Bob Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I thank Mr. Jeffords and Mr. Levin for their support and co-sponsorship of S. 350. I appreciate their efforts to craft legislation complementary to S. 350. As such, I will look closely at their proposals and work with them to further advance the issue of brownfield redevelopment. Indian Tribes

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I would say to my good friend that I agree with these provisions and have, in fact, supported them in the past. I will continue to support them, but as we have discussed it will be difficult to include them in the brownfields bill. I would certainly support the inclusion of these provisions in any Superfund legislation that the committee acts on later this year.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. My colleague from Ohio is correct. The managers' amendment clarifies the role of the State when new information has become available. Specifically, the Administrator must consult with the State before an enforcement action can be taken. Additionally, the State's records must be consulted to determine whether the new information was known by the State as defined in the legislation.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I can appreciate the concerns raised by the Senator from Florida. I agree with Senator Reid that sites contaminated as a result of former cattle dipping practices and which meet the definitions and conditions for sites to obtain funding and liability relief under this bill will be eligible for the benefits of this bill.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I point out, Mr. President, that with the addition of Senator Wellstone, that makes 70 cosponsors to this legislation. That runs the entire political spectrum, from Helms to Wellstone. I think it is a great tribute to the type of legislation it is that we could forge this kind of bipartisanship. As I mentioned earlier in my remarks, there are a number of stakeholders who have written to express their support for S. 350. I did enter those letters in the Record and obviously will not read them all, but I would like to highlight just three or four. One of those letters was from the U.S. Conference of Mayors. The quote from that letter is: The mayors believe that this legislation can dramatically improve the nation's efforts to recycle abandoned or other underutilized brownfields sites, providing new incentives and statutory reforms to speed the assessment, cleanup and redevelopment of these properties. I think that is a very dramatic statement. As the Presiding Officer knows, the mayors are a bipartisan group from both political parties all across the country and are across the political spectrum as well. Another letter we received was from the Trust for Public Land. One paragraph of that letter states: Brownfields afford some of the most promising revitalization opportunities from our cities to more rural locales. This legislation will serve to help meet the pronounced needs in under-served communities to reclaim abandoned sites and create open spaces. . .reclamation of brownfields properties brings new life to local economies and to the spirit of neighborhoods. Also from the National Conference of State Legislatures: I . . . commend you for your continued commitment to the issue of brownfields revitalization. Without the necessary reforms to CERCLA, [the Superfund law] clean up and redevelopment opportunities are lost, as well as new jobs, new tax revenues, and the opportunity to manage growth . . . NCSL has made this a top priority and we applaud the committee's leadership. . . . Finally, from the Building Owners & Managers Association, International: Thanks to the efforts of a dedicated collection of Senators, the Senate now has a bipartisan piece of legislation that would generate improved liability protections, enhanced State involvement and increased federal cleanup funding. Adoption of S. 350 would have an immediate and dramatic impact on reducing the 400,000 brownfields sites across America. Mr. President, as I have stated many times indeed--and the distinguished Presiding Officer also mentioned some of this in his remarks--this bill is going to encourage redevelopment and revitalization all across our country. I would like to highlight one particular redevelopment option that would benefit from this bill. It is called ECO industrial development. It is similar to that of the Londonderry, NH, industrial park. By reducing the waste and pollution from industry, industrial land users become better neighbors in residential areas. Developers and communities can target the kind of development they want rather than being at odds with each other. I think that is the beauty of this legislation. Eco-industrial development helps break down the notion that enhanced environmental management can only be done at a greater cost to businesses. It is not true. The two go hand in hand. You can have an enhanced environment, and you can enhance industry. That is why this concept is so appropriate. I am hopeful this legislation will, in fact, encourage responsible redevelopment and revitalization similar to the Londonderry eco- Industrial park. Let me talk about eco-industrial development for just a second. It creates efficiencies in the use of materials and energy through planned, voluntary networks among businesses and their industrial- manufacturing processes. This increased efficiency not only drives down pollution and waste generated by these industrial processes, but it increases the profitability and competitiveness of the businesses at the same time. With these reinforcing benefits, eco-industrial development is a market-based, incentive-driven means for preventing pollution rather than relying on the fragmented, end-of-the-pipe regulations we have done for so many years. So our current measures of productivity are based almost entirely on measuring industrial output per unit of labor. But a handful of companies--Dow Chemical, Monsanto, 3M, Ford Motor, and others--have been focusing on ways to increase or maintain their current level of output while using fewer resources. This resource productivity can increase a company's return on its assets significantly. And overall, an industrial and manufacturing sector in the U.S. that uses materials and energy more efficiently will become more productive, more profitable, and will remain competitive in global markets. I think the moral of the story is that when you take an abandoned site that has been polluted and you convert it into whatever--either a green space or a true park or playground, or a baseball field, as the Presiding Officer mentioned, in Trenton--whatever you do with it, if you turn it into something productive, you have, No. 1, created jobs in doing so, and, No. 2, you have taken all the pressure off additional green space--a lot of pressure off additional green space--that now will not be developed because this will be redeveloped, and also you help to beautify your community. I think it is also important to point out it is not just the large cities such as Trenton, NJ, or Manchester, NH, or any other large city--it is not just large cities--there are many small towns all across America where some 400,000 to 500,000 of these sites lie. A lot of them are on the eastern seaboard in the early developed areas of our country, along the rivers and railroad tracks, and these are the areas that need help. For so many years, under the current Superfund law, they have not been able to develop these sites because industry and contractors simply would not take the risk, knowing the possible liability. So that is why this legislation is so exciting. It is also why we have 70 cosponsors and why we probably will have a close to unanimous, if not unanimous, vote in the Senate. And we look forward to seeing this bill move forward to the House, and to get it out of the House or out of conference, whatever the case may be, and get it to the President's desk. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I am very proud to be debating the brownfields legislation, known as the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001, or S. 350. It is a bill we have worked on for a long time--many years actually. It is exciting to be at this point and to have bipartisan legislation that, frankly, we know after we finish the debate is going to pass. That does not happen every day in the Senate. So it is exciting. I am proud that two-thirds of the Senate, both political parties, are cosponsors--68 to be exact. Also, the President supports the bill. If we can get the cooperation of the House of Representatives, this will pass quickly, and the President will sign it. We are very excited about that. This bill has the full bipartisan support of all members of the Environment and Public Works Committee across the political spectrum. Make no mistake about it, in spite of the support the bill has, it has not been an easy process. Superfund, so-called, is a very difficult subject. That is an issue I have worked on and I know Senator Reid and Senator Chafee and others have for many years. Ever since I began my service in the Congress, I have tried to reform this flawed Superfund law. It has been a bitter battle with a lot of differences of opinion as to how we do it, sometimes partisan and sometimes regional. But basically on reforming Superfund, other than a few short fixes on certain things such as recyclers, we really have not accomplished very much in the last 11 years. I have always believed we are in need of comprehensive Superfund reform to make the program work. I still believe after we pass the bill there is a lot to be done. Today we have a chance to do something good. It is not comprehensive Superfund reform. Frankly, I am at the point now where comprehensive Superfund reform is not going to happen, and maybe it should not happen. Maybe we should just move forward on a piece-bill basis and do the right thing. I was pleased to be joined by the committee's ranking member, the Superfund subcommittee chairman and its ranking member, Senators Reid, Chafee, and Boxer. I commend all of my colleagues who are present-- Senator Reid, Senator Boxer, Senator Chafee--for their leadership and working tirelessly and in good faith in a bipartisan manner. Without their cooperation and help, we would not be here today. It is always easy to reach agreement on easy issues, but the difficult issues, such as some of the issues with which we deal in the environment, are not that easy and we have to work hard, respect the other side's position, and try to come to a compromise. If there is any positive spinoff from a 50/50 Senate, about which so much is written and spoken, it is that, even if we do not want to, we have to work together because we are not going to pass anything meaningful, anything positive. We will not pass anything out of committee going anywhere on the floor unless it is bipartisan. We may not always agree on how to achieve our goals, but we all share the same desire for a safe and healthy environment for all of our families and for the future and our future generations. As I have said many times, environment should be about the future. It shouldn't be about politics of today. It should be about tomorrow and our children. Sometimes in the decisions we make we would like to have immediate results, but we don't get them. It takes time to see the fruits of our labors. I think you will see in the brownfields legislation, when it passes, the process of cleaning up the old abandoned industrial sites. I thank President Bush, as well, and his new EPA administrator, Christine Whitman, for unwavering support. When they first took office, my very first meeting was with then-Governor Whitman, now Administrator Whitman. She gave me her full support and commitment on this issue, as did the President. The President stated the brownfields reform is a top environmental priority for his administration. It will now pass the Senate within the first 100 days of the administration. That is a promise made and a promise kept--sometimes rare in politics these days. The President recognizes what it means for the environment. I am proud the Senate will pass this priority and do it today. As former Governors, both President Bush and Administrator Whitman understand the importance of cleaning up the sites, and the President deserves credit for making this a top priority, as do my colleagues in the Senate. Without the support of the President, we would not see this legislation become law. To his credit, President Clinton, as well, was a supporter of the brownfields bill. It has not been easy, but we have worked in good faith. I thank all Senators involved for their willingness to work together toward this common goal. It is amazing what can be accomplished when we set aside the rhetoric and focus on the goal; or, indeed, if we have the rhetoric, complete the rhetoric and sit down and get focused on getting the job done. Last year, the committee was successful in passing good, balanced, bipartisan legislation, including estuaries restoration, clean beaches, and the most famous of all, the historic Everglades restoration, which was a prime project of the Senator from Rhode Island, our distinguished father and former colleague, Mr. John Chafee. I made a commitment after Senator Chafee's passing that I would, in fact, shepherd that bill through the Senate, which we did, and President Clinton signed it. It is now law. We will see that great natural resource restored. Again, it will take time. It will not happen tomorrow. We will not see the Everglades restored tomorrow, but we will see it done over a period of 10, 20, 30 years. We will not see every brownfield restored today after passage of the bill, but we will see industrial site after industrial site, abandoned industrial sites all over America, gradually become green or restored in a way that they are productive and producing tax revenues in the communities across our Nation. When you see a brownfield, abandoned site, and you see activity, with people working and cleaning it up, and it is looking nice in your community, you can reference back to this legislation and know that is why it is being done. People say, why do you need the legislation? The answer is, under current law no one will clean them up. I will discuss the reasons in a moment. With brownfields, we have proven we can work together in cooperation, as opposed to confrontation, and we can accomplish great things. When we talk about all the great issues of the day, whether China, the budget, or whatever, brownfields is not exactly something that gets a lot of glamour. We had a huge debate on the Ashcroft confirmation. That received a lot of publicity. However, down in the trenches, these are the kinds of issues that don't get a lot of attention. Maybe the trade press follows them. The national press doesn't do much. Indeed, sometimes not even your local press, but it is important. It is very important to the communities because we will be restoring these sites. I am hopeful the effort will set the stage for more cooperation and also get at more of the old Superfund law to pick away and try to reform various parts of the bill so we don't need Superfund anymore. We will be cleaning up all of these sites as soon as we can. We have learned environmental politics delays environmental protection. Let me repeat that: Environmental politics delays environmental protection. The more we argue about things, the longer it takes to get something in place that will bring this to resolution, and the resolution would be the cleanup. The expedited cleanup of brownfield sites is very important to my constituents in New Hampshire, as it is to other constituents in other States. My State helped to drive this economy during the industrial age--little old New Hampshire, with the mills along the Merrimack. We have more than our share of these likely contaminated sites waiting to be turned back into positive assets, including abandoned railroad sites, along the railroads, along the rivers. Frequently, these are the sites we are talking about. It could be Bradford, Keene, Concord, or New Ipswich. This bill will be of monumental benefit to not only those towns but many towns all over America. This bill will also create opportunities for the development of more facilities such as the Londonderry eco-industrial park. Now these brownfield sites will turn into industrial parks. Or, indeed, if they are not parks, they may very well be ``green'' parks as opposed to industrial parks. Again, this bill provides help in that regard. If you take an abandoned industrial site and convert it to a good commercial site, producing revenues for the community, it enhances the community in a beautification way, produces revenue, puts people to work. It is a win-win-win. Furthermore, it takes the pressure off of green space. We won't go outside of Frankfurt, KY, somewhere and pull off acres of land to build an industrial park if we have 10 acres of abandoned brownfield sites to bring back and revitalize and use again. That is the beauty of the legislation. I am proud to help communities all across the Nation. We estimate as many as 400,000 to 500,000 brownfield sites exist across America. We will see activity now on these sites. A brief background on the bill. On March 8, the Environmental and Public Works Committee reported S. 350, the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001. There were a few dissenting votes, but we worked with those individuals who had concerns and the Members now have been able to reconcile those differences. As far as I know, we have a totally united front. That is a tribute to every member of that committee, on both sides, a tribute to the staffs of the members working hard to address the concerns to come out with a totally unified effort on a bipartisan bill. This is a strong bill. It deserves the support of the full Senate, not only the 68 cosponsors but the other 32 out there, as well. How is S. 350 better than current law? That is the issue. Current law is what it is and we are now cleaning up sites. How do we improve it? Simply stated, our bill provides an element of finality that does not exist today in current law. While allowing for Federal involvement under specific conditions, current law allows EPA to act whenever there is a release or a threatened release. Again, current law allows EPA to act whenever there is a release or threatened release. This bill changes that requirement, ups the ante a little bit, and provides four things: One, EPA to find that ``the release or threatened release may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, welfare or the environmnent'' and after taking into consideration response activities already taken, ``additional response actions are likely to be necessary to address, prevent, limit, or mitigate the release or threatened release. We put some conditions on there for the EPA's finding. We also find that the action should come at the request of the State if we need to come back. Third, contamination may have migrated across a State line. Fourth, there may be new information to emerge after the cleanup that results in the site presenting a threat. That is not all our bill does. It also authorizes $200 million in critically needed funds to assess and clean up brownfield sites as well as $50 million to assist State cleanup programs. This is more than double the level of funding currently expended on the EPA brownfield program. I also want to point out this is not about only Federal dollars. The Federal dollars, the $200 million we are talking about here, are nowhere near enough money to clean up 500,000 brownfield sites. What this does is it limits the liability and brings us closer to finality in cleanup so we can now get contractors to go on these sites. They can get the insurance, they can take the risk, and they are not going to be held accountable if a hot spot or some other problem that was not their fault occurs several years down the road. That has been the problem to date. They cannot do it because they will be held liable so they say, fine, we are not going to go on the site and clean it up and take the risk. If a contractor comes onto a site, he is responsible. If he does what he is supposed to do, follows the plans as he is supposed to, cleans it up and does it in good faith and we find something later, he is not accountable. That is why this bill will go so far toward moving us in the right direction, getting these sites cleaned up. Individuals and towns and property owners will now invest in cleaning up these sites. Banks will lend money. There are millions and millions of dollars--tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions--that will be used now from the private sector to clean up these sites, far beyond the $200 million we are talking about in this bill. This will promote conservation through redevelopment, as I said before, as opposed to new greenfield development, and will help to revitalize our city centers and create new jobs in the inner cities. It is a win for the environment, a win for the economy, a win for the Nation, a win for every State, including New Hampshire, and a lot of communities with those brownfield sites. It is a giant step forward. We now have a chance to move forward on a piece of legislation that will make a significant difference in communities across the Nation. The real winners are the people who live near these abandoned sites-- sometimes those are minorities--the renewed urban centers that will see development and jobs replace blighted, contaminated sites, the local communities that will be revitalized, and the green space that is preserved. It is a win, win, win, win, win, no matter how you cut it. Thanks to the leadership of my colleagues, Senators Reid, Boxer, and Chafee, and all my colleagues on the committee, we have a chance to enact now, for the first time in all the years I have been in Congress, which is 16--the first time to enact meaningful brownfields reform. We came out of the gate running. I hope the House will follow suit, because if they do, it will be on the President's desk shortly and the President can sign this bill before the end of the summer. There are numerous interests that support S. 350. I ask unanimous consent that several letters of support I have received--and all of us have received them--be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, on March 12, 2001, the Committee on Environment and Public Works filed Senate Report 107-2, to accompany S. 350, the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001. When the report was filed, the cost estimate from the Congressional Budget Office was not available. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the cost estimate be printed in the Record to comply with Section 403 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I share my colleagues' interpretation of this provision. regarding cattle dipping vats

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Yes, that is my understanding of the provision.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I want to take a couple of minutes to explain to my colleagues the managers' amendment, which will be part of the entire vote. We did expand the bill. At the end of the markup in committee, there were a number of concerns raised by Senators on both sides, which we attempted to address and finally were able to address. I wanted to highlight three or four of them on both sides of the aisle. Senator Inhofe raised a concern, and Senator Bond as well, about innocent parties cleaning up relatively low-risk brownfield sites contaminated by petroleum or a petroleum product. We were able to allow for the application for brownfields revitalization funding for those purposes as requested by Senators Inhofe and Bond. Also, in authorizing $200 million annually for the brownfields revitalization program, we added another $50 million, or 25 percent of the total for the cleanup of petroleum sites. This was included in the managers' amendment. We have unanimous committee support for it today. Those are two contributions to the overall legislation by Senators Inhofe and Bond. In addition, Senator Chafee asked for a clarification that a grant or loan recipient may use a portion of that grant or loan to purchase insurance for the characterization assessment or remediation of the prospective brownfields site. We were able to take care of that. Senator Clinton asked for conditions to the rank and criteria used to award moneys under this bill to address sites with a disproportionate impact on the health of children, minorities, and other sensitive subpopulations in communities with a higher than average incidence of cancer and other diseases and conditions. We were able to include that. Another concern of Senator Clinton was an element to a State response program whereby a citizen can request a State official to conduct a site assessment and the State official considers and responds appropriately to that request. Those issues of concern were added to the managers' amendment. In addition, Senator Voinovich asked for a requirement that the Administrator consult with States in determining when new information regarding a facility presents a threat to human health or the environment, while preserving EPA's authority to take appropriate action. Mr. President, I also received a moment ago a statement from the administration. I will quote from part of it: The administration supports Senate passage of S. 350 which would authorize appropriations to assess and clean up certain abandoned industrial sites known as brownfields and provide protection from liability for certain landowners. By removing barriers to brownfield cleanup and redevelopment, S. 350 would allow communities to reduce environmental and health risks, capitalize on existing infrastructure, attract new businesses and jobs, and improve their tax base. We are pleased to have that statement of support. Before I yield to Senator Reid for final remarks before the vote, I thank Senator Reid again and all of the members of the committee, Senator Chafee, Senator Boxer, and all those who worked with me to bring this to closure. It has been a pleasure. I have enjoyed it. It was a long ride, but we finally got to the end. We are glad we did. The country will be the beneficiary of our actions. It is nice to know that a piece of legislation, once it passes, will have immediate results for almost any community in America. There are so many sites. There are probably very few communities that do not have a brownfield site, which is an abandoned industrial site. I will be pleased when the bill is signed and when the dollars start to flow, not just from the few dollars we have in the Federal process but from the investments that will be made by the private sector because these folks will now be able to go onsite and clean them up. I am excited about the bill. I am glad we are at the end. I am happy to hand it over to the House now and wait for them, and hopefully, if there is a conference, it will be an easy one.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. It is important for a State to be responsive to concerns brought up by its citizens. For example, under the New Hampshire program, if a citizen contacts the Department of Environmental Services, DES, regarding a site, the first and foremost consideration is to carefully assess the potential risk to human health and the environment. Both written and telephone communications are assigned to DES's Special Investigations Section in the Waste Management Division. There are four individuals who are involved in this work and provide round-the-clock coverage. DES first checks the data base to verify that the inquiry is indeed a new matter and decides, based upon the information offered, the level of risk and hence the immediacy of response required. Departmental protocol governs this practice. An essential element of this approach is based upon the intuitive, knowledgeable sense of the staff person receiving the call. An attempt is made to identify matters that require immediate response from others of a less immediate nature. In the event of a grave emergency, DES or the on-scene commander, may request assistance from EPA's emergency responders. In the case where a site warrants an emergency response, the citizen inquirer would be given information as soon as the site was in control and the responders or other Division staff could be made available to provide details. If the case is determined to be a new site, the citizen would be responded to when an initial site drive by or on the ground investigation had been made. In this case an inquirer would be told what to expect for a response time, if a response were necessary. An inquiry related to a known site which was not an emergency situation would be addressed by the assigned Project Manager, who could comment on planned or on-going work at the site and the nature or degree of risk. DES also would seek to determine whether the inquirer had new information that might be relevant. Most often, DES would make an initial response to an individual within 2-3 days. As you can see, Senator Clinton, the State of New Hampshire has a very responsive brownfields program that takes seriously all requests and inquires made by its citizens.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Before I close, I take a moment, as we usually do, to recognize some of the staff who have worked tirelessly on this legislation. It has not been easy. Sometimes we go home for the weekend or go back to our States and staffs are here working through these issues. I commend my own Department of Environmental Services, Phil O'Brien and Mike Wimsatt, for their tireless work and input into this process; from Senator Chafee's office--I am sure he will want to thank his own staff--Ted Michaels; from Senator Reid's staff, Lisa Haage, Barbara Rogers, and Eric Washburn--we appreciate all your help; Sara Barth from Senator Boxer's office; Louis Renjel from Senator Inhofe's office; Catherine Walters of Senator Voinovich's staff; and Gabrielle Tenzer from Senator Clinton's staff; and from the EPA, Randy Deitz and Sven Kaiser. Last but not least, my good committee staff: David Conover, Chelsea Maxwell, Marty Hall, and Jim Qualters. I thank them for a lot of effort, a lot of hard work in working together. Of course, there are many more who deserve thanks. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent Senator Phil Gramm of Texas be added as a cosponsor of the bill, which will get us up to 69.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, under the time allotted to Senator Thomas I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, in early April, April 6 to be exact, the Senate recessed. The following day, April 7, a Saturday, a helicopter, in the fog, crashed into the side of a mountain in Vietnam. In that crash, seven American military personnel were killed as were nine Vietnamese. It is a grim yet a vivid reminder of the fact that every day American servicemen throughout the world are serving their country in harm's way. Even though the Nation is not at war, we sometimes forget these men and women put their lives on the line for us. I want to share with the Senate what these men were doing. These men were searching for the remains of American missing personnel, MIAs from the Vietnam war. These young men volunteered for this job and put their lives on the line to find answers for the families of those who are missing. In a statement issued April 7 by the National Alliance of Families expressing their sympathy to the families, the National Alliance of Families said: We extend our sincere condolences to the families of these service members and hope they will be comforted by the fact that their loved ones will always be remembered for their commitment to finding our loved ones. I just came back about 45 minutes ago from a memorial service at Fort Myer for those seven Americans and their nine Vietnamese counterparts. To sit there with some of the families of those missing was difficult. But, again, it is a reminder of what these men and women in uniform do, all across the world. I honor them today in the Senate by letting the American people know who they are. These are not anonymous people; these are real people with, now, real grieving widows, real grieving mothers and fathers. The members on board were members of the Army, the Air Force, and the Navy. To be specific, there were three members of the U.S. Army, three members of the U.S. Air Force, and one Navy personnel. They were black, they were Hispanic, they were Caucasian--they were Americans. They were American military. They were: Army LTC Rennie Melville Cory, Jr., of Oklahoma City, OK; LTC George D. Martin III of Hopkins, SC; and SFC Tommy James Murphy of Georgia--hometown not available; they were Air Force MAJ Charles E. Lewis of Las Cruces, NM; MSG Steven L. Moser of San Diego, CA; and TSgt Robert M. Flynn of Huntsville, AL; they were Navy CPO Pedro Juan Gonzalez of Buckeye, AZ--real people, real Americans. I used to teach high school, and oftentimes I would be amazed at the heroes some of our young people sought out--many in the athletic world, some in the world of entertainment, some whom I might not have picked as heroes. But if you are looking for heroes to admire, here they are, seven of them, who sacrificed their lives in the line of duty to search for the remains of American men and women missing from the Vietnam war. What an honor to serve your country in that capacity. At least five times that I can recall, I as a Member of either the Congress or the Senate had the opportunity to visit Vietnam--indeed, fly on maybe the same helicopter, but certainly similar helicopters with Vietnamese pilots. We flew all over Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, flying these missions, trying to find answers for POWs and MIAs. These wonderful people who make these sacrifices--long days, weeks away from their families, on the ground, sifting through dirt, trying to find remains, looking at wreckage, digging into the files and the archives-- whatever it takes, they are out there doing it day in and day out with very few accolades. I honor them today by simply saying thank you. Thank you for caring enough to search for your colleagues and comrades in arms who are missing. Thank you for serving your country. Thank you for making the ultimate sacrifice doing it. I also thank the families, those who survive, who will now endure this pain. It is special with me because I have also endured it. When I was 3 years old my father, who served in World War II, died in the service of his country in a military aircraft accident. My mother, as a widow, raised me and my brother for all those years. These are heroes. These were members of what is called the Joint Task Force--Full Accounting. I ask all of us, my colleagues in the Senate and the American people who are listening, tonight, when you put your head down, you might just remember these men in your prayers and say thank you from a grateful nation for your service. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Yes.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to my dear personal friend and political mentor, former New Hampshire governor Meldrim Thomson, who passed away last Thursday. Mel, who was 89, was one of the greatest governors in the history of the State of New Hampshire. Mel Thomson left a lasting legacy. His legacy of country, state, family, and God will not soon be forgotten by those of us whose lives he touched so deeply. He was not only a gentleman but a gentle man, a loving husband to Gale, father of six, grandfather, and great- grandfather. He was one of my closest and most treasured friends. In politics, loyalty and friendship mean everything. In 1993, Governor Thomson wrote a book, ``100 Famous Founders,'' for which I was honored to have written the introduction. Among the first of the Founding Fathers to step forward and put his life, property, and honor on the line for his country by signing the Declaration was Josiah Bartlett of New Hampshire. Dr. Bartlett later served as the Governor of New Hampshire. It is fitting that this magnificent book of profiles of our Nation's one hundred foremost Founders was written by one of Josiah Bartlett's most distinguished and patriotic successors as Governor, Meldrim Thomson. Meldrim Thomson had the same trust in God, love of family, steadfast dedication to his country and state, and sense of honor that characterized the Founders about whom he wrote. Indeed, had he lived in Josiah Bartlett's time, Meldrim Thomson certainly would have been a Founder too. Had he lived during the American Revolution, he would have stood shoulder-to-shoulder fighting for the cause alongside George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Sam Adams, and General John Stark. Meldrim Thomson, Jr., took the oath of office as the 91st Governor of New Hampshire on January 3, 1973, and served until January 4, 1979. He is the only Republican to have served as Governor of New Hampshire for three consecutive two-year terms. Meldrim Thomson's road to the governorship began in 1954, when he moved his publishing business and his family from New York to a new home in Orford, NH. Although he was not a native son, Meldrim Thomson's strongly independent nature and his bedrock conservative principles were right for New Hampshire. In spirit, then, he quickly became a son of New Hampshire. Plunging into New Hampshire politics, Meldrim Thomson waged an unsuccessful campaign for the U.S. House of Representatives in 1964. That same year, though, he won election to New Hampshire's Constitutional Convention. With characteristic grit and determination, Meldrim Thomson did not let his defeats in the 1968 and 1970 New Hampshire Republican gubernatorial primaries discourage him from continuing to seek our State's highest office. His commitment paid rich dividends in 1972, when he won election as Governor. He ran and won again in 1974 and 1976. In waging his victorious campaigns, Meldrim Thomson proved himself to be a true populist. Running on the slogan ``ax the tax,'' Governor Thomson took his campaigns to the people of New Hampshire in their living rooms and meeting halls. As Governor, Meldrim Thomson did not shrink from difficult decisions. As the spiritual descendant of the Founding Fathers, he had the courage to take grave political risks on behalf of his unfailingly conservative principles. Meldrim Thomson fought tirelessly for low taxes and strict fiscal discipline. As a result, during his time as Governor, the economy of New Hampshire enjoyed a prosperity that was unknown in the rest of New England. Attracted by the state's low taxes, significant new businesses moved their operations to New Hampshire. Wages and salaries increased Old manufacturing centers such as Manchester and Nashua demonstrated new signs of life. Beyond his great economic successes, Meldrim Thomson did not hesitate to use his platform as Governor to speak out on vital national and international issues. He did not hesitate to criticize the foreign and domestic misadventures of the Administration of Jimmy Carter. In fact, Governor Thomson ordered New Hampshire State flags flown at half-staff to protest President Carter's pardon of Vietnam era draft resisters. It deeply offended Governor Thomson's profound sense of patriotism that a President of the United States would take such an unprecedented action to shield those who refused their country's call from the rightful legal consequences of their acts. I have so many personal, inspiring memories of Mel Thomson. In our private moments, of which we shared many up at the farm in Orford, he would affectionately call me ``son''. I thought of him like a father, both personally as well as politically. He always inspired me with his words of wisdom. He often said ``put principle above politics.'' He heeded his own words. Like Lincoln, Churchill and so many great men, he was unfairly criticized, but rose above it all to do what was right. He was a dedicated conservative, who was as solid as the granite in our mountains. Mel Thomson's impact on the state, patriotism, and commitment to his values and his family will not be forgotten. I will miss him terribly, as will those many New Hampshire citizens whose lives he touched. Rest in peace, my friend. You have earned it. It has been an honor to represent you in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to yield myself up to 15 minutes as in morning business.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill called ``The Nonresident Income Tax Freedom Act of 2001.'' My legislation would prohibit a state from imposing income taxes on income earned within such state by nonresidents of such state. Simply put, my bill bans state income taxes levied on nonresident workers. I am sure that every American has studied the Boston Tea Party. In 1776, the 13 American colonies refused to pay unjust taxes and declared their independence from Britain. The resulting American revolution was a revolution of ideas and together the 13 colonies created a government which derived its just authority from the consent of the governed. In 1764, Britain imposed the Sugar Act on the American colonies, that tax was followed by the Stamp Act and the Townshend Revenue Act. The Stamp Act was essentially a paper tax of less than one cent, but this tax inspired the formation of the Sons of Liberty, who burned the stamps in protest of the tax. A tea tax was imposed on the American colonies of less than one cent, but this tax motivated Bostonians to protest the tax in the Boston Tea Party. The result of these British taxes were that Americans openly rebelled in order to fight those unjust taxes. I am not comparing the current situation to the American revolution, but I am proposing legislation consistent with the theme of the American Revolution--No taxation without representation. When a citizen from New Hampshire goes to work in Massachusetts or Maine or Vermont and pays their income tax, it is not reciprocated. We don't have an income tax. We don't tax them. They don't live in that State, and, therefore, I don't believe they should pay that tax. My bill will grant Federal protection for nonresident taxpayers and prohibit this taxation without representation. I hope my colleagues will look carefully at this regardless of the tax situation in their own States. The State of Oklahoma, or the State of New Hampshire, or any other State has a perfect right to tax its citizens in whatever way the citizens allow their elected representatives. But the question is, Should the citizens of Wyoming or some other State tell another State what taxes they should pay on their citizens? The problem exists today where workers from one State are being taxed by others, and these taxpayers have no vote. They have no say and no recourse into how their income tax money is spent. Approximately 90,000 from New Hampshire go to Massachusetts and work. The taxes are collected from them for Massachusetts income taxes. They have no recourse. They have to pay those taxes. As a matter of fact, New Hampshire residents pay over $200 million in income taxes to Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont, all of which have income taxes. New Hampshire doesn't. In 1999, Vermont imposed an income tax on 10,840 New Hampshire residents and raised $10.2 million in revenue off the backs of New Hampshire workers who had nothing to say about it, nor could they do anything about it. In 1998, Massachusetts levied an income tax on 89,336 New Hampshire residents and raised $184 million, again, off the residents of New Hampshire. And finally, in Maine, in 1998, 8,219 New Hampshire residents were taxed and $9.3 million was raised in revenue. This is taxation without representation. I am not trying to start another Revolutionary War here, but it is not fair. I believe that whether you have an income tax or not in your State, the issue is really should you be able to levy an income tax against another citizen who lives in another State. In New Hampshire, we have always had a keen interest in taxes, as a matter of fact, a keen interest in less taxes. One of the greatest Governors in the history of our State, Gov. Meldrim Thomson, passed away last Thursday at the age of 89. Mel Thomson was a hero to many of us in the antitax movement. His campaign theme, when he ran for Governor three times, was ``ax the tax.'' And that he did. He fought taxes and cut taxes time and time again in our State. He helped our State to assume that true ``live free or die'' tradition that is so popular and so well known. It is a strength that New Hampshire politicians have not allowed a State income tax to be levied on the hard-working residents of that State. People still do not understand it. They come to me and say: How can you do this without an income tax? How do you get along? We do it through frugality and responsibility and taking care of the hard-earned dollars of our taxpayers. As recently as last week, my friends in the New Hampshire State House defeated a sales tax proposal. I congratulate them for it. The Republican-led legislature knocked down a 2.5-percent sales tax which would have helped Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont to discourage their State citizens from coming across the border to shop because we would have begun to get our States equalized in their taxes. We have this great tradition in New Hampshire of less taxes, less spending, and fiscal responsibility. That is why I was pleased and proud just today--and I know the Presiding Officer's rating is high up in this rating; and I will check the rating--I was pleased today to be told the National Taxpayers Union ranked me No. 7 in the Senate for fiscal responsibility on cutting spending, cutting taxes, and cutting regulations. It is an award of which I am very proud. But it is not so much me; it is tradition in New Hampshire. If you advocate those sales taxes, if you advocate those income taxes, if you advocate more taxes, you won't be reelected. There are a lot of people who said, let's have a sales or income tax, and they have been defeated and have not been heard from since, and many of them had to leave town. I think it is rather unfortunate Governor Thomson passed away at the very time President Bush--a man who Governor Thompson admired, and President Bush admired Governor Thompson as well; it was reciprocal-- but at the very time President Bush is proposing a $1.6 trillion tax cut for the American people, the man who led the ``ax the tax'' fight in New Hampshire has passed away. So President Bush has picked up the torch from Governor Thomson, and New Hampshire is proud of that. I am proud of President Bush's budget proposal to provide the typical family of four paying income taxes $1,600 in tax relief. John Marshall said: ``The power to tax is the power to destroy.'' Taxes have to be used responsibly. As I said today, when I was asked about the National Taxpayers Union rating, it does not mean we do not spend money. We do spend money. We have a responsibility to spend money for our military, for those in need, or whatever. But we have to spend it responsibly. I think that is the key issue. The taxers in New Hampshire's neighboring States are very clever. They impose the income tax on New Hampshire residents without any fear whatsoever of any political retaliation. It is really cowardice. The officials there tax citizens from my State of New Hampshire who go into Massachusetts to work, and they cannot vote. They cannot vote. They do not have any say about it. What can they do about it? It is not fair. We ought to change it. I say that with respect to my colleagues no matter what the tax status of your own State is. Tax all you want in your State, but do not tax people from another State. And I think that is fair. Today's average taxpayer faces a combined Federal, State, and local burden of nearly 50 percent of their income. I think that is a little too much. It is time for a change. This is one small way to help New Hampshire citizens, as I know so many are trying to help all of our citizens with tax cuts at the national level. So I ask my colleagues to support George W. Bush's tax cut and my tax fairness initiative to give certainly New Hampshire citizens and all Americans a little boost for their pocketbooks, so they can spend some money the way they would like to spend it, to have it in their pockets. That $200 million in the pockets of taxpayers in New Hampshire can be used for a lot of things they would like to use it for, including college education, health care, putting money away for a rainy day, or whatever. I close by saying, my bill amends chapter 4 of title 4 of the U.S. Code to add a provision that says, ``a State or political subdivision thereof may not impose a tax on income earned within such State or political subdivision by non-residents of such State.'' In other words, if they are not your citizens, then you cannot tax them with an income tax. It explicitly allows a State, however--and this is a very important point--if two States want to enter into a voluntary compact or agreement to tax one another--if the two States agree--they can do that. There is an exception for that if the two States agree. This is consistent with the theme of ``no taxation without representation'' because residents who become angry at politicians who vote for income tax compacts can vote the offending politician out of office. That is why it is good. I look forward to pressing hard on this and getting the attention of my colleagues. It is my hope I can be a part of the President's push to restore reason and good sense to the Federal tax law. I ask my colleagues to support me on the Nonresident Income Tax Freedom Act of 2001 to help thousands of New Hampshire citizens who are treated unfairly by taxation without representation.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the Postal Employees of the New Hampshire Performance Cluster, a group of dedicated public servants who have been recognized for exemplary performance of service duties. On April 3rd of this year, The Postal Employees of the New Hampshire Performance Cluster were recognized with the Postal Service's highest award, the Chief Operating Officer Award for overall excellence in the area of customer satisfaction. New Hampshire Postal Employees have been honored along with four other districts in the nation receiving the Order of the Yellow Jersey Award for Excellence in customer service. This prestigious award is based on the percentage of residential customers who rated the postal service employees as excellent in four areas: overall performance, courteous and friendly clerks, consistency of mail delivery and accuracy of mail delivery. The Postal Employees of the New Hampshire Performance Cluster have provided dedicated service to the citizens of our state. The people of our state look upon them with tremendous gratitude for all that they have done. It is an honor and a privilege to serve the Postal Employees of the New Hampshire Performance Center in the United States.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise to offer the Armed Forces Voting Rights Act of 2001. There is a problem with federal law that allowed members of the armed forces to be disenfranchised in Florida in the most recent presidential election. My bill would stop the discrimination. Over time, federal law has recognized more and more rights for our military personnel that serve overseas. Several federal laws have been enacted since 1942 to enable those in the military and U.S. citizens who live abroad to vote in federal elections. The Soldier Voting Act of 1942 was the first attempt to guarantee federal voting rights for members of the armed forces and that law only applied during wartime. Members of the armed forces were provided the use of a postage free, federal post card application to request an absentee ballot. This law expired once World War II ended and the law never actually was in effect. In 1955, Congress passed the Federal Voting Assistance Act which recommended, but did not guarantee, absentee registration and voting for members of the military, federal employees who lived outside the U.S. and members of civilian service organization affiliated with the armed forces. Federal law was again amended in 1968 to include a more general provision for U.S. citizens temporarily residing outside the U.S. Seven years later, the Overseas Citizens Voting Rights Act of 1975 guaranteed absentee registration and voting rights for citizens outside the U.S., whether or not they maintained a U.S. residence. In 1986, President Reagan signed the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Voting Act which required States to permit absent uniformed services voters, their spouses and dependents, and overseas voters who no longer maintain a residence in the U.S. to register absentee and vote by absentee ballot in all elections for federal office. Federal law failed our military men and women in the last election, because many of these military voters were disenfranchised by canvassing boards throughout the State of Florida. My bill fixes federal law to prevent discrimination against military voters stationed overseas. It was a disgrace to our military men and women the events in Florida last fall. 1,500 overseas ballots were thrown out by Florida election officials initially--1,500 ballots were challenged--that is disturbing. Brave members of our armed forces spoke out in favor of having their vote counted. In Tallahassee, FL, in November of 2000, Robert Ingram, who was awarded a medal for heroism as a Navy corpsman serving with the Marines in Vietnam, said about Florida elections boards, ``They need to count the votes for service people abroad.'' It truly is an outrage that the state of Florida allowed military ballots to be disqualified. Morale is traditionally low for our servicemen and women stationed overseas during the Christmas season. Gary Littrell a Medal of Honor winner said, ``Can you imagine how low their moral will go when we tell them their vote didn't count?'' According to the Miami Herald of November 26, 2000, ``Many canvassing boards have said, however they followed state law to the letter in disqualifying overseas ballots with no signature, no witness, incorrect address, no postmark or date and a variety of other problems.'' Note that the Miami Herald does not cite actual fraud to disqualify 1,500 votes, mere technicalities in state law. My bill will fix this problem and not allow a ballot to be disqualified without ``evidence of fraud.'' There were allegations that the Democrat party had a coordinated effort to disenfranchise our military voters. Former Montana Governor Mark Racicot said last fall, ``In an effort to win at any cost, the vice president's lawyers launched a statewide effort to throw out as many military ballots as they can.'' 40 percent of the 3,500 overseas ballots in Florida were thrown out in November of 2000 for technical reasons--that is 40 percent too much. According to the Miami Herald, 39 felons illegally cast absentee ballots in Broward and Miami Dade counties during the election, yet 1,500 military men and women had their votes challenged. These felons convictions ranged from murder to rape and drunk driving. What crime did our military personnel commit? Is it a crime for the members of the military who chose to vote Republican? Is it a crime to volunteer to serve in the military? I guess every vote must count except for our military votes. Military ballots in Florida were disqualified for two reasons--the requirement that ballots must be postmarked by election day and failure to either have a proper signature or date on the actual ballot. Neither of these issues are currently addressed in the federal law. Federal law leaves such details to the state, such as postmark requirements and authentication of ballots. I have a bill to amend the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to include members of the armed forces who were targeted as a result of their propensity to vote for Republicans. My bill establishes voting rights for members of the armed forces to insure that every military vote is counted. My bill makes it a violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 for any person ``to disqualify, refuse to count, or otherwise negate the absentee or overseas vote of a member of the Armed Forces of the United States.'' A person could not disqualify a ballot because of ``circumstances beyond the control of the serviceman,'' this definition includes a post mark that may not be present on a military person's ballot. The military frequently mail without postage and there is no necessity for a post mark on military mail, therefore there is no evidence on the face of an envelope to prove when a letter, or ballot in this case, is mailed. My bill further forbids the disqualification of any ballot without ``clear and convincing evidence of fraud in the preparation or casting of the ballot by the voter'' deadlines for returning ballots vary by state. If you violate or conspire to violate the Armed Forces Voting Rights Act of 2001, then you are treated similarly to individuals who violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965--you are subject to fines and other criminal penalties. My bill also empowers the Attorney General to make rules consistent with this legislation. I ask that voting rights be restored to our military voters--it is the least that we can do for those who put their lives on the line so we may live free, to allow our military men and women to have every vote counted.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to extend the authorization of the Connecticut River Atlantic Salmon Commission, CRASC, for an additional 20 years. CRASC is a cooperative effort that includes multiple state and federal agencies, conservation organizations, industry and citizens throughout the Connecticut River basin. It was initially recognized by Congress in 1983. For the past twenty years, the Commission has been working to restore Atlantic salmon and other anadromous fish populations in the Connecticut River watershed. The Connecticut River basin runs through the states of New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts and Connecticut. The native Atlantic salmon stocks declined through the 18th century, and disappeared from the Connecticut River and its tributaries in the 1800s. Since 1983, CRASC has been successful in reintroducing the Atlantic salmon throughout the watershed. The success of the CRASC is due to the cooperative nature in which it runs. Without the support of all the stakeholders, the restoration efforts would be slower and more difficult. Restoration efforts include the construction and maintenance of fish passage systems; salmon hatcheries and reintroduction; habitat restoration; research, monitoring and evaluation; and education and public outreach. The health of the salmon population is directly related to the quality of the river, and without these efforts, the two million people who live in the basin would be unable to enjoy the benefits that can be derived from a cleaner, healthier river system. The legislation that I am introducing does two basic things. First, it reauthorizes the Connecticut River Atlantic Salmon Commission for another twenty years. Second, the bill authorizes $9 million in appropriations to the Secretary of the Interior through 2010 to carry out Atlantic salmon and anadromous fish restoration activities. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provides the Commission with just over half of its annual expenditures; however, the level of funding has not kept pace with needs. This authorization level would provide $5 million a year to federal and state agencies for operations and maintenance needs, and $4 million a year for construction and capital improvement needs for the hatcheries and fish passage systems. The Connecticut River Atlantic Salmon Commission is the perfect example of federal and state agencies and the public working together to conserve our natural resources. In the past twenty years, this cooperative approach to conservation has resulted in the successful conservation of anadromous fish populations throughout the Connecticut River basin, as well as the improvement in the quality of the river and its tributaries. This kind of effort deserves the continued support of Congress.