, General Agent's Management Association and Women's Business Forum Steering Committee. She has also held many officer roles as well as been a member of many organizations. To name a few, she served as the sales manager for BankEast and New Hampshire Savings Bank. These are just a few organizations with which she has spent countless hours and dedicated service. This impressive list is something of which Jean should be very proud. Jean has enthusiastically worked with many organizations, countless residents and employees and developed a considerable portfolio of professionalism. Four words come to mind that best represent what Jean is trying to strengthen: leadership, community, teamwork and development. These are terms that bind all Americans together and strengthen the unity of this great country. These words best exhibit the tools she employs to bring about positive change and as a leader, encouraging others to rise to the call of self improvement. Jean's commitment to each organization she represents is extremely solid and substantial. She gives it her all and inspires others to follow her lead. Her actions and beliefs have become a catalyst for significant change resulting in profound achievements. Mr. President, I want to congratulate Jean Gorski for her outstanding work and I am proud to represent her in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I would like to speak for a few minutes on the need to bring some common sense and reason to the environmental permitting process for transportation projects. I am pleased to say that we have at least begun a debate on this issue and that a bipartisan effort to improve the environmental review process has taken place. As a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I am very familiar with the planning and construction process for highway and bridge projects. As such, I have been disturbed by statistics showing that it takes 10 years to plan, design and construct a typical transportation project in this country. Why does it take so long to plan a project? The answer lies in the multiple layers of agency evaluations on the impacts of various modes and/or alignment as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). While it would be sensible and efficient if the NEPA process established a uniform set of regulations and submittal documents nationwide, this has not been the case. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and their companion state agencies each require a separate review and approval process, forcing separate reviews of separate regulations and requiring planners to answer requests for separate additional information. Also, each of these agencies issues approvals according to separate schedules. The result: the time period between project beginning to completion has grown to at least 10 years, assuming that the project is non-controversial and there is adequate funding available. If either of these assumptions is not the case, the time period could be even longer. I am sure that if Senators contacted their own state transportation departments, they would be dismayed by the number of transportation projects that are delayed due to overlapping and often redundant regulatory reviews and processes. These delays increase costs and postpone needed safety and traffic improvements that would save lives. Clearly, this process from start to finish is too long and too cumbersome, often taking eight years just to complete the planning, review and design phases of a project. There are numerous examples to illustrate why the current system is broken. One of these examples is from my home state of New Hampshire. The Nashua Circumferential Highway project was in the planning and environmental review phase for more than 10 years and had received the necessary permits from the Corps of Engineers when, at the eleventh hour, EPA stepped in and exercised its veto authority. EPA vetoed the project even though a $31 million environmental mitigation package was committed by the state. A scaled back version of this project is finally back on the table. However, many years and a significant amount of resources were unnecessarily wasted. This is just one of many fiascoes that have occurred all over the country. While I think the language in S. 1173 represents a good first step, I still believe we could do more to streamline and improve the review process without circumventing protections for the environment. Unfortunately, there are certain groups who consider the National Environmental Policy Act to be a sacred statute in which no changes are warranted. I disagree with that viewpoint. I had intended to offer my own NEPA streamlining amendment today which would greatly improve the environmental review process for highway-related projects. In fact, my amendment is endorsed by numerous professional organizations involved in transportation as well as the association of state departments of transportation--the people who have first-hand knowledge and experience in the planning and design of a project. When it takes an average of eight years to complete the environmental review process, there is something wrong with the system. Many of these wasteful endeavors could have been avoided if a coordinated interagency review procedure was established early in the process. I think it is also important to establish a framework with mutually agreed upon deadlines for each agency to take action, as well as establish an effective dispute resolution process. As it stands now, often times there is no Federal-State coordinated review process established from the beginning, no set timetables for meeting certain reviews or permit approvals, and no system for resolving disputes in a timely manner. We need to design a better system that protects both the taxpayers' investment and the environment. I do not buy the argument that making common sense reforms to the NEPA review process is in any way compromising environmental protection. In conclusion, I hope we can continue working on improvements to the planning process as the ISTEA bill makes its way through conference. The system is ``broke'' and needs fixing. Thank you, Mr. President, and I yield to the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for his comments and support on this issue as we move toward Senate passage and conference committee deliberations on the ISTEA legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I want to join my colleague from Kentucky in supporting his amendment to end one of the many costly, unfair, and unconstitutional minority set-aside programs in our federal government. As the Senator has already stated, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) mandates that ``not less than 10 percent'' of federal highway and transit funds be allocated to ``disadvantaged business enterprises''--firms owned by officially designated minority groups presumed to be ``socially and economically disadvantaged.'' In 1995, the Supreme Court spoke on this issue in its Adarand versus Pena decision. While I will not go into detail on this decision since it has already been explained by the Senator from Kentucky, suffice it to say that both the Supreme Court and a U.S. district court have ruled that this minority set-aside program is unconstitutional. Plain and simple, this is an affirmative action program for contractors. And, the Administration's attempt to comply with the court's decision by tinkering with DOT regulations does not meet the constitutional litmus test. Therefore, it is now incumbent on the Congress to bring ISTEA into compliance with our Constitution. It is one thing for the Federal Government to carry out unfair, quota-based programs, which I oppose, but it is even more egregious that the Federal Government mandate that our states carry out such programs. This is a time-consuming and costly burden on some states, like New Hampshire, that simply do not have a significant racial minority population. It forces the state into situations where it is either awarding contracts to less qualified contractors or jumping through bureaucratic hoops trying to prove that it cannot meet the 10 percent DBE goal. Both of which are not good public policy. By continuing this and the other 150-plus preferential treatment programs, we are encouraging businesses to tie their business strategy to unconstitutional programs that will eventually be eliminated by the courts. This is sending the wrong message to minority start-up businesses. A better way to encourage minority entrepreneurs is with a small business out-reach program as outlined in the McConnell amendment. This alternative program would still provide assistance to smaller, minority-owned businesses without the heavy-handed mandate on our states. Most Americans do not support preferential treatment programs. We now have an opportunity to end one of the many race and gender-based programs in our federal contracting system. I urge my colleagues to uphold the principles of our Constitution and support the McConnell amendment. Amendment No. 1687

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. The Senator caught me a little bit by surprise. I appreciate the Senator yielding. I will take 3 or 4 minutes to make some comments, Mr. President, on behalf of my colleague's amendment. Again, the Senator from Kentucky is out in front taking the lead on an issue which, when you look at it on the surface, appears to be the right thing, but when you look deeper, you know that it is not. Again, he has had the courage to take a lead on this. This amendment would, I believe, end one of the most costly and unfair and unconstitutional, as the Senator from Kentucky has said, minority set-aside programs in our Federal Government. As the Senator has already said, ISTEA mandates that ``not less than 10 percent'' of Federal highway and transit funds be allocated to ``disadvantaged business enterprises.'' These are firms owned by officially designated minority groups presumed to be socially and economically disadvantaged. The Senator from Kentucky already mentioned the Supreme Court case. In the 1995 case, the Supreme Court spoke on this issue in Adarand v. Pena. Senator McConnell has gone into the details extensively, and I will not go back through it. But in that decision, as he has said, it is explained that not only the Supreme Court but a U.S. district court has ruled that this minority set-aside program is unconstitutional. It does seem somewhat, I don't want to say odd, but maybe ironic that we on the floor of the Senate have to debate to take language out through an amendment a piece of legislation that has already been ruled unconstitutional. I don't know what that says about the process, but it does not sound very good to me that we have to do that. It would seem to me that the logical thing to do would be to not have it in here; in other words, let's end this program and let's not have it in the legislation as we proceed. But it is there. Plain and simple, this is an affirmative action program for contractors. The administration's attempt to comply with the Court's decision by fiddling around with the DOT regulations does not meet the constitutional litmus test. Therefore, it is now incumbent on the Congress to bring ISTEA into compliance with our Constitution. We now have a major piece of legislation, i.e. the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, ISTEA, and in order to pass it, we have to bring it into compliance with our Constitution. It is one thing for the Federal Government to carry out unfair quota- based programs, which most reasonable people oppose, but it is bordering on outrageous, if not outrageous in and of itself, to say that the Federal Government should now mandate these very same unfair quota-based systems on its face, which is exactly what is going on without the Senator's amendment. This is a time-consuming, a very costly burden to the States. Some of the States, like my own State of New Hampshire, simply don't have, to be very candid about it, some of the significantly racial minority populations. So what happens is, it forces us into a position where we have to deal with the bureaucracy and twist and turn and try to jump through as many hoops as possible to meet that 10 percent DBE goal, which, as the Senator from Kentucky mentioned, is not good public policy. As the Senator well knows and has said--and I agree with him-- the opportunity to gain employment ought to be based on merit, not be based on any type of quota. So by continuing this and the other 150-plus, I might add, preferential treatment programs--150 other preferential treatment programs--we are encouraging businesses to tie their business strategies to unconstitutional programs. As I said, what does this say about our process here, that we are encouraging businesses to tie their business strategy to something that is unconstitutional? The Court has spoken; two courts have spoken. Let's listen to the courts. It is sending the wrong message to many people, whether it is constitutional students or whether it is simply the minority startup businesses that we are trying to help. A better way, as the Senator has suggested, is to encourage minority entrepreneurs with a small business outreach program, which Senator McConnell has in his amendment. It is a good amendment. This alternative will still provide assistance to smaller minority-owned businesses without the heavy-handed mandate upon our States. Most Americans do not support preferential treatment programs, Mr. President, no matter where they come from or who they are supposed to help. We now have an opportunity to end one right here on the floor of the Senate, to end special preferential treatment. This is an opportunity to do that. I urge my colleagues to do two things: One, to uphold the Constitution, which, with all due respect to my good friend, is more important than the McConnell amendment, but the language of the McConnell amendment should be the second reason we should support it. So support the Constitution and support Senator McConnell and adopt the amendment. I yield to my colleague.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. A lot longer than the Senator from Kentucky and I would want it to take.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I don't think so.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Sarah Tueting, Gretchen Ulion, Katie King, Tarah Mounsey, Tricia Dunn, Sue Merz, Colleen Coyne and Karyn Bye, all distinguished athletes, for bringing home an Olympic gold medal in women's hockey. This gold medal symbolizes their dedication to excellence, relentless drive for greatness and unfailing crusade to become the best of the best. It is a special honor to have these Granite Staters represent our country and the State of New Hampshire while competing in Nagano, Japan. Concord's Tara Mounsey and Salem's Katie King both went to Brown University in Rhode Island. Tricia Dunn, a resident of Derry graduated from the University of New Hampshire. I also feel New Hampshire has a special claim to the Olympiads that attended Granite State Universities. Sarah Tueting and Gretchen Ulion both went to Dartmouth College. Sarah is from Winnetka, Illinois, and Gretchen is from Marlborough, Connecticut. Also, Colleen Coyne, Sue Merz, and Karyn Bye all went to the University of New Hampshire. Colleen is from East Falmouth, Massachusetts, Sue is from Greenwich, Connecticut, and Karyn is from River Falls, Wisconsin. The team was a strong medal contender coming into the Games, however, the Canadian team had a stronger pre-Olympic record. Nonetheless, they beat the odds and prevailed. Team USA went undefeated, winning the final gold medal game against Team Canada, 3 to 1. Their triumph created an immediate boom to women's hockey. Like pioneers, they have forged ahead in a sport historically not common for women and have proven to the world that it is no longer a sport just for men. As a result, they have become a catalyst for significant change in the interest of women's hockey. Already, local skating rinks across the country are reporting huge increases in lesson sign-ups. These young Americans have reached the pinnacle of success, achieved what most only dream about, and have proven once again that Americans continue to achieve great feats. They are very much like diplomats, proudly representing America and delivering a superb performance in the world arena of Olympiads. This Olympic team best exemplifies the qualities of a winning team. Four words come to mind that best represent the tools they used to bring home the gold: teamwork, dedication, hard work, and perseverance. Their attributes are an example for all that inspire others to succeed and reach that dream of dreams. As a participant in the Olympics, they have joined an elite group of athletes who have continued a tradition rooted since the days of the ancient Greeks. The Olympics are a time when countries come together and put aside their differences to celebrate not only competition but humanity. It is a gathering of diverse cultures, beliefs and traditions which are brought together for a common cause. This event, for which these women have worked so hard is one of the few times the world can concur this way. To not only attend the Olympics but to win a gold medal is an honor of which they should all be proud. Mr. President, I want to congratulate Sarah Tueting, Tarah Mounsey, Tricia Dunn, Sue Merz, Colleen Coyne and Karyn Bye for their outstanding accomplishments and I am proud to represent them in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Thom Hindle, a distinguished individual, for being named the 1998 Dover Citizen of the Year. I commend his passion for American history and his inexhaustible dedication to keeping it alive. Thom, a Dover native, became very concerned that the history of Dover was not given the appreciation nor the recognition it deserved. As a result, Thom set out to remind and educate the community about the important facts and contributions Dover's history has to offer. Thom became the trustee for the Woodman Institute, an organization that focuses on preserving and documenting the past. Thom felt that he was preserving Dover's ``hidden treasures'' and sought to give everyone the chance to experience them. To keep it alive, he wrote a historical book on Dover which included written and pictorial information for future generations. Thom is also the president of the Northam Colonists, Dover's historical society, as well as a member of the Heritage group, a committee that is part of the historical society. The committee centers on historical areas of the town and also provides guided tours during the fall, which focus on historic homes and other noteworthy sights. He is also a trustee to Dover's oldest elderly care facility, The Wentworth Home. As a trustee, he raises money for a number of city projects that improve the visual aesthetics of the community. His work not only recognizes the important tributes of the past but also those that enrich the present. As a former history teacher, I appreciate Thom's commitment to history. It is imperative to remember our country's past, to see where we have been as a nation, and to see where we are going as a people. Not honoring American history is not honoring those who have fought, died, and sacrificed for the great nation we have today. Therefore, we as a generation should carry on the tradition our forefathers started: to continue to fight and strive to improve the lives of generations to come and to never give up the aggressive crusade for greatness and consistent drive for virtue. Like Thom, we should continue to defend the past and augment the future. Mr. President, I want to congratulate Thom for his outstanding work and I am proud to represent him in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to the life and accomplishments of Edward Aker, of Adelphi, Maryland, who passed away last week of brain cancer. Ed was an executive officer with the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) for nearly two decades. His service brought him posts in many countries, including Israel, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Pakistan, Somalia, Kenya and Tanzania. He was known by citizens throughout the Washington area and the world for his commitment to his mission, and his desire to help the underprivileged by encouraging economic development, humanitarian assistance and international cooperation. Ed distinguished himself with his public service. He served in the United States Navy during the Korean War, and worked at a number of government agencies including Housing and Urban Development, the State Department, and the General Services Administration before commencing his distinguished career at the United States Agency for International Development. He graduated from the University of Maryland, received masters degrees from the U.S. International University in Nairobi and San Diego, and received a PhD in business administration from Pacific Western University. Ed was admired by many for his patriotism, commitment to his family, dedication to his job, and uplifting spirit. He was the type of dedicated public servant that all Americans can admire. He was a no-nonsense executive who could be tough when the job had to get done; but, he combined this strong work ethic with a quick wit, great sense of humor and special charm. His generous smile will be missed by all who knew him. Ed Aker was buried today, Tuesday, February 24th, 1997, with military honors at Arlington National Cemetery. I extend my deepest sympathies to his wife, Lisa, his sons, Mike and Tim, his stepson, Jared, and his grandson, Mitchell. He leaves behind a legacy of which his family can be very proud.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I have not. As I promised you I would speak on this at 2:15 today, it took me until 2:30 to get here because I had four minipress conferences coming over on a number of issues, from Iraq to this and a couple of other issues as well. I, again, commend my leader and proudly, as the Senator from Oregon said a few moments ago, proudly support the first amendment. Thank you.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Thank you, Mr. President. Let me start by recognizing the amount of work and effort that Senator McConnell, the Senator from Kentucky, has done on this issue. At a time early on, I can recall in this debate when it seemed like this thing may take off across America, and Senator McConnell, even in the face of his own tough reelection, stood firm and led us, all of us in this body, on this issue. He is knowledgeable, to say the least, and has been a great leader not only leading us on this issue but, more important, leading the fight to protect and defend the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States. I say with great respect for my friend--I know I embarrass him a little bit--this has been one of the major debates in this Congress since I have been here, with the possible exception perhaps of the Persian Gulf war in 1991, but this goes to the heart of the first amendment. And the Senator from Kentucky stood strong day after day, sometimes by himself, I remember, leading a filibuster. I remember being here at 5 o'clock in the morning, to the marching orders of my leader to be out here in a filibuster. The Senator was right, and history will prove that he was right. So there is a great debt of gratitude that I think--he may not realize it at the moment, but it will come his way. I want to add a few remarks to the debate. Much has been said and there is not too much more to add. I was somewhat taken by some of the remarks of my colleagues on the other side about special interests. We hear a lot about that. I think you can pretty well come to the conclusion that if you don't like somebody's views, they are special interests. But if you do like their views, they are probably responsible policy advocates. This is where the whole debate gets kinds of silly. There are a lot of people who have special interests. The Breast Cancer Institute is a special interest. Social Security recipients are special interests. But I don't get the impression that some of our folks over there would be labeling them special interests in the context of what has been defined. There are many reasons why McCain-Feingold is the wrong approach, but I just want to focus on a couple and specifically title II. Under title II of McCain-Feingold, it purports to draw a new bright line between issue ads and independent expenditures. As so many have said before, I had expenditures against me. I would have loved to have seen them off the air, but I had the opportunity to respond to them. As many have said before me, however close, I made it back because I did have the opportunity to respond, thanks to thousands of people who were there to help me with contributions so that I could respond. Many citizen organizations have expressed strong opposition to these issue-advocacy provisions. The Christian Coalition, for example, in a letter dated January 28 of this year urged the Senate to defeat McCain- Feingold because ``this legislation essentially requires that if a citizen or group plans to advocate a position or report on votes candidates have cast, they must operate a PAC and comply with all the regulatory burdens that go with it. More Government control over what is said and how it is said is not what campaign finance reform should be about.'' They are correct in that assessment. The National Right to Life Committee sent letters to Senators on February 17 of this year saying: Title II of McCain-Feingold would radically expand the definition of the key legal terms expenditure, contribution and coordination, so as to effectively ban citizen groups from engaging in many constitutionally protected issue advocacy activities. Lest you think I am singling out groups that may be more inclined to be Republican, we can also take a letter dated February 19 from the American Civil Liberties Union--certainly one of the leading organizations, I would say, not exactly ideologically with the right-- they characterize title II as ``a 2-month blackout on all radio and television advertising before primary and general elections.'' The ACLU continues by noting: Under McCain-Feingold, the only individuals and groups that will be able to characterize a candidate's record on radio and TV during the 60-day period would be the candidate, the PACs and the media. That last point made by the ACLU is very interesting, Mr. President, because by limiting what issue groups can say during the 60 days before an election, McCain-Feingold would increase the power of the media, which may be the reason why they have been so silent in this debate. We are picking and choosing what part of the first amendment we want to protect, and of all people, the media should understand that. I think they do understand it and they are being very silent. I was particularly taken by the Senator from California a few moments ago when she said more money by candidates who have access to more money is not fair. I think that is pretty much what she said. I think I characterized it correctly. It is not fair or it is not right to have people with more money or access to more money. What about newspapers that have more money than other newspapers, is that fair? Should we restrict the New York Times and the Washington Post 60 days out so that they can be as fair as some small paper in Louisville, KY, or Wolfeboro, NH? Maybe we ought to even that out. There seems to be a lot of silence in regard to that. It is ironic that so much of the media supports these restrictions on free speech of political candidates and groups, and even more ironic is the silence. It is deafening. I can just imagine the cry if the Government tried to restrict the freedom of the press or say how many words, as the Senator said this morning, that Dan Rather can speak. I hear him speak so much I get sick of it, but it is his right to speak, and I would certainly protect that right, as we are doing today with our votes on the Senate floor. I hope Mr. Rather is taking note that we are protecting his rights to speak. But I hope that they will speak to protect our rights and to protect the rights of others to participate in the political process who don't have access to the national media to speak every day to the listeners. There are thousands of people out there, and they do it by contributing to a political campaign. Beyond the very serious issues raised by the specific issue-advocacy provisions in title II of McCain-Feingold, I have a more general concern, and this is something, Mr. President, that I think has not really been stated firmly in this debate. There is a premise, and I think it is an erroneous premise, and I say this to the Senator from Kentucky because I think this is something that may not have been brought out quite as much, that money is the corrupting factor here, that money in and of itself corrupts. I say to the Senator, does money corrupt when we do research for cancer? Does money corrupt when we give to charity and help millions of people? Does money corrupt when we ask for more money for education, indeed, higher education to allow kids to go to college, does that corrupt? I don't think so. Let me say it in another way. If I am in a store or any American citizen is in a store somewhere, and as I am walking down the aisle looking for something to purchase, I see a wallet on the floor. I reach down and pick up the wallet and there is $5,000 in the wallet and a name. I have two options: I can put the wallet in my pocket and walk out of the store, or I can take the wallet up to the counter and give it back to the clerk and say, ``Somebody lost their wallet. Here is the name. There is $5,000 in it and you can return it.'' If you use the logic that money corrupts, everybody keeps the wallet. But everybody doesn't keep the wallet, and the majority of Americans don't keep the wallet. That is the issue here. If the shoe fits, wear it; if money corrupts you, maybe you shouldn't be here. I have never been asked for anything for the money. Nobody has ever asked me for a vote, and I wouldn't give it to them and I would be insulted if somebody thought I would, and if somebody thought I would then they ought not elect me and vote for me. That is how strongly I feel about it. Fundamentally, McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional. That is the bottom line, as the Supreme Court said in Buckley versus Valeo, 9 to 0, liberals and conservatives on the Court. We also hear a lot about how we give special access to those who give us money. It is never reported in any of the stories, but yes, sure, people give money and they might see me or Senator McConnell or Senator Kempthorne or Senator Feingold, sure. But how about the other people who we help get their Social Security checks, who we meet with every day or we speak to from this group or that group who we never ask for anything, they never give us anything; we just help them every day, day in and day out, hundreds of letters we answer, hundreds of people we help in our constituent offices in our States. Nobody talks about them. Nobody asks them for money. They can't give money, in most cases. They just want good Government and some help. We don't hear about that. If you put it out there and balance it out, you find there is heck of a lot more people with access to us who don't have money than people who do.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. That is exactly right.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. If I can respond, on election night, Dan Rather called my election the other way, and he was wrong. I would not have minded restricting his speech that night, but I still support his right to say it and glad he was wrong.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the Senate Resolution which recognizes the 25th anniversary of the return of 591 American POWs from communist Vietnam in February and March, 1973, and reaffirms our national commitment to seek answers about missing Americans from the Vietnam War. I have been privileged through the years to come to know many of the Americans POWs held for so many years by the Communist side and finally released in 1973. This includes heroes in the Congress like Representative Sam Johnson of Texas, and Senator John McCain of Arizona, and other heroes like Admiral James Stockdale, Ambassador Pete Peterson, Red McDaniel, Orson Swindle, Ted Guy, Giles Norrington, and Mike Benge, to name a few. Today marks the 25th anniversary of the return of the first group of American POWs from Hanoi during what was known as Operation Homecoming. This first group included Congressman Sam Johnson, someone who I have been honored to work closely with through the years to obtain answers about those still missing from the war. Several other groups of POWs were released later in February, 1973, and throughout March, 1973, with the last American acknowledged by Hanoi to be a POW being returned on April 1st. A few years ago, one of these returned POWs I mentioned earlier, Captain McDaniel, wrote a book about his experience as a POW entitled ``Scars and Stripes.'' I want to quote just a small passage from that book which describes the feelings of the POWs as they were being led from their prisons to the airport in Hanoi for repatriation. ``I saw a familiar C-141 aircraft waiting for us on the field. At that moment, something broke inside me and the tears came easily. Somehow I had managed to restrict my tears to those rare times, in the nights under my mosquito net, when Hanoi Radio had gotten to me and I was down. But here, seeing that airplane waiting, I just let go, because I suddenly realized that my country had not let me down. And that great Scripture came to me, the Lord's words: I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee. Even as God had stayed at my side through all that time and taught me the things that were to change my life completely about His reality and His presence in suffering, somehow that American plane socked home some of the things that made America and God great. Then I was on that airplane, and pandemonium broke lose. As those wheels lifted off, the cheers shook the plane. And when the plane crossed over water on the way south, we all shouted, ``Feet wet!''--we were no longer over North Vietnam. Those mouths opened in a wild cheer--some with teeth missing, some with faces showing physical and emotional scars, some who cried while they cheered. No matter what anyone would say in the future about Vietnam, somehow we had won a little piece of something that no man would take away from us. Mr. President, what true patriots these men were. How fitting that we honor them today with this Senate resolution commemorating the 25th anniversary of their release. With this resolution, we also call attention to the important last mission of the war which is still unresolved--the mission to obtain the fullest possible accounting for those whose whereabouts and fate are still unknown. Our thoughts go out to the families of those missing men, and we reaffirm our national commitment to learning the truth so we can remove the uncertainty these families face. I have been personally involved with searching for answers on the POW/MIA issue, as my colleagues know, for several years now. I want to take this opportunity today to again call on the Governments in Southeast Asia, North Korea, China, Russia, and the former Eastern bloc to do more to open up their archives and make key witnesses available so we may advance the accounting effort. There is much work still to do, and I appreciate that this resolution before us today recognizes that fact. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the students of the Londonderry High School Lancers Marching Band for the distinguished honor of representing New Hampshire in the Washington, D.C., St. Patrick's Day Parade. All 201 band members and Andrew Soucy, the Band's director, deserve special commendation for their hard work and achievement. These band members have proven that determination, hardwork and dedication are the hallmarks of success both as musicians and students. Many of the songs they play symbolize American pride and forever keep patriotism alive through the language of music. ``Londonderry Ear,'' also known as ``Oh Danny Boy,'' is a hometown favorite that is also played in tribute to the Granite State and their home town. I am indeed honored to have the Londonderry High School Lancer Marching Band representing New Hampshire with their outstanding musical performances. I had the pleasure of meeting some of the band members, young men and women, who have recognized their own talents and continue to develop them into something great. I am proud to say, this continual drive for perfection and aggressive strive for greatness are commendable characteristics among Granite State students. These students not only attended school and practice, but they also had to raise money through several fundraisers to come to Washington, D.C. As a result, the band accomplished their goal by implementing a plan and having the right attitude and talent to meet their goal. The Londonderry High School Lancers Marching Band with their classic red, white, and blue uniforms have performed for audiences throughout the country. To name a few, they played at the Foxboro Stadium, home of the New England Patriots in Boston, Massachusetts, Nascar Winston Cup Series, and for Good Morning America, an ABC Television Network. I also want to recognize the Londonderry community, for giving so much support in helping these young adults. I am well aware of the pride the community has for this talented band. It is much easier to be successful when you have the support of others and the backing from friends and family. Mr. President, I want to congratulate all the students and the director on such a magnificent accomplishment and I am proud to represent them in the U.S. Senate. I also ask that a list of the names of these outstanding students be printed in the Record. The list follows: Londonderry High School Lancer Marching Band Scott Abernethy, Noura Alkhamis, Bridget Ambrose, Heather Applegate, Jordon Avalos, Christina Belmonte, Matthew Blake, Danielle Boshetto, Katie Broadhead, Carolynne Camillieri, Greta Carlson, Sarah Chretien, Ashley Clover, James Dahlfred, Jessica Davis, Arthur Decaneas, Tim Desmarais, William Doss, Amanda Eaton, Sheridan Farrah Jr., Bethany Ferreira, Nathan Formalarie, Kim Garrison, Madelyn Gonzalez, Bridget Gugliotta, John Harding, Andrew Hatin, Tara Henry, Nik Janson, Adam Keller, Kerry Kilpatrick, Joy Arbruzese, Vanessa Allum, Dan Anderson, Patrick Applegate, Sabrina Baker, Kristin Beltrimini, Suzanne Blundell, Meleah Brackett, Candice Brown, Ashley Carlson, Mike Carlson, Tim Christensen, Sarah Cody, Katie Daneau, Dave Day, Robert Decker Jr., Jenn Dillon, Kristen Dubois, Michelle Eddy, Mike Fawcett, Greg Fisher, Rachael Fryd, Leah Gaumont, Nicole Gregorio, Kate Gunnery, Jason Harrington, Kristen Hatin, Neil Huntemann, Elizabeth Jones, Andrew Keller, Katie Klasner, Alexandra Adams, Allison Alper, Andrew Applegate, Ryan Arnold, Diego Batista, Erin Blake, Robyn Bookman, Christine Bradbury, Melissa Burns, Drew Carlson, Leslie Cast, Diana Church, Rachel Cox, Abby Davidson, Karen Day, Barbara Deluca, Michelle Dillon, Dan Dussault, Michael Edwards, Adam Fernald, Marc Flore, Dana Garrison, Jamie Gogla, Kirsten Griffiths, Chris Hajjar, Karen Harvey, Erin Hegarty, Kim Huston, Kristine Jones, Carin Kilar, Jason Krampfert, Kristen Krampfert, Danielle Levison, Greg Lufkin, Jaimie Machado, Caitlin Marrinan, Kaylie Matos, Katie McCarthy, Dary Mcgrath, Julia Mechachonis, Kim Mendonca, Paul Mistovish, Tom Morse, Sarah Munday, Kim Novielli, Elizabeth Oswald, Jason Pelletier, Katie Piper, Tim Porter, Jennifer Reynolds, Elizabeth Rockwell, Melissa Ross, Steven Roy, Collean Scali, Shannon Scioscia, Anne Shea, Katie Silvius, Matthew Smith, Joseph Soucy, James Stewart, Ashley Taylor, Jamie Thomas, Mark Tuden, Marianne Vanagel, Christine Walker, Melissa Wills, Stephanie Young, Amanda Leitch, Ryan Levison, Dave Lymburner, Kelly Macneil, Joseph Martin, Jim Maxwell, Kerry McCarty, Caitlin McIntire, Robert Mee, Eric Meyer, Emily Morgano, Eric Mosse, Colleen Murphy, Cortiney Nye, Brian Paciulan, Jessica Pelletier, Lindsay Piper, Toby Porter, David Poberson, Katherine Rork, Seana Roussel, Amanda Rudy, Paul Schacht, Kayla Seaman, Carly Sheehan, Dennis Slozak, Stephanie Smith, Sarah Soucy, Jackie Sunderland, Georgia Theodore, Robert Tobin, Jay Vaccaro, Emily Violette, Kerry Walton, Adam Wobrock, Victoria Zabierek, Amanda Lever, Jesse Lore, Drew Macculloch, Dan Marchegiani, Lance Martin, Rachel McCarter, Shannon McCarty, Jen McMahon, Dan Melnick, Deryc Miller, John Morse, Jessica Moulton, Jessica Napier, Amanda Oswald, Enrique Paniagua, John Perry, Sue Plissey, Rebecca Predko, Mike Roberson, Jennifer Ross, Melissa Roy, Jack Ryan, Andrew Schroeder, Matthew Sharpe, Tim Sheehan, Crystal Smith, Kevin Socha, Ethan Stern, Nicki Sweet, Sarah Thesse, Peter Tomaselli, Jeff Vaccaro, Christina Vitale, Richard Williams, Renee Wright, Scott Zdankiewicz.