Bob Smith

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the extraordinary accomplishments of Astronaut Rick Linnehan, who will be a mission specialist on the space shuttle Columbia, scheduled to leave Cape Canaveral, FL in June. In 1975, Rick graduated from Pelham High School in Pelham, NH and proceeded to earn a bachelor of science degree in animal science and microbiology at the University of New Hampshire. Later, Rick denied his acceptance to the U.S. Air Force for pilot training and instead opted to attend the Ohio State University College of Medicine to earn his veterinary degree. While Rick's heartening desire to fly was temporarily delayed, his dream never died. Upon finishing his veterinary degree in 1985, Rick applied for NASA's astronaut training program. With the 1986 Challenger disaster stalling the program, Rick's dream of space flight was once again put on hold. During this time, Rick worked as a veterinarian before joining an internship with the Baltimore Zoo and Johns Hopkins University from 1986 to 1988. He then joined the military as a captain in the U.S. Army Veterinary Corps, and ended up as chief clinical veterinarian with the Navy's Marine Mammal project in San Diego, CA. Despite Rick's success in his field of study, he still held on to his dream of one day becoming an astronaut. In 1991, Rick again applied for the astronaut program and was selected along with 18 others out of nearly 3,000 applicants. After 4 years of dedicated training, Rick will embark on his first journey into space this summer as a crewmember of NASA's Life Sciences and Micro-gravity Spacelab mission. During the 16-day flight, Rick will be part of a medical team that will be checking fellow crewmembers for the effects of prolonged space flight as part of NASA's testing program for the space station. In memory of another New Hampshire astronaut, Christa McAuliffe, Rick will carry a lapel pin with him into space from the Concord planetarium. Rick will also bring a New Hampshire flag from the State Legislature, which will be returned to fly in our State House, as well as a banner for the University of New Hampshire, and some personal items for relatives and friends. New Hampshire is very proud of Rick's extraordinary commitment and hard work to achieve his boyhood dream of space flight. America needs more visionaries like Rick, who not only hold on to their dreams but work hard to achieve them. I congratulate Rick on this outstanding honor and am proud to have him represent us in the final frontier.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate an innovative and dedicated New Hampshire elementary school principal, Jay Roy, on receiving the prestigious 1996 Cablevision Educator Award. Each year Continental Cablevision sponsors the Educator Awards Program to recognize teachers, librarians, media specialists, and administrators for their innovative use of Cable in the Classroom programming and the development of successful technology-based projects. Jay was specifically recognized for his role in the development of a video-yearbook program at Rollinsford Grade School in Rollinsford, NH. Fifth and sixth grade students at Rollinsford Grade School use the daily CNN Newsroom program and Continental's original ``Master Control'' show to analyze and understand the elements of television productions. The students then use the skills they have mastered to produce a video-yearbook, which is sold to students, parents, and school staff. Proceeds from the video-yearbook sales enable the school to purchase technology related products. Continental Cablevision's director of government and public affairs, Tom O'Rourke, praised Jay's project because it addressed both television production techniques and media literary skills. O'Rourke also added that the judges were especially impressed with Jay's innovative use of the project as a fundraiser, and the subsequent reinvestment of those funds in technology. In addition to Jay's Educator Award, Continental Cablevision will present the Rollinsford Grade School with a $500 grant for video equipment. As a former teacher myself, I understand the personal dedication, hard work, and innovation necessary to better prepare the most valuable resource we have in America today--our children. I am proud to honor Jay for donating his time and talents to help New Hampshire's best and brightest students learn how to use technology in their lives. I congratulate Jay for this prestigious recognition.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2202, the Immigration Control and Financial Responsibility Act of 1996. It has been said before, but it bears repeating that as a nation we must close the back door to illegal immigration if the front door of legal immigration is to remain open. This landmark legislation represents a major step toward that goal. Mr. President, as passed by the Senate, H.R. 2202 significantly augments the Nation's Border Patrol. The bill also provides the Department of Justice with important new legal tools to fight alien smuggling and document fraud. In addition, H.R. 2202 enhances the ability of the Justice Department to secure the prompt deportation of criminal aliens. Equally important, H.R. 2202 protects the taxpayers by taking numerous steps to assure that legal immigrants come to the United States to work, not to go on welfare. The one major provision of H.R. 2202 with which I disagree is the one that establishes pilot programs for various systems to verify the employment eligibility of new workers. Some have called this part of this bill the beginning of an eventual ``national identification system'' or ``national identification card.'' I share this concern. During the Senate's consideration of this illegal immigration bill, therefore, I voted to support the Abraham-Feingold amendment to strike the national identification pilot programs provisions from the legislation. On balance, though, H.R. 2202 is a strong bill. It will strike a powerful blow against illegal immigration. In the majestic words of the poet Emma Lazarus, America still lifts her ``lamp beside the Golden Door'' for legal immigrants. With this bill, however, we are now moving to put a new padlock on the back door to keep out those who seek to violate our laws against illegal immigration.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate a hard working New Hampshire accountant, Susan M. Sanders, on being named the 1996 New Hampshire Small Business Accountant Advocate of the Year. The Small Business Administration recently honored Susan with this award based on a number of criteria such as volunteer work to assist small firms, advocacy of a reduction of financial and regulatory requirements for small businesses, and support for initiatives to promote legislation strengthening the financial help of small businesses. Susan is a certified public accountant and supervisor at Melanson, Greenwood & Co., a CPA firm in Nashua. She specializes in small business accounting and management advisory services with emphasis on startup businesses. She provides assistance to small business people seeking counseling and consulting services on financial and management matters. Susan also prepares a quarterly publication of statistical information entitled Economic Conditions In NH, which is distributed free through the Nashua and Manchester Chambers of Commerce to business and government leaders, and is included in relocation packages mailed to prospective employers. Susan's commitment to the success of small businesses is also reflected by her outstanding volunteer work for local organizations such as the Nashua Chamber of Commerce, the Greater Nashua Center for Economic Development, and the Nashua Small Business Development Center. As a dedicated small business accountant, Susan believes that small business owners are a special breed of people that should be admired for their determination, innovation, and courage. Susan's own work with small businesses demonstrates many of these same qualities. Small business is not only the backbone of our economy, but an expression of the freedom and opportunity America has to offer. As a former small business owner myself, I am proud to honor Susan for donating her time and talents to helping small businesses succeed in the Granite State. As a professional and a volunteer, she has devoted countless hours toward securing the American dream of prosperity for small business owners. I would like to congratulate Susan for this prestigious recognition, and thank her for her steadfast devotion to small business owners in New Hampshire.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise before you today to congratulate four outstanding New Hampshire teachers on receiving the 1995 Presidential Award for Excellence in Science and Mathematics Teaching. Kevin Murphy of Milford, an elementary school mathematics teacher at Milford Elementary School in Milford; Diane Lonergan of Merrimack, an elementary school science teacher at Memorial School in Bedford; Diane Sawyer of Portsmouth, a secondary school mathematics teacher at Exeter Area Junior High School in Exeter; and Brewster Bartlett of Loudon, a secondary school science teacher at Pinkerton Academy in Derry were the four deserving recipients of this prestigious award. The Presidential Awards for Excellence in Science and Mathematics Teaching Program is administered by the National Science Foundation [NSF]. The awards are designed to recognize and reward outstanding teachers from elementary and secondary schools who serve as models for their colleagues and encourage high quality teachers to enter and remain in the teaching field. In addition to the distinguished national recognition that comes with the award, each recipient's school will receive an NSF grant of $7,500 to be used under the direction of the teacher, and to supplement other resources for improving science or mathematics programs in the school system. The four outstanding recipients of this teaching award will spend a week in May in Washington, DC, for a series of events to commemorate their selection. They will be honored at the U.S. State Department and other organizations such as the National Academy of Science. There is no more important resource in America today than our school teachers. As a former teacher, I understand the devotion and hard work necessary to be a successful teacher and a positive role model for children. These four outstanding teachers have displayed not only extraordinary talents in their teaching, but have also shown a remarkable level of commitment to their students. I am proud to honor these four exceptional teachers for nurturing the best and the brightest students New Hampshire has to offer. I would like to congratulate Kevin Murphy, Brewster Bartlett, Diane Lonergan, and Diane Sawyer for this distinguished recognition, and thank them for their devotion to students in New Hampshire.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, on September 19, 1995, the Senate unanimously passed the Mercury-Containing and Rechargeable Battery Management Act, S. 619. This legislation, which I introduced on March 24, 1995, was cosponsored by Senators Lautenberg, Faircloth, McConnell, Lieberman, Simon, Mack, Bond, Graham, Warner, Reid, Inhofe, and Snowe. The purpose of this legislation was to remove Federal barriers detrimental to much-needed State and local recycling programs for batteries commonly found in cordless products such as portable telephones, laptop computers, tools, and toys. In addition to facilitating the recycling of rechargeable batteries made out of nickel-cadmium (Ni-Cd), my legislation also codified the phaseout of the use of mercury in batteries. The House of Representatives, on April 23, passed by voice vote under suspension, the House version of the battery bill, H.R. 2024. The House legislation, with the exception of some enforcement-related technical changes to the bill that were advocated by the Environmental Protection Agency, is virtually identical to the language contained in S. 619 that the Senate passed 7 months ago. For the benefit of my colleagues I should like to remind them of what this legislation is intended to do. Most notably the legislation-- First, facilitates the efficient and cost effective collection and recycling or proper disposal of used nickel cadmium (Ni-Cd) and certain other batteries by: (a) establishing a coherent national system of labeling for batteries and products; (b) streamlining the regulatory requirements for battery collection programs for regulated batteries; and (c) encouraging voluntary industry programs by eliminating barriers to funding the collection and recycling or proper disposal of used rechargeable batteries; and second, phase out the use of mercury in batteries. I am pleased to report that not only is H.R. 2024 supported by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Electronic Industries Association, the Portable Rechargeable Battery Association, the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, the National Retail Federation, and the North American Retail Dealers Association, but it is also supported by the Environmental Protection Agency. The prompt passage of this bipartisan legislation will achieve a number of important goals. First, by establishing uniform national standards to promote the recycling and reuse of rechargeable batteries, this legislation provides a costeffective means to promote the reuse of our Nation's resources. Second, this legislation will further strengthen efforts to remove these potentially toxic heavy metals from our Nation's landfills and incinerators. Not only will this lower the threat of groundwater contamination and toxic air emissions, but it will also significantly reduce the threat that these materials pose to the environment. Third, this legislation represents an environmentally friendly policy choice that was developed as the result of a strong cooperative effort between the States, environmental groups, and the affected industries. Mr. President, passage of this legislation will not only provide a significant and positive step in removing potentially toxic heavy metals from our Nation's solid waste stream, but it will also provide a cost-effective and sensible method of protecting the environment. If we adopt H.R. 2024 today, this legislation can be quickly sent to President Clinton for his signature, and we can get to work to get these materials out of our solid waste stream and ensure protection of the environment. I urge its immediate adoption.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 1028, the Health Insurance Reform Act. This is a good bill that will help millions of Americans obtain health care. Today, I would like to discuss four provisions that I believe are central to meaningful health care reform. For years, I have said that Congress should pass targeted reforms that take care of these core issues, and this bill does address three of them. They are: health insurance portability, full tax deductibility for long term care insurance, and deductibility of health insurance for the self-employed. Let me just say for now that we missed a tremendous opportunity to enact tax deductions for medical savings accounts, or MSA's. I will go into that issue in more depth later, but I am very disappointed about its removal from this bill. I can only hope it will prevail in conference. Health care reform is a very complicated and sensitive issue. Before we start restructuring one of the most important sectors of our economy, we need to study the issue thoroughly. We must make sure we approach it in the proper manner, and listen to all concerns. In 1994, I was host to a statewide health care conference that featured leading policy experts from every facet of the health care system. I invited doctors, providers, nurses, patients--everyone who would be impacted by health care reform. From this, everyone who participated gained a greater understanding of the complexities of our health care system. Since that time, I have held citizens' forums to discuss the issue in each of the 10 counties in New Hampshire. In addition to this outreach, I also met privately with every interested group to discuss their specific concerns more deeply. This is the way to approach this issue--open, public forums, where all of the interested parties get to voice their concerns and share their views. I think the lesson of the White House Task Force, which produced the Clinton reform proposal, is that secret meetings and back room deals are not the way to approach a critical issue like this. Congress must act from a position of genuine consideration and understanding. The very best part about open forums is that you get a very good sense of what people want, and don't want. In my experience, I hear overwhelming opposition to a Clinton-style government-run health care system. At the same time, I also hear avid support for the four reforms that I will now discuss. The first concern is that health insurance should be ``portable.'' I feel very strongly about this issue, as I know the rest of my colleagues do. It is of particular concern to individuals who have preexisting conditions. These are people who are terrified of leaving their jobs, being fired or laid off, changing their jobs, or starting their own businesses--because of the risk of becoming uninsured. The freedom to change jobs, or even to become self-employed, is one of the cornerstones of our free market economy. When we picture the America dream, we think of a family, a home, children, a college education. But, I think a big part of the American dream is finding a job that you enjoy, one that fits your interests and skills, and working your way up the ladder of success. This is not always easy. Some people get lucky early in life. They find a good employer and work their way up the company ladder. This was the predominant trend years ago. But for most of us today, the ladder does not go straight up. An individual works at a job for a while and finds that it does not suit him. He may not get along with his boss. Or, maybe he wants to move. Perhaps he wants a larger salary. There are countless reasons why people change jobs these days, and it is a very healthy process. In fact, it has been reported that individuals today hold an average of seven jobs over the course of a lifetime. I have held a number of different jobs throughout my career: teacher, real estate broker, public servant. As I think back, I don't know whether I would have been as comfortable making some of the career decisions I did if I had to risk losing health coverage for myself and my family. The greatest fear that most Americans have in changing jobs is the fear of losing their health coverage. There is a term for it now: ``Job Lock.'' It is the one concern that I hear about over and over again at my citizen forums and constituent meetings. And, it is a concern that applies to the people in our society who are the most vulnerable--people who have chronic health problems, disabilities, injuries, or illnesses. For many of these Americans, finding and holding a job that fits their abilities and interests is not an easy task. For many of these people, there are additional issues related to daily living, caring for children, maintaining a home, transportation, paying the bills, that are particularly challenging for them. The last thing they need, on top of all that, is to be denied health insurance. Most of them have been paying into insurance plans for their whole lives. Now, because they have left their employer, they risk losing everything. It is unfair. Mr. President, it isn't just the worker who benefits from portability reform. In the same way that an employee can become unhappy with his job, sometimes the employer has reasons to let one of his workers go. These employers face tough decisions. It might be a small business owner who finds that he can't balance his books without making some reductions. It is always a tough situation to face, but these are the economic realities of the business world. But what if this same small business owner knows that an employee, perhaps a close friend, has a pre-existing condition of a family member with one? This employer has a terribly difficult decision on his hands. He can keep his employee on, just so that the employee can maintain his health coverage--perhaps risking bankrupting the business--or he can lay him off and let him go without insurance. Health portability is probusiness, because it would allow a small business to make those tough decisions while having the peace-of-mind in knowing that the employee and his family would not lose their health coverage. I have said publicly for years that Congress should do something about portability, and that we do not need socialized medicine to do it. This bill proves that. My State already has an extensive guarantee issue law, so the group-to-individual portability provisions would be superseded by the New Hampshire law. But, frankly, the Kassebaum- Kennedy portability provisions are much more modest than those enacted in my State of New Hampshire. Next, I would like to address the important provision in the bill that provides for an 80 percent tax deduction for health insurance for the self-employed. Mr. President, in discussing the portability provisions, I briefly touched on the issue of individuals who, for one reason or another, choose to be a self-employed. Whether it is running a corner store, or even a family farm, many Americans rely on self-employment for their survival. Additionally, these are many Americans who, for a variety of reasons, from physical disability to spending time with their children, find working at home to be the most appropriate and fulfilling way to earn their income. For these self-employed Americans, health insurance can be a very expensive proposition--so expensive that many choose to go without coverage. There are three main reasons for this. The first and most obvious reason is that the self-employed have to pick up the full cost of the premiums. Most Americans get insurance through their employer. They pay a portion of the premium, but the best is paid by their employers. For these Americans, there is a big incentive to take advantage of this benefit. But the self-employed are forced to pick up the entire premium. This just goes with the territory. The reason I am pointing it out is to highlight the fact that tax deductibility is particularly important for these Americans. The second reason it is so expensive is that individual insurance is much more expensive than group insurance. When I say group insurance, I am generally talking about employer-based insurance. The reason that group plans are cheaper is because the risk is spread over a broad group of people, sick people and healthy people. But, due to the costly nature of individual insurance and the unfavorable tax situation, healthy individuals are less inclined to buy individual plans. Many of them simply choose to go uninsured. Consequently, because there are fewer healthy individuals to spread the risk, individual insurance is very expensive. But the primary reason is the tax situation. And this is very easy to fix. Employers get a 100-percent tax deduction for their contribution to an employee's health premiums. Earlier their year, we did raise the self-employed tax deduction to 30 percent. But, I believe that this is still unfair. It ought to be 100 percent for everyone--employers, self- employed, and the individual policy buyer whose employer does not offer health insurance. This bill raises the deduction for the self-employed insurance premiums to 80 percent. This will go a long way toward eliminating the powerful disincentives for self-employed Americans to buy insurance. It phases the deduction in over 10 years. While I still wish it were 100 percent, and I would like to see it changed right away, this is indeed progress. In addition to helping the self-employed, this bill has a provision that is of great concern to Americans who wish to purchase long-term care insurance. Just today, I had a constituent visit my office from the Alzheimer's Association. Among her primary concerns was this provision to amend the tax code to make long-term care insurance and expenses tax deductible. I know this disease very well, because my father-in-law had Alzheimer's, and I know how expensive long-term care can be. Health care is important, but for many, such as those with Alzheimer's disease, it is activities related to daily living that are the problem. The bill specifically defines these activities to include ``eating, toileting, transferring, bathing, dressing, and continence.'' Under current law, health insurance is tax deductible. But long-term care insurance gets taxed. This bill would provide the same deductibility for long-term care that is currently afforded to health care. Mr. President, the final provision that I would like to discuss is not in this bill, and that is the tax deductibility for Medical Savings Accounts. It was in the Senate Finance Committee's amendment, and it was in the House bill. Unfortunately, this vital provision was defeated on the Senate floor by a vote of 52 to 46. I have discussed the important provisions for self-employed Americans, and employer-based benefits. But, there is another group of people who are in desperate need of help, and that is individuals who are not self-employed, but whose employers do not offer an insurance plan. Many of them are restaurant workers, farm workers, or other people who work for a small employer who cannot offer or chooses not to offer an insurance package. Under current law, these workers get no tax deduction whatsoever. Not 100 percent, not 30 percent--nothing. It is the same for Americans who are unemployed. Huge corporations get a 100-percent tax deduction to subsidize their employees' insurance premiums--from the CEO on down. But someone living paycheck to paycheck whose employer can not provide them with insurance--or someone who is unemployed--gets taxed on the full premium. There are provisions in both the House and Senate bills to allow small businesses join together and form purchasing pools in order to buy insurance at lower rates. The House provisions were somewhat stronger than those in the Senate bill. I am confident that the conferees will work to produce a final version that would greatly increase the number of small businesses that offer insurance to their employees. As helpful as these provisions will be in increasing access to insurance, there will still be millions of Americans whose employers don't offer insurance, or who are unemployed. For these Americans, there is only one provision that would have helped them--and that is the full tax deductibility for Medical Savings Accounts, or MSA's. I can't understand why my colleagues would have voted against it. It will obviously be an important issue in Conference, and I am hopeful that it will make it into the final package. Some have suggested that if we include MSA's in the conference report that it will provoke opposition or even a filibuster by the Democrats. I find it very hard to accept the proposition that Senators would filibuster health care portability reform solely on the basis that we give tax relief for Americans to put money in a savings account for health expenses. I believe that MSA's are vital to true health care portability. By definition, MSA's are the very essence of portability. When we talk about insurance ``portability'' as it pertains to the underlying Kassebaum-Kennedy bill, we are using the term figuratively. The employee isn't really bringing his insurance with him, we are just providing him the freedom to shift from one plan to another without being denied coverage. So, lets take the example of an individual who works for a company for 20 years, and becomes disabled or ill, and must leave his job and give up his employer-based health insurance. Under the bill, he would be able to buy an individual insurance policy. The insurers would have to take him. But it says nothing about how much the insurer could charge. So, when he goes to the individual insurance company, the company is going to evaluate him in terms of the health risk that he poses to the plan. It does not matter if he was insured for 3 years or 30 years, the insurance company would consider only his current health status in determining the premium he would pay. Those 30 years of payments mean nothing to the new insurance company. The only provision that would allow him to transport at least a portion of his coverage is the medical savings account [MSA]. MSA's allow individuals to supplement their insurance policy by investing a certain amount into a tax-free savings account and using that account to pay for their predeductible medical expenses. Any money that the patient has not spent at the end of the year would remain in his account. It is portability in its most pure form. Because it stays with the employee if he change jobs, because it is his account. If he gets fired, and cannot find a job, he still has the MSA. He could even use the MSA to pay his insurance premiums while he tries to find a job. If he moves to a plan that provides a lower level of coverage, he would still have his MSA money to pay for the uncovered expenses. I feel that he should get a tax deduction for this account, just like Americans get for their individual retirement accounts, mortgages, charitable contributions, and health insurance. But, there is another reason that MSA's are important to real health care reform, and that is the increased use of preventive health services. I really believe that preventive health care is the solution to many of our health problems. Most insurance plans have a deductible that people need to meet before their insurance company pays for coverage. This acts as a built- in disincentive for individuals to use preventive health services, and I believe it needs to be at the center of health care reform. For example, let us say a person has an illness such as diabetes. In order to avoid major health problems, they need to maintain an adequate insulin balance, appropriate diet, and so forth. This can become very costly when the patient must pay for needles, insulin, monitoring devices, perhaps dietitian services, and other costs. If these services are not covered, the individual must pay out of pocket. This discourages the use of preventive health care. The unfortunate result is major health problems for these people. For diabetes patients, it might even mean a foot or leg amputation--major short term and long term costs to the insurer, the individual, and his family. Of course, add to that the years of pain and hardship that result from this perhaps preventable situation. Let me explain why MSA's encourage preventive health care. The three major issues that result in individuals not getting preventive health care are: deductibles, copayments, and uncovered or partially covered services. In these three situations, the individual is forced to come up with the money on their own, without help from the insurer. In some cases, this forces the individual to choose between the expenses of daily life--food, rent, heating bill--and paying for the preventive health services. Not surprisingly, it is the preventive services that are often pushed aside. Millions of Americans believe that managed care, so-called health maintenance organizations [HMO's], are the solution to cost control and preventive health care. I would concede that HMO's have done some great things in controlling health care costs in our country. But HMO's still leave the issue of uncovered expenses. There is also the problem where many Americans do not want to join the HMO because they might not be able to keep going to their family doctor, if the doctor does not belong to the HMO. With an MSA, there are no predeductible expenses, no uncovered health expenses, no copayment as long as the individual still has money in his MSA. So the disincentives that discourage individuals from obtaining preventive health care are greatly diminished. A March 14, 1995, policy analysis done by the Cato Institute addressed the successes of MSA's in the current system. Even without the favorable tax treatment, the paper states that in its experience with MSA's under the current system, Golden Rule Insurance Co.'s employees increased their use of preventive care. About 20 percent of the workers with MSAs reported that they used their MSA funds to pay for a medical service they would not have bought under the traditional health insurance policy. That is because the MSA provided the funds at hand that they could use to pay for such services, whereas the traditional policy imposed deductible and coinsurance fees that actually discouraged the use of such services. Moreover, the traditional policy might not cover some services, and the uncertainty alone discouraged workers from obtaining preventive care. But workers know that MSA funds can be used for whatever services they choose. So we can philosophize all we want about why it happens, but I like to look at the hard evidence. When we look at the facts, MSA's increase the use of preventive care. Mr. President, recently this issue has somehow become a partisan issue. Some Democrats have put themselves in the awkward position of saying that people should have to pay taxes on their predeductible health care expenses, copayments, prescription drugs, and other uncovered expenses. They can try to explain that to the voters when the election comes around. But, I think it is worthwhile to briefly review the record here, because historically, this has been a very bipartisan issue, and my colleagues on the other side should be aware of this before they fall on their swords over this so-called controversial provision. I have a series of letters and a television transcript here from House and Senate Democrats in support of MSA's, including Representatives Andrew Jacobs, Robert Torricelli, and House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, as well as Senators John Breaux, Sam Nunn, and the distinguished Senate Democratic leader, Senator Daschle. I also have a letter from the National Mineworkers. These materials clearly show that MSA's have enjoyed broad bipartisan support in the past, and I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. Mr. President, this bill is not perfect. I am sure all of us have changes we would make. I know there are a number of provisions that I would like to see added to the bill. But I am going to vote for it, because I believe it is a big step in the right direction. After the failure of the Clinton socialized medicine plan, Republicans said that we needed a change. We promised Americans that if they gave us a chance, we would give them a real health reform bill--without Big Brother, without the ``standard benefits package,'' without rationing care. We promised them portability and tax relief for the self- employed, and long-term care. We have made good on our promise to the American people and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that letters and a television transcript to which I earlier referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Madam President, I rise in support of Senate Joint Resolution 21, which proposes a constitutional amendment to limit congressional terms. Mr. President, I strongly support term limits for both U.S. Senators and Representatives. The American people want term limits because they recognize that service in Congress should not be a lifetime career, but rather a temporary stewardship. Term limits will bring fresh blood and new ideas into the Congress and dilute the power of the seniority system. Last year's U.S. Supreme Court decision on term limits made clear that the goal of limiting congressional terms cannot be accomplished except by means of a constitutional amendment. This is consistent, of course, with the manner in which Presidential term limits were established more than four decades ago. Madam President, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of Senate Joint Resolution 21, which, in its original form, would have amended the Constitution to limit service in the Senate to two terms of 6 years each and service in the House to three terms of 2 years each. As we wait what I believe is the inevitable addition of a term limits amendment to the Constitution, it is important to keep in mind that term limits are already happening in different ways. Voters already can and do impose term limits in the voting booths. Moreover, voluntary retirements continue at a record pace. Already in 1996, a record 13 Senators have announced their retirements. It is also important, Madam President, to keep in mind that term limits are not a panacea. But they are a start--a start toward a Congress that is even more representative and responsive to ``We the People.''

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Georgia for yielding. As we celebrate the 26th anniversary of Earth Day, Americans will again have an opportunity to reflect on many of our past environment successes and, frankly, some shortcomings, which I hope we will be able to address. We should also take this opportunity to set a course to correct any past failures regarding the protection and restoration of our precious environment, as well as dwelling and focusing on those that have been successful. Let me, as many of my colleagues before me have done, set the record straight once again, Mr. President. We are all environmentalists here in the Senate. I think most of us would call ourselves environmentalists in the United States of America as citizens. This is a beautiful country. It is home to all of us. The environment is not a Democratic issue. It is not a Republican issue. It should be a bipartisan issue. I very frankly and honestly, as one who has worked for the past 2 years on the Superfund bill, take great issue with those who would somehow accuse me or anyone else in my party of being antienvironment. Yet that is happening. Unfortunately, the political environment has become so partisan during this Congress that it is almost outrageous. My children, I think, would like to drink clean water. I certainly recognize the fact that President Clinton's daughter might like to drink clean water. I hope you will recognize that my two sons and my daughter would like to drink clean water as well. My family breathes the same air as Vice President Gore and his family and the President and his family. I have enjoyed fishing and hiking in the trails and ponds and lakes and streams of New Hampshire, probably some of the same lakes and streams that some of the people in the administration have. We are very proud of the fact that in northern New Hampshire we have the great northern forests which are protected by landowners, as well as the Federal Government. But landowners take good care of that land and have been good stewards. We are very proud of what they have done to protect that land. I think most of the environmental laws on the books today were initiated--not just signed; were not vetoed, certainly--but were initiated by Republican Presidents--Theodore Roosevelt, George Bush, Richard Nixon, to name just a few. They have very strong environmental protection records. Our National Park System was started under President Theodore Roosevelt. The EPA was started under Richard Nixon. The Clean Air Act amendments and the Oil Pollution Act were under George Bush. They were all initiated under Republican administrations. Yes, the Congress, many Democrats in Congress, sent those bills to the President's desk. My point is it is a bipartisan matter, and these bills were signed. One statute, though, I have been involved in stands out as one of the least effective. That is a bill called Superfund. Mr. President, $30 billion has been spent over 15 years to clean up 50 sites. If you do the math on that, it does not work out very well. I have devoted many hours on developing appropriate reforms to this failed program. Our goal is to change this program from one of litigation and wasted resources and delay to one that actually cleans up hazardous sites expeditiously. While Republicans and Democrats agree on the need for reform, there is still some disagreement on how to get there. One of the basic problems with the current Superfund Program is that it is more focused on process than results, more focused on litigation and arguing than on getting results. I issue a challenge now to my Democrat colleagues on the other side of the aisle and say that we are ready--Majority Leader Dole is ready, I am ready, and Senator Chafee is ready to get a bipartisan Superfund bill and put it on the President's desk. I challenge my colleagues not to play politics with this bill and help us get it there. A number of environmental laws are long overdue. For 3 years, I have been involved in efforts to reauthorize the Safe Drinking Water Act as was Senators Chafee, Kempthorne, and others. The vote was 99 to 0. I find it hard to believe that we can be accused of being antienvironment. There is no doubt that the environmental movement in the 1970's served an important purpose. Our air and water are cleaner today and continue to improve. Now is the time to reflect on the successes and build upon them and address some of the failures, so that we can get more bang for the buck. Let us face it, many of the things that have been done to clean up the environment have been done, but pollution controls from this point forward will be very expensive. We need to be able to pick and choose the best technology and be up to speed on that. Carol Browner, the EPA Administrator, said, ``We need to develop better, smarter, cheaper regulations.'' I could not agree more. Is the environment getting cleaner? Yes, thanks to a lot of bipartisan leadership over a lot of years. Are there less expensive efforts to achieve the same or higher level of protection? I think the answer is yes. I think we have an obligation to look at those least expensive methods, and one condition is that it does not detract in any way from the pace of cleanup of the environment. To what degree should the Federal Government mandate regulations on States and local communities without providing adequate resources to comply? That is another question we need to ask. But there are a number of themes that my Republican colleagues and I believe should be the foundation for effective improvements in current environmental law. One should be that we ought to promote sound, effective market-based environmental regulations, because when you bring the market in, you save the taxpayers money and you bring the businesses in as a partnership. Therefore, since they are responsible for some of the problems, they are willing to help us clean them up. We must recognize that States and local communities often do a better job of protecting the environment within their borders than the Federal Government can. So, partners, not enemies. We must incorporate better risk management and cost-benefit analysis in our environmental regulations that will enable us to prioritize our goals. We must base our environmental decisions on the highest quality, peer-reviewed science, not questionable, unreliable data and unfair politics. Finally, and most important, our goal is to enhance, not detract from, a cleaner environment, to enhance it. That is our goal, not just to save dollars for the sake of saving dollars. If it detracts from our environment, then we spend the money. And if we can spend less and do more and accelerate the pace, why not do it? We have an obligation to do that. I ask my colleagues to take a look at that and realize that just because we say we can do it better, not less efficiently, that does not necessarily mean it is negative. We all want a clean, healthy environment to pass on to future generations. It is one of our most important responsibilities. However, the American people also believe we need to reduce Government waste and bureaucracy, to update environmental programs, to address problems more effectively and allow American business to remain more competitive. If we can do all of those things and enhance the environment, we ought to do it. My Republican colleagues and I are trying to accomplish these goals. We consider such things as cost benefits and risks and rewards not as trivial, but as very important. We must strive to prioritize risk reduction and get the biggest bang for the buck in every American program. That is just common sense. Environmental policy is at a crossroads, Mr. President. We have a historic opportunity to improve our environmental laws so that they better serve the American people. That is not to say that we have failed in the past. We have many, many, many successes, including the Merrimack River in my State, which is now beginning to see fish and recreation again. It should not be controversial. We all live on this planet, and we should be working together on this. If there is anything we ought not to be partisan about, it ought to be the environment. I will close on this point. This week, as Earth Day commences, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee begins hearings on a Superfund bill. During the Earth Day festivities, Americans will be presented with a number of conflicting images of what is good for the environment and what is not. It is my hope that the President and Members of Congress, as I said earlier, will rise above the urge to exploit this event for short-term political gain and join our efforts to inject common sense and fairness into the Nation's Superfund Program, which is the one program which I happen to be involved in because I chair the subcommittee. So, Mr. President, at this point, I yield the floor and thank my colleagues, and I thank the Senator from Georgia for the opportunity to speak on this very important issue.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate a hard- working New Hampshire entrepreneur, Chuck Henderson, on being named the 1996 New Hampshire Small Business Person of the Year. The New Hampshire Small Business Administration (SBA) recently honored Chuck with this award, and in June, he will receive special recognition from the President. In 1969, as a young high school student, Chuck started a business by developing his first skiing product. Twenty-six years later, Chuck is the proud owner of Chuck Roast Equipment, Inc., which now offers more than 100 products for cold weather. His company is nationally known and employs 47 people. Chuck grew up in Conway, NH, and undoubtedly saw a need for warm clothing during the severe winter months. Snow gaiters were the first products he developed while in high school in response to wet socks and pants during cross country skiing. Chuck Roast Equipment, Inc., now has an extensive line of high-quality outerwear. His company has been one of the leaders in the production of pile clothing, and its brightly colored and patterned fleece jackets and pullovers are popular across the country. Other products include hats, mittens, blankets, daypacks, and baby buntings. He now sells to over 300 retailers, exports to six countries, and operates three retail stores in the State. As a dedicated entrepreneur, Chuck attributes the success of his business to perseverance, hiring and keeping competent and loyal employees while also diversifying the product line when the need arises. He also donates baby bunting to every baby born at Memorial Hospital in North Conway and is involved in other community service projects. He credits the SBA and its resource partners, the Service Corps of Retired Executives [SCORE] and the New Hampshire Small Business Development Center [SNDC] with helping Chuck Roast get started and grow to be the success company it is today. His company received several SBA loans and the assistance from the agency's export finance program. Small business is the backbone of our economy in the United States. I am proud to honor Chuck for preserving and establishing a thriving business in New Hampshire. He has devoted himself to working hard and providing our State with warm clothes during the harsh winters. Congratulations to Chuck and all the employees at Chuck Roast Equipment, Inc., for this prestigious recognition.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate a Nashua, NH, resident, Judi Bayly and her 8-year-old Irish setter, Lyric, who dialed 911 and helped save Judi's life when she noticed Judi had stopped breathing. Last month, Judi Bayly who has asthma and sleep apnea, stopped breathing temporarily. When the oxygen generator she uses became unplugged and the alarm sounded, Judi did not hear it as she slept. Lyric, her Irish setter, did and tried to alert Judi by barking, pawing and sniffing at her. Unfortunately, Judi didn't wake up so Lyric dialed 911. When rescuers arrived at Judi's house, Lyric continued to bark and guided them to her. Amazingly, Lyric has also saved Judi's life twice before by dialing 911. Although Lyric is trained by Service Dogs America in New York to recognize Judi's seizures, Lyric has a special loyalty to Judi and is by her side constantly. As an emergency medical technician, Judi also trains dogs professionally. She has bred Irish setters before and she and her husband own three of Lyric's puppies. I admire Judi's devotion to her dogs and her promotion of the use of trained dogs. Lyric is an exceptional dog and deserves the national recognition she has seen over the past few weeks. Lyric is an example of a truly sensitive and astute dog. As a dog lover myself, I congratulate Lyric and her owner on a job well done!

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise to commend Senator Hatch and the other members of the conference committee for incorporating what originated in this Congress as my bill, S. 270, the Alien Terrorist Removal Act of 1995, into the conference report on S. 735, the Anti- Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. I also want to thank Senator Specter again for the opportunity to testify before his Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism last summer regarding my alien terrorist removal bill. My bill--now the alien terrorist removal section of the conference report on S. 735--essentially embodies the Smith-Simpson amendment that the Senate passed unanimously as part of the crime bill in the last Congress. Unfortunately, certain House members of the conference committee on the 1994 crime bill insisted on the deletion of the Smith- Simpson amendment from that legislation. After I introduced S. 270 early in the first session of this Congress, the Clinton administration proposed its own substantially identical version of my bill as part of its omnibus antiterrorism legislation. Then, in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing, Senators Dole and Hatch introduced S. 735, which incorporated the substance of my bill, S. 270. S. 735, of course, passed the Senate by a vote of 91 to 8 last June. Unfortunately, when S. 735 reached the House, the alien terrorist removal provisions of the Senate-passed bill were removed from the legislation. Commendably, however, Senator Hatch steadfastly insisted that the conference committee include an alien terrorist removal section in its conference report on S. 735. Fortunately for our Nation, Senator Hatch succeeded in that effort. Let me summarize briefly for the benefit of my colleagues what the alien terrorist removal section of S. 735 is all about. The alien terrorist removal provisions of the bill would establish a new, special, judicial procedure under which classified information can be used to establish the deportability of alien terrorists. The new procedures that are established under section 401 of S. 735 are carefully designed to safeguard vitally important national security interests, while at the same time according appropriate protection to the necessarily limited due process rights of aliens. Under current law, Mr. President, classified information cannot be used to establish the deportability of terrorist aliens. Thus, when there is insufficient unclassified information available to establish the deportability of a terrorist alien, the Government faces two equally unacceptable choices. First, the Justice Department could declassify enough of its evidence against the alien in question to establish his deportability. Sometimes, however, that simply cannot be done because the classified information in question is so sensitive that its disclosure would endanger the lives of human sources or compromise highly sensitive methods of intelligence gathering. The Government's second, and equally untenable, choice would be simply to let the terrorist alien involved remain in the United States. Sadly, Mr. President, what I have just described is not a hypothetical situation. It happens in real cases. That is why the Department of Justice, under both Republican and Democratic Presidents and Attorneys General, has been asking for the authority granted by my bill--now section 401 of S. 735--since 1988. Utilizing the existing definitions of terrorism in the Immigration Act of 1990 and of classified information in the Classified Information Procedures Act, section 401 of S. 735 would establish a special alien terrorist removal court comprised of sitting U.S. district judges designated by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. This new alien removal court is modeled on the special court that was created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Under section 401 of S. 735, the U.S. district judge sitting as the special court would personally review the classified information involved in camera and ex parte. Where possible, without compromising the classified information involved, the alien in question would be provided with an unclassified summary of the classified information in order to assist him in preparing a defense. Ultimately, the special court would determine whether, considering the record as a whole, the Justice Department has proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the alien is a terrorist who should be removed from the United States. Finally, Mr. President, any alien who is ordered removed under the provisions of section 401 of S. 735 would have the right to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Mr. President, the most serious national security threat that our Nation faces in the post-cold-war world is the scourge of international terrorism. That threat became reality in 1993 with the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in New York City. Tragically, with the Oklahoma City bombing 1 year ago this week, we learned the bitter lesson that we face the threat of terrorism from domestic extremists as well. Now, this historic 104th Congress is responding, strongly and effectively, to address the twin terrorist threats that we face. I urge the prompt adoption of the conference report on S. 735 by the Senate and, once again, I commend the conferees for incorporating my alien terrorist removal bill into their landmark legislation.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, last night, the Senate passed the ``Contract With America Advancement Act.'' I rise to speak to one provision of that legislation, which I believe is a significant achievement for senior citizens. That is the ``Senior Citizens' Right to Work Act of 1996.'' This legislation raises the Social Security earnings limit to $30,000 by the year 2002, more than double what it would be under current law. Every year, the earnings limitation test takes $1 of every $3 that Social Security beneficiaries 65 to 69 years old earn above $11,280. I hear from hundreds of senior citizens every year complaining that this test is unfair. And they are correct. In fact, the earnings test affects an estimated 1.4 million beneficiaries each year. More importantly, Mr. President, the earnings test flies right smack in the fact of the most basic principles we teach our kids in grade school economics. Specifically: no work, no pay. Can you imagine trying to explain a system that pays people not to work? Well, that is what our Social Security system does with the earnings test. You might argue that our welfare system has similar disincentives, and you would be absolutely right. The Republican Congress is trying to fix that. If only we could overcome the little obstacle of President Clinton's veto pen, we would be well on our way to real welfare reform. But, the earnings test takes this perverse concept one step further. And this is where we really get into the fairness issue. It says that if you are wealthy and you get your income through interest or dividends, you get full benefits. But, if you are poor and need to work to supplement your income, you get penalized. Seniors have been waiting a long time for this reform. It was in the Contract With America, and it is a part of the Republican Party Platform. I am pleased that we are about to make good on our promise to America's seniors.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to some unsung heroes of the United States: the employees of Raytheon Electronic Systems Division in Andover, MA. Each year, the Congress evaluates the military requirements of our Nation and the pros and cons of various weapons systems. We routinely make decisions that affect the livelihoods of literally thousands of American workers. While we strive to be objective and to make sound judgments, this human component does not always get the attention it deserves. Today I want to take this opportunity to honor the men and women of Raytheon who devote their lives to the defense of this Nation. They do not often get a lot of publicity or see their names in the paper, but they are a collection of true American heroes. They deserve our respect and admiration. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I have the unique responsibility of overseeing the development and acquisition of the systems needed to defend our Nation. I see first hand the contribution these employees make to our national security. It is enormous. Whether building key components for the Patriot missile system, or the AMRAAM, or the ground based radar, these workers are constantly striving to expand the state-of-the-art, and to deliver the best possible product at the most efficient cost. They are a family, these workers from New Hampshire and Massachusetts, committed to a noble calling. And the fruits of their labors are the freedoms and security that we hold so dear. As we prepare for the upcoming authorization and appropriations processes, I ask my colleagues to reflect for a moment upon these great patriots. They were the backbone of our military in the cold war and Desert Storm. They are the ones whose innovations and dedication are helping to preserve our prosperity in the future. Their service is an inspiration for those of us who are privileged to represent them here in Washington. In an uncertain and dangerous world, we can take much comfort in the knowledge that the men and women of Raytheon Electronic Systems Division are on the job, each and every day, tirelessly striving to produce the technologies and systems to defend this great Nation.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise before you today to plea for the support of the world's wives, daughters, mother, and loved ones who prevail under a merciless dark shadow we've come to know as breast cancer. Over the past two decades, the risk of acquiring breast cancer has nearly tripled; from 1 in 20, to 1 in 8. Breast cancer alone is predicted to murder over 184,300 American women this year. To date, researchers have not been able to locate its cause or find a technique to eradicate it. Paramount in our struggle to save our loved ones is the frequent inspection to detect possible irregularities. Caught early, measures can be undertaken to lower the risk of a further contamination of the body. However, the postponing of medical attention could result in the cancer expanding into the bloodstream, carrying tumor cells to the liver, lungs, and bones. Once diagnosed, the style of treatment is decided between the patient and the physician after considering the stage and type of cancer in question. Most often, a modified mastectomy--the removal of only the breast tissue--or a lumpectomy--the local removal of the tumor--followed by radiotherapy is the standard method. Unfortunately, the pain and suffering do not end after surgery. Once involved in therapy, the real struggle to return to a life lost begins. What is commonly overlooked in the rehabilitation of a breast cancer victim is the unrestrictive support by loved ones as a means of therapy, and in most cases, this is vital to their recovery. Families facing cancer are severally challenged as their lives become increasingly complex. Psychosocial research has shown that the stress of adopting new roles, relating to and communicating with others, self- care responsibilities, and the over all nature of the cancer experience can cause unrest in the family unit. This in turn, greatly influences and in most cases, hinders the complete healing process. On the other hand, families that have stood by and supported relatives by educating themselves and responding properly tot he needs of the victim were able to significantly add to the recovery process. Therefore, I believe that as we work toward advancements in treatment, cure, and diagnosis of breast cancer, our programs must also stress involvement by family members in the care and support of loved ones.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the line-item veto bill before the Senate today, and urge my colleagues to pass this overdue measure. As a long-time opponent of pork-barrel spending, I am glad we are taking this first small step toward fiscal sanity. When I attend a town meeting, or hold a briefing on the Federal budget, I often hear a common sentiment: ``Why does Congress want to change Medicare, or education, or whatever, when we are spending $5 million on Hawaiian arts and crafts?'' It is a question that cannot be answered. Pork-barrel spending may constitute a relatively small portion of the overall budget, but it represents a very symbolic part of the budget. If Congress cannot cut the little spending items, how on Earth can we make the difficult decisions on the larger programs? Will the line-item veto balance the Federal budget? Of course not. But it will help restore discipline to our budget process. It is no secret that special projects and narrow interest provisions are often included in large spending bills. We often see $1 or $2 million projects tucked away in multibillion budget measures. A Senator or Congressman will issue a press release about the wonderful project, and then feel compelled to vote for the overall bill. Slowly, but surely, the spending bills begin to add up and the problem becomes worse. The pork-barrel spending is the grease that allows the budget process to move forward. And that budget process has led this Nation to a $5 trillion national debt. The line-item veto bill will give the President--who has a national constituency with a national interest--the tool he needs to cut projects that serve a narrow constituency with a special interest. The legislation before the Senate today allows the President to veto appropriations, targeted tax provisions, and new entitlement spending. Any of these provisions, if passed separately, are now subject to a Presidential veto and a two-thirds override requirement. The line-item veto bill is a natural and simple extension of that constitutional power. Projects worthy of scarce Federal tax dollars should stand or fall on their own merit, not on the merit of a larger unrelated bill. Mr. President, I have supported and cosponsored line-item veto legislation for more than a decade. It has been a long and arduous fight. I, for one, am glad that the fight is finally over. I commend my colleagues--Senator McCain and Senator Coats--for their hard work on behalf of this landmark legislation. This line-item veto bill before the Senate today will certainly stand the test of time.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the students of the Londonderry High School Marching Band and Colorguard who will be representing the State of New Hampshire in the 1997 Rose Parade next January. All the band members including Andrew Soucy, the band's director, deserve special commendation for their hard work and achievement. Being selected for the Tournament of Roses Parade is quite an honor for a high school band. The Lancer Marching Band has a proud tradition of representing the Granite State in parades across the country. They have also performed in Washington, DC, for the St. Patrick's Day Parade, at Foxboro Stadium for the New England Patriots football team, and this will be the second time the Londonderry Lancers will appear in the Pasadena Tournament of Roses Parade. The Lancers should be very proud of their efforts because only the very best bands in the country are asked to participate in this nationally recognized New Years Day parade. The young men and women of the Lancer Band and Colorguard demonstrate the hard work and dedication that is characteristic of the Granite State students. As special participants in the Tournament of Roses Parade, these students have proven that determination and teamwork are the hallmark of success both as musicians and students. We are honored to have the Lancer Band and Colorguard representing New Hampshire with their outstanding musical performances. Mr. President, I want to express my thanks to both the students and faculty at Londonderry High School for their commitment to excellence. Congratulations again on such a magnificent accomplishment.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the American Legion Post No. 88 in Loudon, NH on their 50th anniversary. On January 18, 1946, the American Legion Post No. 88 applied for their first charter. Exactly a month later, the members of Post No. 88 held their first meeting and began planning activities for the community. The original Post No. 88 application had 15 names including H.L. Annis, C.H. Derby, C.B. Hall, S.B. Hall, W.G. Harrison, Laura A. Hayward, R.C. Lovering, W.L. Manchester, G.P. Marcotte, H. McCoy, P.E. Morrill, P.W. Ordway, L.C. Palmer, D.P. Reardon and D.B. Stuart. W.L. Manchester was first the Commander of Post No. 88. This milestone of 50 years is a significant accomplishment for all the post members. The members of Post No. 88 have become an integral part of the Loudon community and donate hundreds of hours of service to their community each year. So many veterans, children and needy families have been touched by the assistance these legionnaires provide through their volunteer work. They visit fellow veterans in local hospitals, coordinate youth programs and are involved with numerous Boy Scout and 4-H groups who use the post headquarters for meetings. Post No. 88 also participates in the nationwide legion efforts which include: sponsoring students for both Boys and Girls State, sponsoring poster contests that focus on patriotism in local schools, writing and mailing letters to American troops in Bosnia, recycling, collecting eyeglasses for the needy, helping the elderly with housing, and making quilts for at-risk children. All the members of Post No. 88 deserve a special word of appreciation for serving the Loudon and Concord communities so diligently. Many people have greatly benefited from their goodwill and charity. Fifty years ago, Post No. 88 opened its doors to the town of Loudon. Just last month, exactly 50 years later, a special anniversary program for Post No. 88 was held in the original building on South Village Road. In fact, one of charter members of the auxiliary unit, Marion Stuart, attended the ceremony. We are truly fortunate to have such a caring group of individuals at the American Legion Post No. 88. For half a century, these members have exemplified goodwill and concern for their needy neighbors and their efforts will no doubt continue for the next 50 years. As a veteran, I congratulate Post No. 88 on their steadfast service to Loudon and Concord. New Hampshire is truly indebted to the Loudon American Legion Post No. 88.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I want to thank my friend and colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Chafee, for working with me to enact a comprehensive Superfund reform measure. As Senator Chafee oulined, on September 29, 1995, I introduced S. 1285, the Accelerated Cleanup and Environmental Restoration Act. This legislation, which was cosponsored by Senator Chaffee and nine other members, was an effort to provide comprehensive reform of this troubled program. I would like to thank Senator Chafee, the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee for his strong support in this effort. Over the last year, he and I have worked cooperatively to reform this program, and it is because of his assistance that I believe that this legislation can be passed this year. As Senator Chafee has mentioned, he and I are here today to continue the process toward making sure that reasonable Superfund reform legislation will reach the floor this Spring. To achieve this goal, our respective staffs have spent more than 150 hours with Democrats on the Senate Environment Committee as well as representatives of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Justice Department, and the White House working toward achieving a bipartisan consensus toward reauthorizing the Superfund Program. In a few moments, I will ask to be entered into the Record a copy of a staff discussion draft outlining changes that Senator Chafee and I are willing to make to achieve bipartisan consensus on this issue. As Senator Chafee stated, this is a snapshot of where we currently are in negotiations. Let me be clear: this draft includes changes that I found to be constructive and reasonable--without compromising the underlying principles necessary for real Superfund reform. I remain committed to passing a strong bill that reduces litigation and accelerates clean up. As Senator Chafee indicated, the committee intends to hold a hearing the week we return from the Easter recess. At that point in time, interested parties will have the opportunity to testify on a final product that will be used for markup. Additional agreements and disagreements will be worked out in the normal committee process through amendment. Before I describe some of the details of this proposal, I would like to say a few words what this draft is and what it is not. During the last few months our staffs have met with hundreds of individuals who are interested in the future of this program, and who have provided us with specific comments about S. 1285. We have carefully weighted these comments, and this staff discussion draft, in part, is intended to respond to some of those concerns. This draft is also intended to address some of the concerns that have been raised by Governors, the Clinton administration, Senate Democrats, as well as other interested parties. While this language represents a good faith effort address some of these concerns, these changes have not been agreed to by any other parties, and we are continuing to negotiate and address concerns that have been raised. Indeed, there are areas of this bill, including federal facilities issues, amendments to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and natural resource damages, that we have not yet had the opportunity to fully address in these negotiations. Nonetheless, as Senator Chafee has pointed out, we wanted to provide a window into our ongoing negotiations, and allow interested parties to have the opportunity to comment on these proposed changes. And again, it is important for me to stress that a final product will be forthcoming. Where we are in agreement, we will agree. Where we are in disagreement, we will agree to disagree, and move on with the process. One area I do want to spend some time on this evening is the issue of liability reform. As many of my colleagues may know, when we released our initial liability reform proposal in September, there were some members on our side of the aisle who felt that we had limited our horizons too much when we proposed a 50 percent tax credit for pre-1980 disposal activities. Although I was convinced, and continue to believe that our proposal had a great deal of merit, we have nonetheless decided to modify this section to address these concerns. The liability proposal in the staff discussion draft, I believe, will provide significant liability reform, and will vastly diminish the scope and nature of ongoing litigation. In particular, our proposal would have the effect of eliminating liability for parties at multiparty disposal sites--those sites where there was an off-site generator or transporter--for disposal activities that occurred prior to December 11, 1980. These sites involve some of the most contentious and expensive litigation in the Superfund Program and have only helped to slow down the pace of cleanups. This litigation has not helped to address this important environmental problem, but instead, has hindered the ability to protect human health and the environment in the shortest time possible. By providing orphan share contribution for these costs, I believe that we will not only significantly reduce the contentious nature of this litigation, but our reforms will allow these sites to be cleaned up faster. Our liability proposal provides that deminimis parties, such as small mom and pop businesses, will be eliminated from the liability net if they were responsible for disposing of less than 1 percent of the volume of materials at a site prior to December 11, 1980, or if they disposed less than 200 pounds or 110 gallons of materials at an NPL site. This change will significantly reduce the number of parties at these sites who are needlessly dragged into the quagmire of litigation. Our legislation will not only eliminate their liability, but it will also provide for an up-front determination that they are not subject to this damaging and costly litigation process. In addition, this staff discussion draft also provides a 10 percent cap on the total amount of liability for those municipalities whose potential liability resulted only from generating or transporting municipal solid waste or sewage sludge. This change, combined with the orphan share contribution for pre-1980 disposal at multiparty sites, will provide significant relief for cities and towns caught in the Superfund liability net. I would be remiss if I did not discuss changes that we have proposed to make in the remedy selection portion of S. 1285. In the legislation we introduced in September, we proposed eliminating the requirements under current law that mandate the use of applicable, relevant, and appropriate State and Federal environmental cleanup laws. Both Senator Chafee and I received a significant number of comments from States about this provision. After a good deal of reflection, we decided to provide that applicable State and Federal cleanup laws can be applied to these hazardous waste cleanups. There are a number of other issues that have been raised about the remedy selection portion of this legislation, including provisions related to groundwater cleanup, that we have not modified at this time. However, I do want to note that these issues are under discussion, and this draft does not represent our final proposal on this section. Mr. President, Senator Chafee and I are here on the floor today to declare that Superfund reform is alive and well. As Senator Chafee has mentioned, he and I are here today to continue the process towards making sure that significant Superfund reform legislation will reach the floor this Spring. While our colleagues have not heard much from us recently, this does not mean we have not been working hard--we have. This is not to say that we still don't have a ways to go--we do. I believe that the discussions we have been involved in over the last few weeks have been fruitful and have been conducted in good faith. Our colleagues, the President, and all parties involved in this program have frequently stated that they want comprehensive Superfund reform. Frankly, given its inadequacies, we simply can not afford to push Superfund reform off for another year. If our colleagues, including those on both sides of the aisle--as well as those in the White House-- can keep the rhetoric down, we believe that we can pass a comprehensive Superfund reauthorization bill this year that will ensure faster, safer and cheaper cleanups. Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the legislation introduced today by Senator Dole regarding national missile defense. I am proud to be an original cosponsor, and I want to commend Senator Dole for his steadfast commitment to defending America. Mr. President, our Nation is walking a very dangerous tightrope. For reasons that are unknown and certainly inconceivable to most Americans, President Clinton refuses to defend our country against ballistic missiles, even though the technology to do so is available today. The truth is our Nation is absolutely, completely vulnerable to ballistic missiles. We have no defense whatsoever against a missile targeted on our territory, our industry, our national treasures, or our people. The Patriot missiles that everyone remembers from Desert Storm 5 years ago are not capable of stopping a long-range missile. In fact, they can only defend very small areas against short-range missiles. The Patriot is a point-defense system that we send along with our troops when they go into harm's way. But here at home we have no defenses against long-range missiles based in China, in Russia, or in North Korea. We have no defenses against the missiles that Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Libya are so vigorously seeking to acquire. That is the truth. That is a fact. And that is unacceptable. When told of this situation, the vast majority of Americans become enraged. They cannot understand why their elected Representatives would leave them defenseless against the likes of Saddam Hussein, Mu'ammar Qadhafi, or Kim Jong-Il. They cannot understand why the tax dollars that they contribute for national defense are not being used to protect them. Frankly, they have every right to be upset. There is simply no excuse. The Congress agrees with the American people and took action last year to defend all Americans against ballistic missiles, whatever their source. In the Defense authorization bill for fiscal year 1996, Congress established a program to develop and deploy a national missile defense system for the United States. This program was not some elaborate star wars concept, but rather, a very modest yet capable ground-based system that would provide a limited defense of America against accidental, unauthorized, or hostile missile attacks. But President Clinton vetoed the Defense bill specifically because of the requirement to defend America. In fact, in his statement of administration policy, the President called national missile defense quote ``unwarranted and unnecessary.'' Mr. President, that is a very insightful quote, and it gets right to the heart of the differences between President Clinton, Presidential candidate Bob Dole, and the Republican Congress. To President Clinton, providing for the common defense is ``unwarranted and unnecessary.'' To the Congress and Senator Dole, it is the most fundamental of our constitutional responsibilities. Simply put, this is a defining issue. It is an issue that defines our Nation's character and commitment to its people. It is an issue that defines the two parties. It is an issue that defines the very basic difference between two men who are seeking the Presidency. It is an issue that history will undoubtedly look back and pass judgment upon and, for better or worse, it is an issue that will define our generation. Mr. President, if we fail to take action to defend America now, while we still have the chance, we will certainly regret it. At some point in the very near future, we will have waited too long. The theoretical threat of a hostile ballistic missile launch will have become a reality. And we will have no defense against it. What will it take for President Clinton to recognize this threat? Must a ballistic missile equipped with a chemical, biological, or nuclear warhead rain down upon citizens before he will act? Must tens of thousands of Americans perish before he corrects this terrible vulnerability. To those of us who are cosponsoring this legislation, the answer is, ``No.'' The time to act is now, not tomorrow. Our Nation is in jeopardy. Ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction are spreading throughout the world and we cannot stop them. In fact, some 30 nations currently possess, or are actively acquiring, weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. Just yesterday, the United Nations admitted that Iraq is covertly storing up to 16 ballistic missiles armed with chemical or biological warheads. Iraq is the most inspected and thoroughly monitored country in the world. If we cannot find these missiles in the deserts of Iraq, how can we expect to track them in the mountains and valleys of China, North Korea, Iran, or Syria? The answer is, We can't, and even if we could, we have no system to counter them. The only solution is to develop missile defenses. This bill does just that, and would require that our Nation deploy a national missile defense system capable of protecting all Americans by the year 2003. Mr. President, this is not about politics. It is not about partisanship. It is about national security and keeping faith with those who elected us and those who depend upon us to safeguard their lives and property. If we ignore this obligation, we will have failed in our most fundamental constitutional responsibility. To me that is unacceptable. It runs against every principle that I stand for, and as long as I have a breath in my body, I will fight to prevent that from happening. Mr. President, I want to again thank the distinguished majority leader for bringing this issue before the Senate. He does our Nation a profound service by highlighting the missile defense issue, and I am proud to cosponsor this important legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the legislation introduced today by Senator Dole regarding national missile defense. I am proud to be an original cosponsor, and I want to commend Senator Dole for his steadfast commitment to defending America. Mr. President, our Nation is walking a very dangerous tightrope. For reasons that are unknown and certainly inconceivable to most Americans, President Clinton refuses to defend our country against ballistic missiles, even though the technology to do so is available today. The truth is our Nation is absolutely, completely vulnerable to ballistic missiles. We have no defense whatsoever against a missile targeted on our territory, our industry, our national treasures, or our people. The Patriot missiles that everyone remembers from Desert Storm 5 years ago are not capable of stopping a long-range missile. In fact, they can only defend very small areas against short-range missiles. The Patriot is a point-defense system that we send along with our troops when they go into harm's way. But here at home we have no defenses against long-range missiles based in China, in Russia, or in North Korea. We have no defenses against the missiles that Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Libya are so vigorously seeking to acquire. That is the truth. That is a fact. And that is unacceptable. When told of this situation, the vast majority of Americans become enraged. They cannot understand why their elected Representatives would leave them defenseless against the likes of Saddam Hussein, Mu'ammar Qadhafi, or Kim Jong-Il. They cannot understand why the tax dollars that they contribute for national defense are not being used to protect them. Frankly, they have every right to be upset. There is simply no excuse. The Congress agrees with the American people and took action last year to defend all Americans against ballistic missiles, whatever their source. In the Defense authorization bill for fiscal year 1996, Congress established a program to develop and deploy a national missile defense system for the United States. This program was not some elaborate star wars concept, but rather, a very modest yet capable ground-based system that would provide a limited defense of America against accidental, unauthorized, or hostile missile attacks. But President Clinton vetoed the Defense bill specifically because of the requirement to defend America. In fact, in his statement of administration policy, the President called national missile defense quote ``unwarranted and unnecessary.'' Mr. President, that is a very insightful quote, and it gets right to the heart of the differences between President Clinton, Presidential candidate Bob Dole, and the Republican Congress. To President Clinton, providing for the common defense is ``unwarranted and unnecessary.'' To the Congress and Senator Dole, it is the most fundamental of our constitutional responsibilities. Simply put, this is a defining issue. It is an issue that defines our Nation's character and commitment to its people. It is an issue that defines the two parties. It is an issue that defines the very basic difference between two men who are seeking the Presidency. It is an issue that history will undoubtedly look back and pass judgment upon and, for better or worse, it is an issue that will define our generation. Mr. President, if we fail to take action to defend America now, while we still have the chance, we will certainly regret it. At some point in the very near future, we will have waited too long. The theoretical threat of a hostile ballistic missile launch will have become a reality. And we will have no defense against it. What will it take for President Clinton to recognize this threat? Must a ballistic missile equipped with a chemical, biological, or nuclear warhead rain down upon citizens before he will act? Must tens of thousands of Americans perish before he corrects this terrible vulnerability. To those of us who are cosponsoring this legislation, the answer is, ``No.'' The time to act is now, not tomorrow. Our Nation is in jeopardy. Ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction are spreading throughout the world and we cannot stop them. In fact, some 30 nations currently possess, or are actively acquiring, weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. Just yesterday, the United Nations admitted that Iraq is covertly storing up to 16 ballistic missiles armed with chemical or biological warheads. Iraq is the most inspected and thoroughly monitored country in the world. If we cannot find these missiles in the deserts of Iraq, how can we expect to track them in the mountains and valleys of China, North Korea, Iran, or Syria? The answer is, We can't, and even if we could, we have no system to counter them. The only solution is to develop missile defenses. This bill does just that, and would require that our Nation deploy a national missile defense system capable of protecting all Americans by the year 2003. Mr. President, this is not about politics. It is not about partisanship. It is about national security and keeping faith with those who elected us and those who depend upon us to safeguard their lives and property. If we ignore this obligation, we will have failed in our most fundamental constitutional responsibility. To me that is unacceptable. It runs against every principle that I stand for, and as long as I have a breath in my body, I will fight to prevent that from happening. Mr. President, I want to again thank the distinguished majority leader for bringing this issue before the Senate. He does our Nation a profound service by highlighting the missile defense issue, and I am proud to cosponsor this important legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Madam President, I want to just take a moment of the Senate's time to respond briefly to a speech that President Clinton delivered in New Jersey last Monday. The President decided to give a very political speech on the environment and made several misstatements that I believe need to be corrected. It is interesting that in that speech he decried the fact that there were political divisions now over the environment. I read the speech, and for the life of me I cannot understand how his speech could do anything except to exacerbate political divisions, if there are any. The President of the United States accused the Congress of moving forward on Superfund legislation that would ``let polluters off the hook and make the taxpayers pay.'' I am the chairman of the Superfund Subcommittee on the Environment and Public Works Committee and have been working on the bill for almost 2 years. I think I know what I am talking about when I say very frankly and bluntly that is a false statement. There is not another nice way to say it. It is simply not true. Let me take a moment to explain. Since its inception, the Superfund Program has been paid for by industries that were considered, in a broad sense, to be responsible for the bulk of the toxic waste problem. That is how we pay for Superfund. Those taxes that are collected are collected as follows: an excise tax on 42 feedstock chemicals; an excise tax on imported chemical derivatives; an excise tax on petroleum; and the corporate environment income tax. All of those taxes together paid by these large corporations who are responsible for much of the environmental--some of these environmental problems we had, paid into a fund called Superfund. Together, all of those taxes raise roughly $1.5 billion every year. They are then deposited into that Superfund. Maybe I am missing something. I do not think the average taxpayer is importing chemical derivatives. It is safe to say that the taxpayer is not--I repeat not--being asked to pick up the tab for the Superfund Program. That is not the way it is now. That is not the way it is going to be under the legislation that we are drafting--in a bipartisan way, I might add--here in the Senate. I believe those taxes should be extended. In fact, I included an extension of those taxes in the Superfund reform legislation that I introduced last year as we were making changes in that legislation. I am still advocating the extension of those taxes. Both the House and the Senate passed a temporary extension of the taxes last year. Guess what? We passed the extension of these taxes on these companies that pollute, and the President vetoed--I repeat, the President vetoed--that legislation. I read the whole speech, and I did not find any reference to that in the President's speech last Monday. That, in fact, at the very same time standards that help us put money in the Superfund trust fund to clean up the sites, like the one the President visited in New Jersey, was vetoed by the President of the United States. I find it outrageous he would go to New Jersey, to one of those brown-field sites, and say that. It is false. Let there be no misunderstanding: The taxpayers have never--never, I repeat--been asked to pay for polluters, and not a single bill introduced in Congress, including my own, would ask the taxpayers to do it. Mr. President, read the bills. Read the bills that have been introduced. Read my bill, Mr. President. The bill that I am working on with your colleagues in the Senate, every day, as we speak--staff, working to get a bipartisan bill--that Superfund Program has always been, and will be in the future, financed by taxes on various industries. Nothing has changed. Second, the President claimed on Monday--this is particularly disturbing--``a small army of powerful lobbyists'' have descended upon the Capitol to launch a ``full-scale attack'' on our environmental laws. According to the President, these lobbyists and congressional Republicans just cannot wait to gut each and every one of our environmental laws--every one of them. I have a message to deliver to the President. Check in with the EPA, your own EPA, Mr. President. Talk to them. For the past several weeks and months, my staff has been in daily discussions with the Democrat and Republican Senate staff and the EPA, trying to work out a commonsense approach to reform our Nation's Superfund Program, a program that has spent $30 billion and cleaned up 50 sites in 15 years, Mr. President. It does need reform. It needs more than that. It needs a dramatic overhaul, and you know it. While we are working toward this solution together, the President is making it more difficult with inflammatory and inaccurate rhetoric. The only individuals working on drafting legislation are elected officials and their representatives. To suggest otherwise, that somehow this Senator or any Senator or any Congressman is allowing a lobbyist to write a bill, is an insult and demagogic at worst. Let me just say this, Mr. President, give one example. You tell me where any lobbyist in any Senator's office is writing a bill. Put your words up there one more time, Mr. President, and back it up with fact. Show me one case, one example, where any Senator is using a lobbyist to write his bill. You have insulted me, personally, Mr. President, and that is exactly the way I take it. You have insulted many other people, good people, in both parties in the House and the Senate. As the chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Superfund and Risk Assessment, as a father, a sportsman, environmental issues are as much concern to me as you. It may come as a surprise, Mr. President, but my daughter drinks the same water as your daughter does, breathes the same air. My sons and I fish in the same rivers, or rivers that are similar. There is not a Senator or Congressman that I know who wants to trash our environment. Do we have differences as to how to clean it up? Of course. To say we want to trash it or imply that we do is outrageous. That is exactly what the President implied last Monday. Apparently, the President believes that his way is the only way to a clean and healthy environment. I am sorry, I disagree. When the President hits the campaign trail, he tends to get a little bit excited and he says some things he really does not mean. I am willing to forgive that. Mr. President, admit it: You were wrong in what you said. President Clinton campaigned on a tax cut, and he raised taxes. He vetoed a tax cut. He campaigned on welfare reform, and he vetoed welfare reform. He campaigned on a balanced budget, and he vetoed a balanced budget. In those instances where the President has taken a strong position on an issue, he always finds a way to change his mind. Given that fact, I will give the President the benefit of the doubt. I will assume he did not intend to impugn the integrity of dozens of hard-working men and women who are working in the various committees, working on environmental legislation in the House and the Senate. I am certain that this false accusation just slipped out in the heat of the moment and was not carefully thought out. This is a campaign year, but it need not be a year where bipartisan consensus is made impossible by cheap political shots. That is exactly what this is, Mr. President. You owe every one of us an apology--myself, my staff, Democrats who have worked on this issue, we would not be working day in and day out with the Senate Democrats and EPA officials if we did not think there was a real opportunity to pass a strong Superfund reform bill early this year. That is exactly what we are going to do, in spite of that rhetoric. That is my goal, to get this bill on the floor of the Senate within the next couple of months, hopefully, that all of us can support and be proud of. We are going to put it on your desk, Mr. President. Maybe you will veto that like you did the balanced budget that you promised, or welfare reform that you promised. But we are going to put it on your desk. I suggest, Mr. President, with the greatest respect, that you tone down the rhetoric a little, read the speeches before you deliver them, see what your staff puts in them. I do. Maybe you ought to do that, too. Talk to some of your colleagues in the Senate and in the House and find out what we are really doing before you take any more cheap shots. Madam President, I yield the floor. Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I would like to commend New Hampshire's Public Television ``Knowledge Network'' for organizing the April National Teacher Training Institute for Math, Science and Technology in Waterville, NH. Granite State teachers participating in the April Institute will learn interactive methods for using television and technology in math and science instruction. Technology is a vital tool in the future of education, and this institute will prove valuable to the teachers and students in New Hampshire. The more we can use technology in the classroom and the more we can teach our students how to effectively use the information highway, the brighter and wiser our students will be. The National Teacher Training Institute was launched in 1990 and has expanded rapidly from 10 sites in 1991 to 26 for the 1995-96 school year. Teachers attend 2 days of workshops in the interactive use of instructional video, on-line telecommunications networks, and other new technologies. Approximately 100 teachers from every grade level will attend the institute. According to a Columbia University study, 94 percent of the teachers that attend pass along the information they acquire to their colleagues. Teachers teaching teachers is a crucial facet in the educational community and is proudly supported at the Institute. The instruction provided by the National Teacher Training Institute is outstanding. Even more notable is the fact that so much of what is taught is passed on to other teachers who were not able to attend. I am proud that the Public Television Knowledge Network has organized such a valuable educational program, and am also pleased to see so many New Hampshire teachers taking advantage of these important workshops. As a former teacher, I congratulate the participating educators for their active role in furthering the opportunities for New Hampshire students. Helping students to understand math and science through technology provides them with the tools to be very successful in the future. I commend New Hampshire Public Television and our distinguished teachers for their outstanding contribution to our educational system in New Hampshire and the Nation.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a dear friend and faithful staffer in my Portsmouth Congressional office --Stu Carmichael. Stu has worked for me since I first entered politics in 1980, over 16 years ago. He is retiring next week and we will all miss him dearly. Stu Carmichael joined the Air Force in 1950 upon graduation from East Providence High School in Rhode Island, and served for 4 years as a radio operator in the Korean war. Occasionally, he still proudly wears his flight jacket into the office and asks the staff to take note of a special shiny pen in the left sleeve. He quickly yanks at this writing utensil and proceeds to show everyone how it was made to write upside down. ``Something every astronaut cannot live without'' he always notes. We all know Stu for his delightful sense of humor and his wit. He impresses everyone he meets with a new anecdote or joke that usually leaves his friends laughing long after he has gone. Many of my staff can still recount some of his original stories and humorous incidents he concocted. We love him for that. That is Stu's legacy--one we will fondly remember for years to come. When Stu graduated in 1958 from the University of Rhode Island with a bachelor's degree in business, he quickly went on to pursue an extensive career in the benefit management business. Several actuarial firms sent him all over the country and he ended up on the west coast. In 1980, he returned to New England and purchased the Kingston Country Store in Kingston, NH. It was there in 1980, that I met Stu and we began to talk about politics. In fact, it was Stu Carmichael and his good friends, Louis and Lois Beaulieu and other early supporters, who encouraged me to run for Congress in 1980. That year, Stu served as my first finance manager. As our mutual friend, Lois Beaulieu, remembers, ``Stu was a motivator, hard worker and loyal to Senator Smith. He has been with Bob Smith through the worst and the best. Our motto during that first campaign was `Fake it until we make it' and with many thanks to Stu, our loyal grassroots people and the Good Lord, we made it.'' In 1985, after I was elected on my third attempt, Stu joined my congressional staff and has served me in a variety of capacities both when I was a Congressman and now as a Senator. Over the years, Stu has also unselfishly served the people of New Hampshire by helping countless veterans with their benefits and working on a variety of other cases for constituents who need assistance cutting through Government bureacracy. He also was instrumental in establishing a veterans cemetery in Boscawen, NH. I am truly indebted to such a hard working and admirable friend. Stu helped me with my start in politics, and stayed with me all these years until his retirement. Every Senator wishes for commitment like this and I am sorry to see him go. The Granite State will feel a void with Stu's absence. New Hampshire's loss is South Carolina's gain. In fact, if Stu wanted to start another career, he could always work for Strom Thurmond for another 20 years. Our Portsmouth, NH, staff, his other fellow coworkers, and the citizens of New Hampshire whom Stu has helped will miss this character we have come to love. My sincere appreciation to you Stu, for all the years of friendship and for your service to the people of New Hampshire, especially your fellow veterans. As a dedicated father, husband and grandfather, Stu Carmichael will now have plenty of time to spend with his family and grandchildren. He and his wonderful wife, Priscilla, have carefully built a special new home in Pickens, SC and plan to enjoy their retirement there. As an avid golfer, Stu will undoubtedly be a consant sight on the golf courses he has yet to discover in South Carolina. And Stu, remember, ``Golf is a love affair; if you don't take it seriously its no fun; if you do take it seriously it breaks your heart.'' May all your putts be swift, stable, and accurate, and may all the greens rise to meet you whether you are in New Hampshire or in South Carolina. Stu, you are one of the very best and I wish you every happiness as you embrace retirement.