Bob Smith

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the families of Harvey Hill and Paul St. Pierre and all the residents of North Charlestown, NH, who renovated a 105-year-old two-room building to provide additional space for the Farwell School. The philanthropy of the Hill and St. Pierre families and their community is truly commendable. Last month, the residents of North Charlestown gathered for a ribbon-cutting ceremony, a family-style barbeque, and soccer games to celebrate the recent opening of the new Farwell School. Harvey Hill and his wife, Christina, who are North Charlestown residents, donated $450,000 for the construction of the old Farwell Elementary School. He is the Editor of the Claremont Eagle Times and a successful businessman in North Charlestown. Hill is a graduate of the original Farwell School and has a daughter who now attends the new elementary school. Before the addition was built, Hill's daughter was bused to the North Walpole School, which took a total of 2 hours every day. The Hill and the St. Pierre families have tried several times to get a bond passed, but were unsuccessful. Harvey and his wife are pleased to have helped with the education of the children in the Fall Mountain School District. The St. Pierre Family also contributed an enormous sum for the construction of the new school. Paul and Rolande St. Pierre are parents of thirteen children and operators of a successful construction business in North Charlestown. The family donated part of the land for the addition of the Farwell School. Additionally, the St. Pierres performed much of the construction and site work for the building, and donated $125,000. The St. Pierre family, like the Hill family, did not want North Charlestown children to have to ride the bus for two hours every day. The extra space in the Farwell School provides several advantages for the community of North Charlestown. For the last 16 years, 45 of the 80 students now attending the new Farwell School were bused to the North Walpole School 16 miles away. Not only do these North Charlestown children now attend school closer to home, but the transfer of the students frees up more space in the North Walpole School. The expansion of the Farwell School has helped decrease the problem of overpopulation in the Walpole School. The Farwell Trust, the group that previously owned the building and land, donated the existing building, valued at $150,000, and the 5-acre property, valued at $100,000, to the Fall Mountain Regional School District. This gift freed the Farwell School from having to pay rent. These savings combined with savings from the elimination of two bus routes to neighboring North Walpole will save the school district money. Before the Hill and St. Pierre families offered their donations, Fall Mountain voters rejected a new school for several years. In response residents and volunteers worked hard to raise $58,000 in donations, which arrived in the forms of money, supplies, and other essential gifts. Even with these donations, the new elementary school still would not have been possible without financial assistance from the Hill and St. Pierre families. The students who now attend the Farwell School appreciate the community's hard work and dedication in making their school truly the school that volunteers built. They are also grateful for the tremendous gift the Hill and St. Pierre families have given them. Indeed, the young children of North Charlestown are enthusiastic about their new school. How wonderful to know that the children of America, who are the future of our country, are eager to receive an education. The expansion of the Farwell School would not have been possible without the generous donations from the residents of North Charlestown. I commend the Hill and St. Pierre families for their generous outpouring of support, and all the volunteers who made the Farwell School expansion possible. The North Charlestown residents should be very proud of their new school. They have given such a wonderful gift to the children in their community.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Guy A. Young, a New Hampshire letter carrier, for his selfless and heroic acts performed while attempting to rescue a nine-month-old baby from a life threatening traffic accident. On September 25, 1996, Guy Young of Allenstown, NH, will be presented with the National Association of Letter Carriers' Regional Hero of the Year Award for his courageous act. Unfortunately, when faced with danger, many people turn the other way or, even worse, watch the accident, merely becoming bystanders. Guy Young is not one of those people. Guy is a letter carrier for the U.S. Postal Service and serves the residents of Allenstown, NH. He was on his usual route one morning recently when he noticed a major traffic accident had occurred at the intersection in front of him. Without thinking twice, Guy rushed to the scene, where he encountered the driver, a frantic mother, screaming because her baby was still in the overturned van. Guy immediately climbed over shards of glass, through a broken window, and searched for the infant. Not until he heard the baby's horrific scream did he look up and see the baby dangling upside down, still strapped into his car seat. Realizing that the van could burst into flames at any second, Guy desperately struggled with the baby's seat belt until he finally forced it free. He then passed the 9- month-old infant out the window to the safety of his mother's arms. Once the emergency vehicles arrived and assumed control of the situation, Guy returned to his postal truck and continued delivering mail to the residents of Allenstown. Guy is an example of a truly honorable New Hampshire citizen. Not only did he risk personal injury to help a baby boy in danger, but he acted promptly and courageously. He is indeed a hero. The National Association of Letter Carriers [NALC] honors a national hero, three regional heroes, a national humanitarian, and a branch service awardee each year. Those awards are presented to individuals who risk their lives for others, or who make personal contributions for a worthy cause. The awards also give the NALC an opportunity to express its gratitude and appreciation to those letter carriers whose meritorious service has earned theirselves honor. Guy undoubtedly deserves this special recognition for his heroic act. Mr. President, people who respond, as Guy did, in dangerous and life threatening situations are indeed brave and unselfish. Without Guy's immediate reaction, a 9-month-old infant may not have survived. I am proud to call Guy Young one of New Hampshire's special citizens. He has truly made us all very proud of him. Congratulations Guy, on a job well done!

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, today in our Nation's Capital, the officially recognized black and white POW/MIA flag is flying over the U.S. Capitol Building, the White House, the State Department, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, the Korean War Veterans Memorial, and at national cemeteries across the country. Throughout the State of New Hampshire, concerned citizens have been gathering in Manchester, Derry, Meredith, and several other communities to renew our commitment to the fullest possible accounting of prisoners of war and missing in action personnel. Likewise, there are services being held across the country. For 12 years in Congress, I have been proud to be a leader on the POW/MIA issue on behalf of their families, our Nation's veterans, and concerned Americans. This is an honorable cause that we have embarked on, and we must not stop until we know the truth, and until we can ensure that this national tragedy can never be allowed to happen again; 2,146 American servicemen are still unaccounted for from the Vietnam War, and over 8,100 are unaccounted for from the Korean War. There are over 100 American servicemen who were lost during cold war incidents, and we also cannot forget the 78,000 Americans who died during World War II, even though we were not able to recover their remains. As many of my colleagues and my constituents know, I have worked hard to find answers for the POW/MIA families. I have traveled to Russia, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia trying to convince these nations to be more forthcoming with information. I authored the legislation which created the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs in 1991, and I did my very best as vice chairman to open the books on POW/MIA information which had previously been kept secret. I have also worked to pass legislation to declassify Government records on POW's and MIA's. Simply put, I have never let up on my commitment to the POW/MIA issue, and as long as I serve in Congress, I never will. Mr. President, I feel strongly that all of us have a solemn, moral obligation to continue thoroughly investigating this national tragedy on behalf of the families who still wait for answers on the fate of their loved ones. Today, on National POW/MIA Recognition Day, I urge our Government leaders to renew our Nation's commitment to the fullest possible accounting of POW's and MIA's.

Mr. SMITH

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

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I do not know about the other bill that was attempted to be added to my request for consideration of a bill, but I would just like my colleagues to know that this bill, S. 1174, passed unanimously out of committee with bipartisan support. It was placed on the calendar by the majority leader. It has the unanimous support of everyone on the Republican side. It has the support of my State of New Hampshire. It has the support of the individuals who helped to put this river into the wild and scenic bill. It is 12 miles of a beautiful river that we now preserve under the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, if this legislation passes. I find it outrageous that, for whatever reasons, political or otherwise, a piece of legislation that has that much support would be objected to; tying it, linking it to some other legislation. I think the other legislation can rise or fall on its own merit. This is a good bill. Mr. President, on August 10, 1995, Senator Gregg and I introduced S. 1174, the Lamprey Wild and Scenic River Act, to designate a segment of the Lamprey River in New Hampshire as part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Since introduction, a hearing was held on the legislation in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and soon thereafter, as I said, the bill was reported unanimously out of the committee. I introduced this legislation after receiving the vote of support from each of the affected communities along this segment of the River. Ordinarily I do not encourage Federal ownership and control of State or private property, however, this legislation is different. The process for developing this legislation was different for two reasons. First, the legislation was developed from the bottom up, from environmentally conscious communities and local people. It is not a Washington initiative. Second, the bill is drafted to allow for maximum control at the local level in making land use and conservation decisions. The history of this legislation goes back almost 5 years when Senator Rudman and I introduced the Lamprey River study bill in February 1991, which was subsequently signed into law by President Bush later that year. Once the National Park Service determined the Lamprey River's eligibility for the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, a local advisory committee was formed to work with local communities, landowners, the National Park Service and New Hampshire's environment department in preparing a comprehensive management plan. This management plan was completed in January 1995. The Lamprey River Management Plan was subsequently endorsed by the advisory committee as well as the local governments affected by this designation. The primary criteria for my sponsorship of this legislation was the support of the local communities. If the affected towns did not vote in favor of designation, I would not be here today seeking support for this legislation. In fact, the town of Epping had expressed some reservation about designating the segment of the Lamprey which runs through the town and, out of respect for their concerns, the bill excludes that segment of the river. However, that segment was studied and found to be eligible, so we have included a section in our bill that would allow the town of Epping to be involved in the implementation of the management plan and, upon the town's request, be considered for future designation. The Lamprey River is well deserving of this designation for a number of reasons. Not only is the river listed on the 1982 National Park Service's inventory of outstanding rivers, but it has also been recognized by the State of New Hampshire as the ``most important coastal river for anadromous fish in the State.'' Herring, Shad and Salmon are among the anadromous species found in the river. In fact, New Hampshire fishing maps describe the Lamprey as ``a truly exceptional river offering a vast variety of fishing. It contains every type of stream and river fish you could expect to find in New England.'' The Lamprey is approximately 60 miles in length and serves as the major tributary for the Great Bay, which is part of the National Estuarine Research Reserve System. The Great Bay Refuge is also nearby, which was established several years ago following the closure of Pease Air Force Base. The preservation of the Lamprey is a significant component to protecting this entire ecosystem. The 11.5-mile segment, as proposed by our legislation, has been the focus of local protection efforts for many years. The towns of Lee, Durham, and Newmarket, local conservationists, the State government, as well as the congressional delegation have all come together in support of this legislation. I believe the management philosophy adopted by the Advisory Committee best articulates our goals for this legislation: . . . management of the river must strike a balance among desires to protect the river as an ecosystem, maintain the river for legitimate community use, and protect the interests and property rights of those who own its shorelands. I just cannot understand why, at this hour, with all the work and all of the background, that the other side would play politics on this issue. It is an outrage. I think everybody should know it. I hope the people in New Hampshire hear me and know it, that this very significant piece of environmental legislation is being deliberately held up for whatever purposes. I will leave people to decide. But I do want to recognize two members of the Lamprey River Advisory Committee, Judith Spang of Durham, NH, and Richard Wellington of Lee, NH, who worked so hard and so long to pass this legislation. I might say to them, I apologize to you for the outrage that is being committed here on the floor of the Senate tonight. This is not the way we should do business in the U.S. Senate. This is an environmentally sound piece of legislation. It has the support of the communities, support of the State, support of every single Republican on my side, the support of most Democrats on the other side, and it has been passed out of the committee unanimously. And here it is held up deliberately. I find it an outrage. I do not know what I can do about it. Obviously, Senators have rights and I respect those rights. They have a right to object. But, having the right to object and objecting for good reason are two different things. There should be a good reason to object. There is no good reason to object to a piece of legislation that has unanimous support. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, do I still have the floor?

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now turn to the consideration of S. 1174, regarding the Lamprey River in New Hampshire, the bill be advanced to third reading and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. The Senator from Massachusetts has 11 minutes remaining. The Senator from Alaska has 14 minutes.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Electropac, a New Hampshire company, in honor of their 20th anniversary. On September 19 and 20, a number of employees, individuals, and organizations will gather together at Electropac's corporate headquarters in Manchester, NH, to celebrate their 20th year of business. I would like to congratulate everyone who helped this technology company grow to become the success it is today. The dedication and hard work, as evidenced by the growth that Electropac has experienced over the years, is truly unparalleled. Electropac is an independently owned, small to mid-sized company that specializes in manufacturing high-tech printed circuit boards for the computer, telecommunication, medical instrumentation, and military industries. The circuit boards they produce are state of the art, double sided, multilayered boards. The Manchester office of Electropac has served as Electropac's corporate headquarters and center of manufacturing operations since 1980. In addition to being located in Manchester, Electropac has expanded with a prototype facility in Londonderry, and with circuit board companies in Montreal, Canada, and Ste-Catharines, Ontario. At these locations, Electropac employs over 400 people and brings in over $33 million in business. This is an enormous increase considering the company's founder and president, Raymond Boissoneau, established Electropac with only one employee and $1,000 in cash. Electropac has been included on a regular basis as one of the top 50 and the top 75 privately owned companies in the State of New Hampshire. Just this past year, Electropac designed a program with the Manchester School of Technology that brings students into the company and allows Electropac to become their classroom, thus providing students with hands-on experience and training in high-tech manufacturing. Electropac supports a number of organizations throughout the State of New Hampshire including the N.H. Job Training Council, the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, the Made in New Hampshire Expo, the Merrimack Youth Association, and the Merrimack Rotary and Lions Clubs. Among numerous other awards, Raymond Boissoneau has received the New Hampshire High Technology Council's Entrepreneur of the Year Award. It is through his leadership and inspiration that has caused Electropac to rise to be the success that it is today. Raymond Boissoneau places the responsibility of the company with the employees, which adds great measure to the company's prosperity. Electropac's success over the years can be attributed to a number of factors. One factor is the emphasis placed on the level of service and quality, rather than on quantity and growth. By maintaining several medium sized operations, Electropac diversifies itself, providing its customers with efficient and cost-effective service specialities. Flexibility is the key to their success in such a competitive market because they are able to adapt their products quickly to the technological growth of today's industry. Also, Electropac is the first manufacturer in the United States and only the second in the world to provide a beta sight. A beta sight essentially is a test sight for outside companies. Electropac opens their manufacturing operations and allows various companies to test new technical products, that are not on the market yet, using all of Electropac's facilities and machinery. Mr. President, I commend Electropac and its employees for their support of New Hampshire, and for their contributions as a whole to the industry of America. Electropac is an excellent example of a truly successful and dynamic New Hampshire company. Congratulations to Raymond Boissoneau and his dedicated employees who have made Electropac so competitive in today's technology industry. May you experience continued growth and success.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise before you today to congratulate two young New Hampshire students for their outstanding work on behalf of their community. Sarah Schofield of Gilbert H. Hood Middle School in Derry, NH, and Erin Mitchell of Londonderry High School in Londonderry, NH have both been honored with the Prudential Spirit of Community Awards. In recognition of their hard work and dedication to their communities, Sarah and Erin will both receive a silver medallion, $1,000, and a trip to Washington, DC. The Prudential Spirit of Community Awards honors students who best exemplify community spirit by their self-initiated volunteer work. The awards are sponsored by the Prudential Insurance Co. of America in partnership with the National Association of Secondary School Principals. The program recognizes deserving students in local schools, identifies the best examples of community service, and culminates in naming America's top 10 youth volunteers of the year. For the 1996 awards, the program drew applications from more than 7,000 young people across the Nation. Both Sarah and Erin should be very proud of this distinguished recognition. Sarah Schofield was recognized for her participation in a Christmas event at a local nursing home. Along with several of her peers from her church's Sunday school, Sarah went to a nursing home with gift baskets and sang Christmas carols for the residents. Due to the great success of the group's first effort at the nursing home, several other trips were planned after the Christmas event. Erin Mitchell was recognized for creating a Girl's Group, to match girls from her scouting troop with girls who have disabilities. All the girls gather together regularly for theater trips, bowling, camping, and a variety of other activities. Erin's program allows the families of the disabled girls to know that their daughters are making new friends. Erin's inspiration for developing the group came from her experience of working with the Special Olympics. I am extremely proud to congratulate both Sarah Schofield and Erin Mitchell for exemplifying the leadership and willingness to act on the behalf of others in their New Hampshire communities. Both students have made a tremendous difference in the lives of other people. Congratulations to them on their hard work and distinguished recognition. They are an inspiration to the youth of America.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the people of Hollis, NH, on their town's 250th anniversary. Since April, the residents of Hollis have been celebrating their town's anniversary with numerous festivities including the strawberry festival, a museum opening, a civic profile, a firemen's muster, an apple festival, a marathon road race and many other enjoyable events. The town's celebration on September 14th will mark their official 250th anniversary and is certain to bring the whole town together for this historic event. The history of Hollis dates back to the year 1746 when the area of West Dunstable was divided into four different parts--Dunstable, Monson, Merrimack, and Hollis. Later on April 3, 1746, then-Governor Benning Wentworth signed the town's first charter officially naming the town Holles. It was on this date that the people from a loose settlement of families gathered under one wing of a church in the Hollis area to join together to unite their town. Originally, Hollis was granted the name of Holles after Governor Wentworth's friend, the Duke of Newcastle. Eventually, the town residents changed the spelling of Holles to Hollis in honor of an English merchant they admired for his high level of intellect and his generosity to Harvard College. Many descendants of the town's first settlers still live in Hollis today. Before the signing of the charter, there were 75 families that resided in the geographical location of Hollis. When the charter was signed, 20 families were forced to reside in the Dunstable area. These 20 families fought for 30 years to be reunited with their fellow neighbors and their home, Hollis. To this day, the residents of Hollis use this example as an illustration of their town's commitment of unity. The passage of 250 years of history has changed the way of life for the people of Hollis. Some of the minor changes include the tithing men and fence viewers who have disappeared from election ballots and the decay of the whipping post in the town common. Nevertheless, these few minor changes have not changed the bond the families feel for Hollis, nor the civic responsibilities they have held in the town since 1746. Joan Tinklepaugh, who wrote a history for the town, states it best when she says, ``we are all joined together by the stitches of the quilt of humanity that makes up the town called Hollis.'' I congratulate the many residents of Hollis on this festive occasion, and for their sense of unity and dedication. Enjoy the celebration and may the years to come be as prosperous as your last 250 years. Happy birthday Hollis.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the conference report on the fiscal year 1997 Defense authorization bill. I want to take this opportunity to commend the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Thurmond, for putting together an outstanding bill. Senator Thurmond worked tirelessly to conclude the conference quickly and efficiently, and the product is a bill that we can all be proud of. I also want to pay tribute to the ranking member, Senator Nunn. Senator Nunn has served on the Armed Services Committee with distinction for 23 years. Throughout that time, he has been steadfast in his support for a strong, capable, and highly prepared military. This will be Senator Nunn's final Defense authorization bill, and I want to take this opportunity to thank Senator Nunn for his outstanding work on behalf of the men and women of our Armed Forces. Mr. President, the bill before us includes a much-needed increase of $11.2 billion from the President's budget request for national defense. I want to emphasize that even with this increase the total level of Defense spending remains $7.4 billion below last year's level when adjusted for inflation. We are in the 12th straight year of decline in Defense spending. For the benefit of my colleagues, I want to briefly summarize some of the highlights of this conference bill. The bill before us includes a 3 percent pay raise and a 4.6 percent increase in the basic allowance for quarters for our Armed Forces. It directs the Secretaries of Defense and Health and Human Services to prepare and implement a demonstration program enabling Medicare- eligible beneficiaries to enroll in the Tricare, the DOD health care program. The bill approves $10 million in additional research funding to examine the relationship between service of our men and women in the Gulf war and the incidence of congenital birth defects and illnesses among their children. It also includes $201 million to carry out the Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act which addresses the Nation's ability to deal with threatened or actual use of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons against American cities. The bill provides $40 million to complete development and testing of the Patriot Anti-Cruise Missile Upgrade Program. It authorizes $32 million for reactive jamming upgrades to the Navy's fleet of EA-6B electronic warfare aircraft. It includes a $24.5 million increase for night vision goggles and $9.1 million for infra-red aiming lights. It also directs that the Navy conduct a competitive evaluation of the ATD-111 and Magic Lantern Lidar systems to determine which system to acquire under the Airborne Laser Mine Detection Program. It provides an increase of $914 million for the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, and $134 million specifically for the space and missile tracking system. Last, it approves an increase of roughly $300 million for conventional delivery enhancements for the B-1 and B-2 bombers. Additionally, Mr. President, I would like to briefly summarize some of the initiatives contained under the acquisition and technology section of this bill. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Acquisition and Technology, I have been troubled by the failure of the administration to adequately invest in long-term technology development. Modernization is the key to long-term readiness, and without effective investment in the technology base, we will be unable to preserve the technological edge that we enjoy today. The bill before us includes a number of important initiatives to support efforts of the services to develop advanced operational concepts and technologies, to increase the use of commercial technologies for defense applications, and to make defense programs more affordable. For instance, the bill provides $40 million to fund the Marine Corps' Sea Dragon experiments to develop new operational concepts that leverage technology and innovation; authorizes $20 million for a joint services research and development program for nonlethal weapons and technologies; provides $85 million for the dual use applications program; authorizes $61 million for the manufacturing technology programs of the Army, Navy and Air Force; provides an increase of $12 million to continue the procurement technical assistance program; and includes a provision to streamline the Defense Department's requirements for assessing the capabilities of the national defense technology and industrial bases, including cases of unacceptable reliance on foreign sources. Mr. President, these are but a few of the many critically important initiatives contained in this bill. I would emphasize that these initiatives address the priorities established by the service chiefs and will directly enhance our national security. I also want to emphasize that each of the issues that President Clinton's advisors indicated may trigger a Presidential veto have been resolved to the satisfaction of the administration. Thus, this bill enjoys strong bipartisan support and the indications are that the President will sign it. Again, I want to thank the distinguished chairman and ranking member for their outstanding work in formulating a conference bill that enhances national security and reflects the vast majority of the Senate's priorities for defense. They have rendered an invaluable service to the Nation, and I am proud to support this important legislation. Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the conference report, and I yield the floor. chemical weapons demilitarization

Mr. SMITH. I would like to engage the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee on section 833 of the conference bill, relating to cable television franchise agreements on military bases. That section implements an advisory opinion of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, which found that cable television franchise agreements on military bases are contracts subject to the Federal Acquisition Regulation [FAR]. As chairman of the Acquisition and Technology Subcommittee, I believe that when negotiating the settlement ordered by section 833(3), the parties should give due consideration to the fair compensation of cable operators terminated for the convenience of the Government in accordance with part 49 of the FAR. Factors to be considered may include, to the extent provided in the FAR, interest on capital expenditures, settlement preparation costs, and other expenses reasonably incurred by such operators in connection with constructing their cable systems or obtaining fair compensation.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Hubbard Farms Inc. in Walpole, NH, for their 75 years of excellence in serving the poultry industry. For years now, Hubbard Farms has become internationally recognized for their research and development into chicken breeding and hatching. Amazingly, each year Hubbard Farms doubles their worldwide demand for chicken products. This annual profit increase is primarily due to their market-driven and customer-focused research. On the occasion of their 75th anniversary celebration, I applaud Austin, Oliver, and Leslie, the three Hubbard brothers, and all the employees at Hubbard Farms for their invaluable contributions to the national and international poultry industry. Having been raised on my grandparent's farm, I have the utmost admiration for the dedication and hard work of farmers and their families. Few companies in the United States can trace their origins back to the 1700's and Hubbard Farms is one of them. In 1791, Levi Hubbard settled in the newly founded Walpole area and began working with poultry in addition to his general farming enterprise. Hubbard Farms was founded in 1921 when Ira's son, Oliver, graduated from the University of New Hampshire with one of the first majors in poultry and opened the company's doors. Oliver, who is now 96 years old, began the poultry breeding and hatching operations which have made his company so successful in the international poultry industry. In the 1930's, Oliver even helped develop a new chicken breed called the New Hampshire. As Hubbard Farms began to experience an increase in sales, Oliver's two brothers, Austin and Leslie, joined the family company. During the 1930's and 1940's their breeding and commercial hatchery operations expanded considerably. As the boiler industry began to grow, the Hubbards produced a large volume of Barred Cross chickens in addition to their purebred New Hampshire chicks. In the 1950's and 1960's, Hubbard Farms built hatcheries and breeding farms in Statesville, NC, and Hot Springs, AR, and opened an international subsidiary in Belgium. The three Hubbard brothers have enjoyed a steady increase in growth over the years that includes an extensive network of franchise distribution for the production, sale, and delivery of Hubbard meat-breeding stock. These franchise operations are in countries all over the world--Brazil, Equador, Mexico, Taiwan, Malaysia, Indonesia, South Africa, India, and China. Hubbard Farms was acquired in 1974 by Merck & Co., a leading innovator of health products and is still considered an innovator in poultry genetics. Their company objective is to supply an increasing share of the market with broiler parent stock that consistently outperforms all competitors. Hubbard Farm's 75-year history is marked by distinction and achievement. In 1973, the company received the President's E-Star Award for Excellence in Exporting from the Secretary of Commerce and Secretary of Agriculture in recognition of their outstanding contributions to the increase of U.S. trade abroad. In addition, Hubbard Farms is one of the largest and most highly respected employers in the town of Walpole. Hubbard Farms has consistently supported Walpole and the surrounding areas for 75 exceptional years. I am proud to join with other New Hampshire residents in congratulating this longstanding poultry leader. Hubbard Farms is a truly distinct company with their commitment to breeding excellence and their extensive record of achievement. I send my very best wishes on the memorable occasion of their 75th anniversary and wish Oliver, Austin, and Leslie continued years of success at Hubbard Farms.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, this debate, on the part of those who are defending the project, I must say, has been very skillfully conducted. Frankly, someone who was paying maybe just a little attention to this and not to all of the detail would probably agree with them. It is unfortunate the debates and facts get twisted on the floor of the Senate as they do. This basically now is coming down to being an anti-NASA vote, which it is not. I have made a very strong point earlier in my comments about my strong support for NASA. It does not take one dime from NASA. It allows NASA to reprogram the money into areas that I believe and I think NASA would probably agree are more important. It is also coming down as being total opposition to any and all research that has ever been done on animals in the name of helping human beings. That is not the issue either. The issue is very simply this: Do you continue to do research after you have gotten the facts? Do you continue to do research over and over and over again for no reason? No one has presented any good reason for this project. There have been some general statements made about research by some very sophisticated people who I certainly respect, such as the Senator from Tennessee. That is not the issue. Once you develop a vaccine or once you develop something that cures a disease, do you continue to do the same research on the same vaccine over and over and over again once you have found out what it does? If you vaccinate your child against smallpox, do you continue to vaccinate over and over and over and over and over again, or is there some limit? That is the issue. Do you want to continue to waste $15.5 million on research which is duplicative or don't you? That is the issue. The Senator from Maryland said a few moments ago, ``It's not our job to review this project, or any project, for scientific merit,'' referring to this project. ``It's not our job to review this project for scientific merit.'' I ask my colleagues, if it is not our job, since this bill is before us, whose job is it? Whose job is it? The White House said, ``We don't need this project.'' In essence, that was the conclusion they drew. The Administrator of NASA, in a memo that cites him, basically agrees that we do not need it. The House of Representatives has voted overwhelmingly, 244 to 170-something that we do not need it. So if it is not our job to review it, why is it here? Why is it in this bill? Whose job is it to review? When we take that attitude, that is one of the reasons why we have a $5 trillion debt, Mr. President, because no one wants to take the time to review these projects, and the truth of the matter is, we have oversight responsibility in this body, and I take it very seriously. So we should review it. We should review everything. We do not review enough. If we reviewed more, we would find a lot more waste. There has been a lot of testimony from people who are experts, and some who pretend to be experts, in this debate. Let me cite a couple, because I think it is important to get some balance here. Sharon Vanderlipp is a veterinarian. She writes a letter to me in which she says: As former chief of veterinary services for NASA Ames Research Center-- That is where this work is done; that is who supervises this project. As former chief of veterinary services for NASA Ames Research Center, and as a veterinarian with more than 15 years experience in the specialty of laboratory animal medicine-- I hardly would consider her an animal rights activist, I think we could draw that conclusion fairly safely. She spent 15 years in laboratory animal medicine-- I am writing to request your support of Smith-Feingold regarding the Bion experiments. I support animal-related research when there are no other research alternatives and when the derived benefits justify the loss of animals lives and monetary expenditure. This is not the case in the Bion project. It is the charge of the U.S. Senate to represent the will of the constituency in determining how their tax dollars will best serve them. There is still time to salvage this $15 million. During my service at NASA Ames Research Center, July 1993 until my resignation in March of 1994, a review of the medical records of the nonhuman primates indicated NASA's failure to provide appropriate surgical monitoring, pre- and post-operative care. Post-operative deaths were not uncommon. These records were reviewed indepth by myself and included animals involved in the Bion protocols. She goes on to talk about some other violations. NASA officials repeatedly ignored my request for assistance in resolving a variety of animal welfare related issues. She also says: Many of the individuals associated with the animal research components of Bion protocols are the same individuals who demonstrated a total lack of respect for animal welfare laws. And on and on. Mr. President, there are people who are very close to this project, highly respected people, who differ, as we heard differing opinions expressed here earlier. I respect those differences. It does not mean, though, that just because they have differences that they are correct. I have a page here listing seven or eight physicians. Senator Frist is a physician. I respect him. But here are physicians who disagree with him on this project. Let me just read a couple. Dr. Roger White, board certified anesthesiologist, Mayo Clinic, Mr. President--Mayo Clinic: Any assessment must be reviewed as one of the most invasive experimental procedures ever imposed on an animal, beginning with surgical procedures of implementation of multiple monitoring devices. It is particularly aggressive to the point of being macabre as well as cruel. The Senator from Maryland said all this was done in the best interest of the animal, nothing macabre was done. I am not sure that was the term she used. Let me read exactly what is done. I think we should know what is done. It is the subject of debate. I do not think this is the only issue, but I think we should say what is done. Now remember, no matter how you feel about research, this is done because, and Senator Glenn brought this up, we want to determine the effects of weightlessness on these animals in space. Astronauts train and exercise vigorously in space to keep their muscles and their bones moving so that they don't atrophy, if you will. These monkeys are restrained. They cannot move. So I ask whether or not this kind of treatment is necessary now in this day and age after we have had astronauts in space over 400 days at a time to determine the effects of weightlessness on monkeys who are restrained, who cannot move. I do not know what ``macabre'' means. I do not know what ``gruesome'' means or ``grotesque'' means. I thought I knew what it meant until I heard the statement from the Senator from Maryland. If this isn't, then I would like to know what it is. This is in a letter to Daniel S. Goldin from Leslie Alexander of the Houston Rockets. They live in the Houston area, have business in the Houston area. They are very supportive of NASA and the space program, as I am. This is what is done to the animals in question: The Bion space project causes unimaginable suffering to the young monkeys. Again, thinking of the words ``macabre,'' ``cruel,'' whatever you want to call it. If you don't think it is, fine, then you should vote the other way. The tops of the monkeys' skulls are opened, electrodes are wired to their brains, holes are cut in their eyelids and eyeballs, wires are run through the holes and stitched to their eyeballs. The wires are threaded under their scalps to reach the circuit boards cemented into the openings in their skulls. Eight holes are then drilled into each monkey's skull so a metal halo can be screwed into it for immobilizing the animal for up to 16 days. Fourteen electrode wires hooked up to seven muscles in the monkeys' arms and legs tunnel under the skin and exit from a hole in the animals' backs. A thermometer is surgically buried in each animal's stomach and it too exits their backs. Straight jackets are sown on to monkeys to keep them from ripping the wires out of their bodies. He goes on to say that this project is cruel, pointless, wasteful, scandalous, shameful, and harmful to NASA's reputation. Mr. President, if you assume--if you assume; I do not--but if some do, that this type of medical research is necessary, then why do it after you have the results? How does a monkey, restrained, that cannot even move, how does this experiment in space help anybody find out anything? And the truth of the matter is, Mr. President, it does not. And everybody in NASA knows it. Mr. Goldin knows it. The White House knows it. And 244 Members of the House know it. But somebody in this Government, some bureaucrat, somebody who is not in a leadership role on this, has decided otherwise. So they send in this stuff. And they make it out to be an issue that somehow if you oppose this kind of treatment, that somehow you are opposed to all research, that you want to let heart doctors not have the opportunity to test and to do the things they have to do to determine how to operate on a human being. It is outrageous to make those kinds of statements on the floor of the U.S. Senate. This is a repetitious, unnecessary, experiment putting these monkeys through this for 14 days in space to find out the effect of weightlessness, when an astronaut moves around. He exercises. They give them, as the Senator from Ohio knows, prescribed exercises to do in space. They move around. A monkey in a straitjacket cannot move. And yet we still are doing it. This is not 1960. This is 1996. We have had 40 years of humans in space. Why are we doing it? Because somebody, whom we cannot identify-- no name has been given--in this bureaucracy has decided we have to have it. And it is being painted that this Senator is opposed to NASA. This Senator supports NASA. This Senator wants money to be spent in NASA for worthwhile projects, not wasted on this. We need to ask ourselves, is this the way the American people want us to spend their money? Dr. David Wiebers of the Mayo Clinic, chairman of the neurology/ epidemiology department: I write this letter from the perspective of an academic and practicing neurologist who supports progress in medicine but who also has considerable concern about the well-being of animals who are utilized in experimental procedures, particularly when those procedures are not scientifically necessary . . . That is the issue here, not sickness. . . . and when they involve cruelty to animals . . . it is my opinion that the scientific gains from these procedures will be insignificant. Moreover, these particular animal studies are extremely invasive and would be expected to cause major discomfort . . . He is opposed to the project. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a sheet entitled ``Doctors say YES to the Smith-Feingold amendment to H.R. 3666'' be printed in the Record. It is a long list of physicians, very well- respected from Stanford, as well as the Mayo Clinic and others.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, the pending amendment is a committee amendment to strike the language in the bill, as the Senator from Missouri has just indicated, that prohibits funding from being used for the so-called Bion 11 and 12 missions. The amendment will prevent the waste of approximately $15.5 million on wasteful research involving sending Russian primates into space. Let me repeat that, because one may wonder why we are spending money to send Russian primates into space. I wonder that myself, but that is what we are talking about. What we are trying to do is prevent the waste of $15.5 million of taxpayer money involving research--and it is wasteful research--sending Russian primates into space. I would also like the record to reflect that Senators Feingold, Helms, Kerry of Massachusetts, D'Amato, and Bumpers have joined me in opposition to funding for this Bion Program. It is a bipartisan group of Senators, as you can tell, crossing the whole political spectrum. I believe Senator Feingold will be speaking on the issue, if not others. Just so there is no confusion, the language before the Senate passed the House by an overwhelming vote of 244 to 171. It appears on page 104 of the Senate bill. It reads as follows: None of the funds made available in this act for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration may be used to carry out or pay the salaries of personnel who carry out the Bion 11 and 12 projects. The pending committee amendment strikes this language. This is what we object to. I want to say at the outset, it is very important, I spent almost 6 years on the Science and Technology Committee in the House of Representatives before I came to the Senate. On that committee I do not think there is anyone who was a stronger supporter of NASA or the space program. I continued that support in my time in the Senate. This is not, and I want to make it very clear, it is not a NASA-bashing amendment. I am not asking these funds be taken out of NASA. I am just asking they not be spent on this particular project, the Bion project. So let me make it very clear. This Senator has offered a number of amendments in the past to cut spending, and I am proud of them, but that is not what this is. I am not trying to take the money from NASA. I am trying to stop NASA from wasting money that NASA probably could find good use for in some other way. I had hoped the committee would retain the Bion language, given that it passed the House by a majority of 73 votes. I felt it was reasonable that that language be retained. Frankly, I am disappointed it was not. We had 147 Republicans and 96 Democrats on the House side who supported the amendment to eliminate that funding. There has been a great deal of criticism of the program from a wide variety of groups: the science community--it is interesting--the science community; not all in the science community, but many; taxpayer groups, those who wish to save tax dollars; animal welfare organizations; and, as well, interestingly enough, from people who had the courage to speak up inside NASA. So when we have NASA people, people within the science community, animal rights organizations, and taxpayer groups all together on an issue, I think it is worth the Senate's time to look at it very carefully. This letter is from Tom Schatz of Citizens Against Government Waste, which strongly supports this amendment. He says here, this vote will be considered for inclusion in their 1996 congressional ratings. This is a group I have come to deeply respect because they have the knack for finding the most egregious examples of waste in the Federal bureaucracy. It is a very good group. Most Senators here are aware of this group and the very good job they do. Mr. Schatz is very specific in his letter. I ask unanimous consent this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH. I will quote from the letter just a couple of lines: On behalf of the 600,000 members of the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, I urge you to support the efforts by Sens. Smith and Feingold to eliminate funding for two Bion missions in the FY 1997 Veterans' Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations bill (H.R. 3666). By eliminating this unnecessary program, taxpayers could save as much as $15.5 million. He goes on to say what these missions are. These missions known as Bion 11 and 12 are joint U.S./ Russian/French flights scheduled for September 1996 and July 1998. The Russians will send Rhesus monkeys into space for 14 days so that scientists can study the effects of microgravity on the body. According to the Congressional Research Service, Russia has been executing these missions since 1973, and NASA has participated in the last eight, beginning in 1975. A variety of experiments on rodents, insects, and primates have been performed for the U.S. in the 17 years between 1975 and 1992, the date of the last Bion mission. In addition, Mr. Schatz goes on to say: Data from the seventy-five successful Space Shuttle flights or long-term space by Russian cosmonauts . . . could more accurately and less expensively provide the information scientists need to study these effects. In fact, NASA has performed several of its own experiments on monkeys, including two shuttle missions. If NASA feels it is necessary to do further study on the matter, they only need to ask Shannon Lucid how she feels when she returns from the Mir Space Station. (She has been up there several months.) Tax dollars should not be spent on duplicative and wasteful programs. That is the end of the information from that letter. It is amazing that NASA would ask the taxpayers of the United States, or this committee, bringing this bill to the floor, would ask the taxpayers of the United States to spend $15.5 million to put monkeys in flight for 14 days to find out what effect space has on those monkeys in 14 days when we put human beings in space for 469 days. If there is anyone listening to me or anyone, a Member of this body, who can tell me how that money is well spent, I would like to hear from them. Again, let me repeat, putting monkeys in space for research for 14 days to find out the effects on the body when we send human beings in space for 469 days--can somebody help me? I am sending out the alert here. Mr. President, this is one of the best examples that I have seen in my entire congressional career of a case of a program that began with good intentions that has outlived itself, because you see, many, many years ago when we started this, astronauts were not the first in space, primates were. We were obviously trying to find out the effects of the future human beings who were going to be in space. Well, that is past; that is over. But, O my God, let's not cut a Government program. Whatever we do, let's keep it going, let's keep it funded, let's not get rid of any bureaucrats who might be doing research we do not need to do. My goodness, we certainly would not want to do that, but that is exactly what the situation is here, Mr. President. This is outrageous. It is outrageous. There is no need for it, and, yet, we are doing it. I also have a letter cosigned by Mr. Schatz and Ralph De Gennaro of Taxpayers for Common Sense, another antiwaste group that has done excellent work on this issue. Mr. President, I said it is estimated that this amendment would prevent the waste of 15.5 million taxpayers' dollars by prohibiting funding of these two projects, Bion 11 and Bion 12, which involves sending primates into space. The Bion 11 mission is scheduled for liftoff this month, with Bion 12 in 1998. Russian-owned rhesus monkeys would be launched from Kazakhstan in Russian capsules loaded with Russian technology for 2 weeks to study the effects of weightlessness. I say to my friends, the Senator from Maryland and the Senator from Missouri, who I know care about wasting taxpayers' dollars, 14 days in space for rhesus monkeys to determine the effects of weightlessness on the human body when we have human beings in space for 469 days? Please, give me a break. Save $15.5 million. The House said so. Let's be reasonable. I realize that some are going to suggest this is still important. I am waiting to hear how someone can tell me that it is. NASA has already conducted five similar missions using primates as test subjects, as well as two shuttle missions dedicated to studying the effects of gravity on humans. Shuttle mission spacelab life sciences 1 and 2 focused on the effect of microgravity on astronauts in 1991 and 1993. Five United States-Russian ventures in the eighties and early nineties sent primates into space to research the same subject. It is bad enough the Russians are doing it. Why do we have to do it? I know there are a lot of people in my State of New Hampshire who would love to have that $15.5 million, a lot of needy people, people who do not have enough money for fuel in the winter--that is coming on us--or perhaps helping some small business get started and create more jobs. This is not an anti-NASA amendment. This is a commonsense amendment, and the taxpayers group says they are going to rate this one, and they should, they absolutely should. I am glad they are doing it, because this is an outrageous waste of taxpayers' money. I know year after year, we do see anti-NASA amendments. We always have one from the Senator from Arkansas cutting the space station, and I oppose it every time because I support the space station. I oppose that amendment because I support the space station. I have always voted against these amendments to cut NASA or to cut the space station. As I mentioned, I was a member of the Science, Space and Technology Committee in the House of Representatives for 6 years. I was a member of the Congressional Space Caucus and the Republican task force on space exploration. So I come at this not anti-NASA, and every person in the space agency who has worked there for any period of time knows this. They also know that this project is a waste of money. I coauthored NASA authorization bills. In fact, I wrote language providing for the National Weather Service to conduct pH monitoring to provide the public with access to information about the acidity of rainfall. I cosponsored a resolution urging support for the space station budget and have consistently voted against efforts to cut the space station. I cosponsored legislation to promote space commercialization. This is a pro-NASA amendment. That is what this is. This is a pro- NASA amendment because it is going to provide $15.5 million for something worthwhile. Taxpayers deserve to have their money spent wisely. They work hard to pay taxes to the Federal Government, and they deserve to have that money spent, not only wisely but reasonably. (Mr. BROWN assumed the chair.)

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, if you want to cast a NASA bashing vote, then this amendment is not the amendment for you, because that is not what this is. This amendment, this $15 million comes right out of important NASA programs like the space station and the space shuttle. But if you are like me and you are excited about the advances we are making in space exploration, you ought to vote to eliminate this kind of waste and provide it in areas where the space program could use the money. Every nickel we spend on the Russian Bion program is money that would have been spent on important United States space priorities. Every nickel. For example, we could divert this money to speed up the development of Lockheed Martin's Venture Star, the new X-33 single-stage reusable reorbit launch vehicle. The cost of this project will be about $1 billion through the year 2000. This is exciting, revolutionary technology, and it represents precisely the kind of innovation that I am talking about and precisely the kind of innovation that the American people expect out of their space program, which will create millions of jobs in the 21st century. Furthermore, in the Venture Star Project, we will have a public- private partnership that helps ease the financial burden on the taxpayer. I am told that the estimated cost of sending payloads into space on the Venture Star will be approximately $1,000 per pound, compared with a $10,000 per pound cost on the space shuttle. A tremendous savings. This $15 million could be used to accelerate the development of technology that will truly benefit our knowledge of space and enhance the competitiveness of the U.S. industry. Mr. President, we all know how a program takes a life of its own. There has never been an example, as I said before, in all of my years in Congress that is a more egregious example of this exact fact: a program that went beyond what it was supposed to do and yet it continues because no one wants to pull the plug, because somebody is getting some research dollars to do this, somebody is tending the cages of the animals, somebody is making the money, getting a salary somewhere, so God forbid we should cut off a program. I know that the current occupant of the chair, the Senator from Colorado, has joined me on many occasions in cutting spending. I say to the distinguished Senator that this is an example of the kinds of things that he has fought for for so many years in the House and in the Senate. Again, a program to find out the effects of weightlessness on human beings by putting primates in space for 14 days. We now have humans in space for over 400 days, and we still have the program. I repeat that because I know the distinguished occupant of the chair came in after my comments. I want to be sure he heard them because I need his vote on this issue. The Bion Program is this kind of program. It has outlived itself. Let me give you a historical perspective. Let me read from a 1969 letter to Senator Peter Dominick, whose constituents at the time objected to NASA monkey experiments identical to Bion. NASA stated: The purpose of the biostat light mission is to determine the effects of prolonged exposure to the space environment, including weightlessness on the central nervous system, the cardiovascular system, metabolism and the behavior of a primate. That was 1969. Thirty years later, almost, NASA still makes the same argument for the program even though humans have gone to the Moon and spent more than 400 days in space at one time. Shannon Lucid is there now, and has been there a lot longer than 14 days. According to a July 11, 1995, article in the New York Times, more than 300 American and Russian astronauts have logged a total of 38 years in space since Yuri Gagarin in 1961 became the first person to ride a rocket into orbit. Think of that. More than 300 American and Russian astronauts have logged a total of 38 years in space since Gagarin in 1961 became the first person. Yet we still have to send primates into space for 14 days to determine the effects of weightlessness on the central nervous system? And 38 years of time in space by humans. But the project continues. Why should we waste $15 million on a Russian project that is dedicated to an area of research that American scientists have already examined on seven previous missions? I do not know. Who knows? Nobody wants to pull the plug on the program. We do not want to offend the Russians? I do not know. We do not want to offend the French? I do not know, and I do not care. My responsibility is not to the French, it is not to the Russians. It is to the taxpayers. It just does not make sense. What are we going to learn? Please, somebody, tell me what we are going to learn 15 million dollars' worth of new information on these two 14-day flights. The bill before us cuts NASA's budget for 1997 by almost $200 million below last year's funding level. When I say ``cut,'' I do not mean it in President Clinton's terms where we increase a program by billions of dollars and call it a cut. That is the President's language. We have been through that with Medicare and Medicaid where we increase a program by 25 to 42 percent and it is called a cut. This is a real cut, Mr. President. In simple math in 1996 we spent $13.9 billion on the NASA budget. This year we spent $13.7 billion. So we are going down. And yet we still waste this kind of money. I am not arguing the need to cut the budget in light of our $5 trillion debt. But if there is anything I hear consistently from my constituents back home is they want us to start with waste, start with waste. Cut out the waste, the fraud, the mismanagement and then we can look at other programs that we may have to cut to get the job done but, for goodness sakes, start with the most outrageous, egregious waste of taxpayer dollars. As one who is unabashedly a strong supporter for the NASA program, who is looking forward to the development of a new and exciting technology in the space program, who is looking forward to space exploration and the space station and all the positive spinoffs we will get, who is looking forward to the jobs that are being created, I would hate to see this money wasted on controversial and outdated research that reflects poorly on the agency. And it does. It reflects poorly on the agency. Somebody in management somewhere did not have the courage to tell somebody they no longer had to attend those primate cages or whatever they do or get any more money. Somebody did not have the courage to tell them or to move them to some other position. So here we go. This is going to reflect poorly on NASA. It reflects poorly on NASA. The Senate has an obligation to stop it just like the House did, Mr. President. I would like to share with my colleagues an article from the Washington Post on August 30, 1996, entitled, ``Reducing Force a Bad Idea, Space Center Director Says.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that article be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH. The article is about a proposal where 547 people would have to be laid off as of October 1, 1998. For the $15.5 million we are spending on Bion we could afford to pay each of these people $28,000. I am not saying necessarily that I advocate that, but I just want to point out how much money $15 million is. Every one of those people are going to lose their job. They could be paid $28,000 a year just from this project. It is obvious they do not all make under $28,000, but the point is, we are laying off American workers at the Kennedy Space Center while we send $15.5 million to Russia to conduct redundant and wasteful research, not to mention the pain that you inflict on animals for no purpose, no purpose whatsoever--no purpose. I am not an advocate of totally eliminating all research, but I think if you all remember the recent story about the gorilla who picked up a small child that had fallen into a gorilla cage, picked it up in its arms and gently carried it to the door of the zookeeper so that they could open the door and carry that child out to safety, it saved the child's life from other gorillas that may have hurt it when the child had fallen into the cage. These are animals. They have feelings. Why would you want to inflict this kind of pain for nothing? It is the same family. They are primates, gorillas and chimps or monkeys. Why would you want to inflict that pain for no reason--no reason? To find out what weightlessness is like in space on these animals for 14 days? Let me go a little further on to why this research is so wasteful. I am going to cite a number of quotes from NASA experts, NASA documents, scientists, scholars, and medical experts that prove this point. Let me start with a memo from February 9 of this year. It was written by Jack Gibbons who serves as both the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. And it is written to Dan Goldin, the Administrator of NASA. I ask unanimous consent that this be printed in the Record, Mr. President.

Mr. SMITH. This is on White House stationery, written on February 9, 1996, from Jack Gibbons. And it is to the Director of NASA. Let me quote it. It is very brief. I am following up on our conversation about the situation at NASA with respect to the use of primates in research. I sympathize with your concern that the era of need for primates in NASA's research is now behind us, and that it may be time to retire those animals. I would be pleased to talk with you about the situation and to discuss alternate options to consider. How could you possibly be any clearer than that? This is from Mr. Gibbons, who is involved with these programs at NASA, to the Director saying it is time to wrap it up, we do not need the money for this project. Yet, here it is, stricken by the House, to their credit overwhelmingly, by a bipartisan vote. But here we go again. Let us leave it in. Who is the lobbyist for this? Who is pushing this? Why is it still in here? Why are we fighting this battle on the Senate floor? Who is this? Where is this coming from? NASA does not want it, apparently. Where is the lobby for this? I think it is a strong affirmation of my point that this research is unimportant and unnecessary. They do not want it. As this memo clearly states, our two top space officials did not think it was a priority in February, yet here we are in September, by golly, we will put it right in there. Let us spend that money. I do not know who called whom but somebody did, I guess. In fact, they concluded without hesitation, these two officials, that there is no longer any need whatsoever for such research, and the House of Representatives agreed with them overwhelmingly in June. I give a lot of credit to my friends in the House for acting reasonably. Since February is there any new startling information out there somewhere that provides some new development, some new revelation that now putting primates in space for 14 days is somehow going to prove, help us to understand weightlessness and the effects on the nervous system for humans who have been in space for 469 days? I want to hear this tremendous revelation of information. I want to hear about it. It must be exciting, because it persuaded somebody to change their mind between June and now. Where is this information? Where are the documents? People say, ``Why do you go out and get so excited over $15.5 million, over a couple of rhesus monkeys?'' If enough people got excited over $15.5 million every time we wasted that kind of money, we would save money around here and get the budget balanced a lot quicker and we would spend money a lot wiser. We have an obligation to take care of the little things, and the big things will take care of themselves. Proponents might talk about a recent commission that considered animal welfare. The commission was thrown together with the expectation that Congress might consider cutting the Bion Program. It is very interesting that we see a situation like this. It makes me wonder. I have been in Congress now 12 years. It really makes me wonder who is making the decisions in this Government? Who is really making the decisions? You have a situation where the top two officials in NASA, who deal with the project, do not want it. I don't know of any proponent in the White House that wants it. The House took it out. Yet, here we are on the Senate floor battling over it, wasting a couple of hours of time, perhaps, arguing about this $15.5 million spent on this primate research. Why? It really is amazing. Is somebody who works below these people going around them and somehow getting information here to this Senate? Yes, probably. I think the Senator from Colorado, who occupies the chair and who has had so many amendments on this Senate floor and in the House regarding this kind of funding, knows that. That is exactly what happens. Frankly, whoever is doing this ought to be fired. They ought to be fired, and we would save a little more money. There have been a number of these sham committees already that were set up to study something long before this memo was written. So the latest round has taught us nothing. There is a quote from Dr. Larry Young, a professor of astronautics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT: We are about at the limit of what we can do on shuttle missions in terms of understanding the long play of weightlessness as it affects humans and animals. I would certainly think so. Fourteen days for primates and 400-plus days for humans, and we are still putting primates in space to study weightlessness on the human nervous system. This quote is from the final reports of the U.S. experiments flown of the Soviet biosatellite Cosmos 2044 Bion 9: The small number of animals studied after space flight preclude drawing any major conclusions for the present. Now, I don't know if I can stand here and say, well, there is no circumstance at all, no chance that we might learn anything at all from these launches. I am sure we can probably figure something out. Who knows? Maybe monkeys' ears grow more in space. We can probably come up with something if we worked at it. But that is not the point. The point is that it is not cost effective, it is not humane, it is not an American priority, and it is not NASA's priority. That is the point. It is not NASA's priority, not humane, not cost effective, and not cost efficient. Yet, we are going to spend the money anyway. Unless I can get 50 people plus myself to disagree with the committee, we will spend it and put these animals through suffering for nothing. It is bad enough we have to do it for something, but here we are going to do it for nothing and spend the money. Unless I can get 50 people to agree with me, that is exactly what will happen. I wonder how many Americans even realize that we are still sending primates into space. Frankly, until this amendment came to my attention, I didn't know it. Our two highest science officials, in the memo I just read, agree that the area of need for primates in NASA's research is now behind us. We have had humans in space for over 400 days. We have learned that most of the problems associated with weightlessness occur after about 2 weeks in space, and the Bion flights are only 2 weeks long. Only in Washington, DC, really, only in Washington, only in the U.S. Government would you have a project as ridiculous as this. I'll repeat that. We have learned that most of the problems associated with weightlessness occur after 2 weeks in space. Yet, we put primates up for 2 weeks and then bring them down. They are not just sitting in the capsule; they are doing all kinds of pretty nasty things to these animals while they are in there. Mr. President, I do have some more comments to make, but I have used up a good portion of the hour. I think at this point I am going to yield the floor and reserve the remainder of the time for other Senators who may wish to speak. Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. President. Colleagues are here who wish to speak. I will be very brief. In another few moments I will be completing my remarks. I will then move to table. Mr. President, I have cited a number of doctors who have indicated their opposition to this. Again, one other one I want to mention comes from Dr. Neal Barnard who wrote me a letter regarding whether or not this is research that is worthwhile or not. Relevant studies have already been conducted on humans, the results of which are obviously more pertinent to human space flight. Extensive data is also available from previous human space missions, some which have exceeded 400 days. NASA's experiments using rhesus monkeys to study motion sickness, calcium loss and ``sea legs'' are not applicable to humans at all. The physiology of monkeys and humans differ drastically. A restrained monkeys with electrodes implanted in his legs cannot hope to offer insights into the largely neurological, short-lived and self-correcting problem of ``sea legs. ``* * * We already know of methods to limit calcium loss and treat the symptoms of the motion sickness and ``sea legs.'' Of course, in this case the monkey is restrained. So any benefits would be minimal. Again, Mr. President, let me conclude on these few points. Sending a primate into orbit 30 years ago, 40 years ago, you could claim there would be some justification. But this is 1996. We have had, as I said, 38 to 40 years of humans in space. Even our two highest science officials in the memo I already cited have said that project is not necessary. We have had humans in space for over 400 days at a time. Just about the time astronauts begin experiencing some of the problems associated with weightlessness the Bion trip with the monkeys end. Most of the weightlessness problems referred to by Senator Glenn happened after the 14th day in space. And these monkeys are brought out of space in 14 days. In the 2-week Bion missions the animals are being monitored by remote electronic instruments. The February 1996 Bion science assessment report said a major weakness of the overall project is the limited data collection capability. Many of the experiments planned for Bion 11 are weakened by the lack of a digital data storage. There are any number of people who would indicate that this research is bad. The second reason is even less of value, the bulk of research that would deal with muscle loss and bone deterioration. Our astronauts are placed on rigorous exercise regimes, as the Senator from Ohio knows, while the animals are strapped in and remain immobile. It is my understanding, Mr. President, that all of the members on the assessment panel that the proponents have all cited--they have all been cited here--admitted that the fact that the animals are restrained is a major flaw. Let me just end on this point, Mr. President. I don't know where the votes are going to fall on this. But, look, this is $15.5 million spent on a program that is supposed to look at the weightlessness of monkeys in space when, in fact, we have had humans in space for almost 40 years, and inflicting unbearable pain on these animals. To do that kind of thing for no reason, I think there is no validity to it. I think it says a lot about a society, a lot about the people in the Senate, frankly, who have the courage to stand up and say, you know, the Citizens Against Government Waste are correct that this is a waste of taxpayers' money. They are going to rip this vote, and they should. It is a waste of taxpayers' money, and whether you are an animal rights advocate or you want to save taxpayers' dollars, it doesn't matter. I don't really particularly care which side you are on. I just need your vote. That is the point. The point is that it wastes Government money. If you want to stop wasting Government money, you ought to vote to table the committee amendment, and if you believe that you should not do duplicative research on animals--not eliminate all research-- then you ought to vote for the amendment. So I think that really says all that needs to be said. Mr. President, at this time, I move to table the committee amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to New Hampshire Boy Scouts of America Troop No. 135 as they celebrate their 50th anniversary. I am proud to congratulate such an outstanding organization as they observe this impressive milestone. Troop 135 has a long history of achievement and service to their community. Boy Scout Troop 135 was founded in 1946 by seven men with Leo Leclerc as their Scoutmaster. Among the founding members was Albert Bellemore, whose son Raymond is the current Scoutmaster for the troop. Raymond, who has served for 34 years is the holder of the Catholic Diocese St. George Award of Merit, the Boy Scout Silver Beaver Award from the National Council of Boy Scouts of America, and was the first in the state to receive the National Eagle Scout Association Scoutmaster's Award. Troop 135's 50 year history is marked by distinction and achievement like Raymond's. More than 968 Boy Scouts have been members of Troop 135 over the years and 81 of them have attained the rank of Eagle Scout. To become an Eagle Scout, a young man must earn badges for citizenship in the community, citizenship in the nation, and citizenship in the world. This is an important recognition for a young man. Troop 135 has been involved in numerous Scout activities and won many prestigious awards over the years. They have participated in many High Adventure trips and every National Boy Scouts Jamboree since the troops founding. Troop 135 has won the Klondike Derby district and statewide trophy almost every year for the past 20 years. Many of Troop 135's 968 members have been very decorated Scouts. Many alumni of Troop 135 are returning for the anniversary celebration festivities on the weekend of August 16-18. They will hold a reunion, an open house, and a formal court of honor for Scoutmasters and Eagle Scouts. The Boy Scouts of America promotes good citizenship, character- building, and community service among the boys of this country. Troop 135 of Sacred Heart Parish has built a reputation for providing the youth of the community with the leadership skills needed to be successful in today's society. Boy Scouts of America provides good, solid role models for the youth of our Nation and teaches them to be community minded. In this organization, they learn valuable skills that will serve them for a lifetime. I am proud to have such an outstanding Boy Scout troop here in the Granite State. Congratulations on reaching this tremendous milestone.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the Boston Air Route Traffic Control Center [ARTCC] in Nashua, NH. The Boston ARTCC won the National En Route Facility of the Year Award, for which I offer my warmest congratulations. This is certainly an accomplishment of which they should be very proud and I salute them for their achievement. The National En Route Facility of the Year Award is presented annually to an Air Route Traffic Control Center which has made a significant contribution to the National Air Traffic Control System. The Boston ARTCC provides air traffic control service to commercial, military, and private aircraft in all of New England and most of New York State. This facility is 1 of 20 ARTCC facilities throughout the continental U.S., along with 3 in Honolulu, Guam, and San Juan. The Boston ARTCC is responsible for handling flights from all six New England States, eastern New York State, extreme northeastern Pennsylvania, and coastal waters to 6700 west longitude. This is an enormous area, amounting to an area of 125,000 square miles. Within this impressive area, there are 30 positions of operation and the Boston ARTCC coordinates with 7 other centers from Montreal to Washington. Each year, the Boston ARTCC performs 1,620,000 operations in this region. Their facility operates with 290 active controllers, 12 controller trainees, 62 support staff, and 95 technicians. With extensive radar systems, radio facilities, a high tech computer system and enough telephone equipment to serve a city of 10,000 people, the Boston ARTCC is a model of efficiency. Centers like the Boston ARTCC are becoming vital to our country's infrastructure with ever increasing air traffic. With a center like this running so efficiently, we can rest easier and know that flights to and from the east coast are safe and on time. Excellence and dedication like theirs deserves to be recognized and applauded. I am proud to commend the Boston ARTCC, the many air travelers in New Hampshire join me in wishing them congratulations and best wishes

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Marguerite's Place, a support home for disadvantaged women and children in Nashua, NH. This outstanding service organization, sponsored by the Sisters of Charity, provides a very welcome service in New Hampshire. The Grey Nuns have worked hard to ensure the success of this very special place. Marguerite's Place is designed to provide a fresh start for women in abusive or other disadvantaged situations. It is unique because it allows women to keep and continue to care for their children, promoting strong family values. It is also a long-term support program that teaches women how to put their lives back together. Sisters Sharon Walsh and Elaine Fahey, who manage Marguerite's Place, previously ran a similar program in inner city Philadelphia that had a very high success rate. Between them they have 20 years experience helping poor women restructure their lives. Marguerite's Place can accommodate seven women and their children and provides vital support services like day-care. Women may stay in Marguerite's Place for up to 2 years and have access to continuing day- care for 5 years through the aftercare program. While Marguerite's Place does provide some necessary services, the sisters are determined not to do anything for the women that they are capable of doing for themselves. During their stay, the women must pay rent and utilities, buy and prepare their own food, and are responsible for the maintenance of their quarters. The Grey Nuns' philosophy for Marguerite's Place is to empower women to move forward into the future with hope. The sisters are tough about the rules of Marguerite's Place, but they provide a safe environment for women who need time to heal. For example, no men are allowed in the building at any time and there is a security system. They employ drug testing if necessary and allow the women only one slip or relapse before removing them from the program. A thorough screening finds women who can demonstrate a commitment to the program and improving their lives and the lives of their children. Marguerite's Place enjoys a tremendous amount of state and community support from the citizens of Nashua. It received funds from the Office of Alcohol and Drug Prevention for the purchase and rehabilitation of the building and from the Department of Housing and Urban Development as a continuum care program. They now receive operational funding from the United Way for their program, and local religious groups have been invaluable. Community youth help Marguerite's Place through events such as the United Way Youth Day of Caring and Rivier College, which sends staff out to discuss health issues with the women. Marguerite's Place is the type of program that this country needs because it not only provides people with an immediate opportunity but teaches them how to improve their lives. The women are given a chance and the responsibility to make something of it. By giving them this responsibility, they empower these women. Their success rate shows that this type of program, combining aid with responsibility, works. I commend Marguerite's Place for an excellent job meeting community needs. The caring of Sisters Sharon and Elaine has given hope to women in desperate situations and provided a way out of that situation. I am proud to thank them of behalf of the Granite State. Need for Privacy protection in Connection with Computerization of Health Care Information