Bob Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, Senator Gorton, in discussing his previous amendment, which did not relate directly to attorney's fees, has provided me a copy with some of the litigation costs in various school districts in his State of Washington. I will not go through them all, but if you added all of the litigation costs up in 1 year, the 1994-95 school year, it would be almost $1 million in litigation costs just on special education, $330,000 in Seattle, alone. Now, if you add up all of those thousands and thousands of dollars and you end up with a total in excess of $1 million, if you are a teacher or an administrator or a private citizen thinking of your own school district, you might ask ``How many teachers, how many textbooks, how much infrastructure could you provide for $330,000?'' We have an adverse reaction around here when we try to get anything done to knock any attorneys out of a dollar or two. There was a Washington Post story recently quoting lawyers bragging--and I will not cite names here, I do not think that is important--but there was a law firm in the city that got $2.4 million, according to school budget records, just on special education, just on this law. In fact, one person was quoted as saying, ``Winning those cases is like taking candy from a baby.'' I might just say, why is that? Well, I took the time, Mr. President, to talk to my school districts--not all of them, but I wrote to them and got a lot of input back and attended some school board meetings. I attended school board meetings, about one a week for 6 years, when I served on the school board in another life before I came here to Congress. Believe me, I have heard a lot of reasons and a lot of things about what is wrong with this law as well as what is good with it. We know there are good things about it. The Manchester school district, which has 100,000, roughly, citizens--not 100,000 students--a district of a little over 100,000 people, pays litigation costs on this issue alone of between $110,000 and $125,000 every year. That is the cost of three teachers. This may be justified, but sometimes it is not, is the point I am making. Using the example I cited in my last speech of the youngster with a gun in the classroom, if somebody determines that youngster must have an individual education plan, and the school district says, ``Now, wait a minute. Hold on. This kid has disciplinary problems. He does not have medical problems. He has disciplinary problems. We want to discipline him. We want to get him out of this classroom.'' But somebody disagrees. Maybe the parents, maybe somebody representing the parents, maybe the Civil Liberties Union--whoever--but somebody disagrees. So sometimes when the school district looks at the ramifications, they think, ``Well, if we go to court and fight this and lose, it could cost us $300,000. If we give in and we cave in and say, `Well, OK, the kid is waving a gun around, he must have a medical problem somewhere, something is wrong, he is waving a gun around a classroom, we need an IEP,' we might as well cave in because that will cost $100,000, and it is better to pay $100,000 than $300,000.'' That is exactly what happens, Mr. President, over and over again, year after year, district after district, all over America. They simply throw up their hands and look at it simply on the basis of a bottom line. ``If I go to court and I lose, I will owe $300,000 in legal fees. If I go to court and win, maybe I will not owe them. But if I lose I will have to pay, and for the sake of $100,000 IEP, knowing that the legal fees' estimate may be three times that, why, then, would I take the risk?'' That is exactly what happens, Mr. President. I have sat as chairman of the school board and seen it happen and participated in those decisions. They were bottom-line decisions. Now, let me tell you why this hurts children in those schools. Maybe I am mistaken, but I think we are trying to reform this law because we want to help students get a better education. Now, the question you must ask the question you might want to ask is: Is it fair to provide this kind of education, this kind of alternative, at the expense of other students? If it is going to cost $300,000 to go to court, then I have to think, if I am a school board chairman, well, how about the other kids? What happens to them? Let me tell you what happens: Those dollars go to the lawyers. That is what happens. And we are letting it happen. I thought the point of a civil rights law was to protect people from discrimination, especially minorities, not to provide minority group members with benefits not available to the rest of us. That is what I thought. Maybe I am somehow mistaken in that regard. So, all my amendment does, all it does, is it simply requires a court, in making an award under the IDEA legislation, to take into consideration the impact the granting of that award would have on the education of all the children, all the children, in the school district--not just one, all of them. I might say to you, is it fair to take education away from kids who want it, who need it, who deserve it, who ask for it, for the sake of someone who is a discipline problem? Not someone who has a handicap or someone who has a need. I want to make that clear, because I will be accused otherwise. That is not what we are talking about when we talk about kids who have legitimate needs. We are talking about these outrageous individual education plans that are written, and the outrageous examples of the kind that I gave you, a kid is selling drugs on the school ground, you have a kid waving a gun in the classroom, you have a kid shouting obscenities in the classroom, and instead of worrying about getting the kid out of there and out of that environment which is destroying the educational opportunities of other students, we are worried about what the background is, what the reason is for it. There is a justification for finding out the reason, but get them out of the school classroom where these problems are occurring. We are not talking about a child with Down's syndrome here or a child who is blind or deaf or who needs some special education to help that child learn. We are not talking about that. I voted for hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer dollars to help those children as a school board member and as a Senator. I am talking about some type of reasonable restriction on outrageous legal fees that come right smack out of the pockets of those good kids, good kids who simply want to learn, those good kids and decent parents who say, ``You know, I am sending my child into school. I know the teachers are imperfect. We are all imperfect. We are human beings. I do not expect them to be perfect. I do not expect the school or the administrator to be perfect or the classroom environment to be perfect, but I am asking they be free from the threat of violence, they be free from the threat of drugs, free from the threat of outrageous outbursts of obscenities and other things that may cause an impact on my child or their child's education.'' That is all parents are asking. What is so unreasonable about that? Who are we in the Federal Government or the U.S. Senate or the House of Representatives or the White House to tell the school district that they can't correct this? Who are we to do that? If you can find that in the Constitution, Mr. President, somewhere, anywhere, even implied, I will withdraw the amendment. It is not there. It is absolutely not there. We need to do something about it. There was a principal from a school in New Hampshire who wrote to me saying that because of litigation costs, ``funding of other regular education programs is being seriously jeopardized.'' He describes himself, this principal, as a member of a generation that sought to extend equal opportunity to all. He concluded, with regret, that as a result of excessive litigation the IDEA has become ``a law gone crazy. The students that are disadvantaged now are the regular education children.'' I include in regular education children those who have a disability, who need help. Let me repeat that: I include in regular education, children in that category, those children who have a special need, who need extra help--not the ones that are causing these problems that are so outrageous in these classrooms. I wish I could say this was just one mere anecdotal example out of millions and that it was not a big deal, but it is not. A study that was conducted by the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations shows that the IDEA is the fourth most litigated law in its study of unfunded mandates--unfunded Federal mandates. Is it any wonder that some lawyer from Washington, DC would say ``winning those cases is like taking candy from a baby?'' It is not. I have talked to the school board members. They throw their hands up in the air. It is costing them money by the hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars, money that could be spent on educating, yes, the truly needy special needs kids, as well as the people in that classroom. Again, for emphasis, I repeat what I said earlier. Can you imagine being in a classroom, as a teacher or as a student, with that kind of outrageous behavior occurring, and then knowing as a school board member that you have to tolerate it unless you want to break the bank with legal expenses? So, basically, what this amendment does that I am offering, it simply allows the court to pull back on these court costs, to have the flexibility to say, look, $13,000 for a $1,000 IEP or $350,000 for a $10,000 IEP, those kind of fees are outrageous. They are not going to be tolerated because we are not going to let some lawyer who wants to fatten his wallet do so at the expense of decent children in some school district in Anywhere, USA, from having the opportunities of getting what he or she deserves in that classroom. That is wrong, Mr. President. That is absolutely wrong to let that happen. Yet, it is happening and we are encouraging it to happen. We are encouraging it to happen because we have some deal struck that no one wants to break and, therefore, we can't offer an amendment. ``Yes, you can offer an amendment, Senator Smith, but everybody is going to oppose it. If you get five votes, good luck.'' Well, I just ask the American people to look very carefully at the votes, frankly. Those of you out there in the school districts around America, look at who votes on the Gorton amendment and Smith amendment and see whether they are there for you or not, because that is what it amounts to. I don't care what anybody tells you on the floor of this Senate, it is absolutely not true to say that this bill will be defeated if this amendment passes or the Gorton amendment passes. That is not true, because it can be defeated here and the President could veto it, but we can override the veto. That is the constitutional process. The need to address the problem of litigation costs seems all the more pressing at a time when some of my colleagues have begun calling for the Federal Government to take over the job of building and maintaining the schools from State and local governments. They want to take it over. Can you imagine that? The U.S. Senate, in this vote, is going to use the power of the Federal Government to prevent you from getting that child waving the gun or using the drugs out of the classroom but that same Federal Government is going to take over the job of maintaining school buildings. Can you imagine that? Do we really want to do for public schools what we have done for public housing? I think some do. I don't. Perhaps we in Congress would do better to ease the burdens of excessive regulation and litigation so that States and localities can devote more of their resources to repairing or replacing crumbling school buildings. You know, it might be a good idea--I hadn't thought of it; it just came to mind--when the lawyers get the big fat settlements or legal fees by winning these cases, which they take with great glee--``like taking candy from a baby''--maybe we ought to have an amendment that says they ought to give 90 percent of it back to the school district. Maybe they get an IEP or two for some of these kids that really need it. But that would be wrong. That is in violation of capitalism, I guess, isn't it? Well, all you have to do, Mr. President, is look and see where all the money goes from the legal community and who they are giving it to. There are a lot of lawyers in here and they do pretty well. So it is tough to beat the lawyers in this body. I ask my colleagues simply to search your consciences, read the two amendments, the Smith and Gorton amendments, read what they do and ask yourself, is it the end of the world if this passes and this bill takes a few more weeks running through the process of getting changed? That is all we are asking. If the process around here is to strike a deal before we get stuff to the floor, I am going to be the first Senator out on the floor the next time that somebody who votes for this bill says, ``I would like to offer an amendment.'' I am going to say, ``Excuse me, why are you offering an amendment? I thought we had a deal here. Isn't that the way you want to govern--strike the deal before you bring the bill to the floor so nobody can make any amendments?'' This amendment would make this legislation a responsible piece of legislation if we were to pass it. That is all I ask. I am not asking for anything else. I am asking for the Senate to adopt this amendment to strengthen this bill, to take money out of the pockets of lawyers and put it into the educational opportunities of young girls and boys throughout this country. That is all my amendment does. If you want it in the pockets of lawyers, vote against me. If you want it to be spent for the schoolchildren, then vote for me. That is it, pure and simple. Mr. President, I will reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Vermont working with me on this amendment. I do not intend to use the full 30 minutes on my side. If it helps to yield back some time on both sides to expedite things, I am more than pleased to do that. This, again, Mr. President, is another opportunity to strengthen this bill. Like the Gorton amendment, it is just a commonsense amendment that simply underlines a commitment to fairness and equity that I believe every Member in this body shares. My amendment would require a court making an award under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act to take into consideration the impact the granting of the award would have on the education of all children in that State or locality. The problem that the Smith amendment addresses is a very real one. Again, talking with school boards, having served on a school board, I can tell you that litigation costs are consuming a lot of resources that would otherwise be dedicated to education services or infrastructure development. In one instance, a school district was forced to pay $13,000 in attorney's fees as a result of a dispute over less than $1,000. I simply ask my colleagues if that is reasonable. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Gorton be added as a cosponsor to my amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Is the pending business now the Smith amendment?

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I see no people on my side. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Yes.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I want to indicate, first and foremost, that I understand what the sponsors of the bill are trying to do. I support the concept of reforming the IDEA law. I do not fault them for trying to make the changes. What I fault is the process in which we bring the bill to the floor with a locked-up agreement. One of the greatest aspects of the U.S. Senate is that we have the opportunity to debate, and hopefully sometimes have a couple of people listen to what we say and influence an outcome. I realize that does not happen very often around here. But in this particular case, we do not have the opportunity to influence the outcome because we are told: A deal has been struck between the House and the Senate, minority and majority, White House and everybody else. It is just one happy old time here, everything is done and we do not need to debate it, we do not need to suggest any changes. Perhaps an analogy might be if we had an agreement to spend $1 billion on cancer research and somebody told us if we spent another $50 million we could cure cancer, I think we would be prepared to amend the bill to add the $50 million to the $1 billion in a hurry. So I do not support this kind of process. I do not think it is right, and I think that we can strengthen a bill and, if somewhere along the line the President specifically decides to veto the bill with the strengthened provision, we have a constitutional process--the Founding Fathers thought it out very clearly--which says that bill would come back here, to the Senate and House, and we could override his veto or not. So I do not think anything is lost by allowing Senator Gorton and myself the opportunity to offer amendments in good faith. You might say, You are offering your amendments. Yes, we are, but we are offering them with just about everybody out there against us, even though I believe our ideas are good. Senator Gorton made some very interesting points on his amendment, and I rise in strong support of that amendment, which is the business before us. He made the interesting point that he did not feel U.S. Senators necessarily knew more about what was happening in the various school districts in Washington State or in New Hampshire, for that matter, than the people in those districts did. I could not agree with him more. I bring perhaps a different perspective than many of my colleagues here in the Senate. I spent 6 years in the classroom as a teacher. I also spent 6 years on a school board. I know what Public Law 194 is, and I know the good things that that law has done for people who are in need of special education. It has done wonders for many, many students who were in need. The Senator from Iowa made specific reference to one individual who had been helped under this program. I applaud that. That is not what we are talking about. What we are talking about is this basically distorting the process to write individualized education plans for people who perhaps should not have IEP's; who really are not in the same category as the young man who was mentioned by the Senator from Iowa. I took the opportunity, even though this is not a bill that is in the jurisdiction of any of my committees--that is Senator Jeffords' committee--I did something that perhaps is not always done around here, I wrote to all the school districts in my State and I asked for input on this legislation. I informed them I felt there was a good opportunity, that Senator Jeffords and others were moving the bill through the process here, that it was going to improve the special education program or IDEA as we know it, and I think Senator Jeffords has done that. He has improved it. But the question again goes back to my original point. Can we improve it more? I think Senator Gorton's amendment does that. I would like to explain why I think that is the case. I would like to explain the rationale for the amendment, which is intended to ensure that the education of all students not be compromised. This is an important issue. I wish we had the opportunity for more debate, but unfortunately we do not have that. The problem the Gorton- Smith school safety amendment addresses is, I believe, one of the most serious problems in all of the legislation. A safe school environment is a precondition for learning. I listened to my colleague, for whom I have the greatest respect, Dr. Frist, the Senator from Tennessee. He used some medical examples and indicated that there are times when these unexplained medical occurrences occur. I understand that. I respect that. I do not claim to challenge his medical knowledge. But I hope we might speak from the teacher's point of view, because that is what this is all about. We are not talking, here, just about helping children who need help. That is one part of it. There are children who need help. But there are also children, for whatever reason--whether it is because they need help or because they got an IEP that they should not have gotten, an individual educational plan--they are disrupting the classroom. And there are other students in that classroom. When I am standing before that classroom, trying to teach 25 other students, and this student blurts something out and disrupts the class, or waves a gun in class, or brings drugs into class, or shouts obscenities, or whatever else the student may decide to do, it really, as far as the other 25 students in the class are concerned--I do not really think that they are overly concerned at that point, when the classroom is disrupted and education is disrupted, as to what the cause is, or what the problem may be specifically with this child. It is a problem. If it is a medical problem, it ought to get medical attention. If it is a discipline problem, it ought to get disciplinary attention. That disciplinary attention ought to come from the decisions of the teacher, parents, school board, school administrators--not from the Federal Government. Not from the U.S. Senate. So, the school safety amendment is a commonsense addition to this bill. That is all it is. It simply ensures that the rules governing discipline in schools may be formulated in such a way as to treat all students uniformly. Without this amendment, S. 717 will preserve the double standard that exists under current law. Students will see there is one standard for students diagnosed with disabilities and another one for those who do not have such a diagnosis. Recently, my office received a call from a school board chairman in New Hampshire complaining that a student in one of the districts had brought a gun to school. He reported that because the student had been diagnosed with a disability, the school board was powerless to intervene. It goes without saying that without the diagnosis, the situation would have been different. I ask you, Mr. President, if you are standing in that classroom trying to teach those other students and a kid waves a gun around, at that point, do you really care specifically what his problem is? When somebody walks into a bank and waves a firearm at a clerk, at that point in time, are we really concerned about how difficult his or her childhood may have been, or are we concerned about dealing with the now, what is of utmost urgency, and that is the violence that is pending, immediately and then deal with the other problem? Doesn't that make more sense, I say to my colleagues? That is all Senator Gorton is trying to do. That is all his amendment does. If you read on page 157 in the bill, basically what it says is that if you have that student waving that gun, you can get that student out of the classroom, according to the Federal Government now dictating to the school district. You can get the student out of the classroom for 45 days. That is very nice that the Federal Government and the Senate and the House and the President have given the school districts a directive that, yes, if you have a kid waving a gun around in Mrs. Jones' class, let's say in the sixth grade, you can take the kid out of school for 45 days. That is very good of the Federal Government to allow that to happen. I applaud them for letting that happen. In addition, to show the kindness of the Federal Government even more, if you provide an IEP, an individual education plan, for that student who is waving a gun around--you have to do that--you have to provide that help for this student while he or she is out for 45 days and then, after the 45 days, you have to bring the student back into the classroom again. Now, that is real nice for the Federal Government to get into that kind of micromanaging. As a teacher who has the responsibility for educating the students and, in this particular case, the safety of the students, we need a better way. I do not want the Federal Government to make that decision. I want the teacher on the spot, the administrators on the spot to get that student out of the classroom and to find out whatever the problem is. If it is a medical problem, fine, then deal with it as a medical problem outside the parameters of the school district. The school district is not a hospital, it is not a social service agency, it is an educational institution, and we have lost sight of that. Everybody in America knows it, the school districts know it, the students know it, in some cases. I believe honestly that without this amendment we will eventually be forced to revisit this problem. This is not going to resolve the problem despite our best intentions. We are going to be sending the message that the Federal Government is not a help but an impediment to efforts to provide students with a safe learning environment. By sending that message, we will give citizens who want safe schools for their children reason to doubt that the Federal Government considers their concerns worthy of serious attention. I do not believe we should send that message, Mr. President. Throughout this debate, we have heard that any successful effort to amend this bill, no matter how worthy, is going to imperil the entire legislation. I ask my colleagues to think about that for a moment. How does it imperil this legislation to say to a local school district, if you have somebody waving a gun around in a classroom, or doing drugs in a classroom, or in other ways disrupting the classroom, how does it imperil this legislation to say that we want to add an amendment on this bill that says that the school district, the teacher, the principal, the enforcement official, the police department, whatever it takes in that local community, should be able to address that problem as they would if any other student were causing it. Deal with the other problems, the problems behind this incident later, but get the child out of the classroom. That is all Senator Gorton and I are asking with this amendment. It is not unreasonable, Mr. President. Schools should not be forced to adapt their own behavior policies on the basis of IDEA. This is a reasonable amendment. I encourage my colleagues to search their conscience, in spite of the effort to stop all amendments, in spite of the effort to say this will destroy the bill, I plead with my colleagues to support the Gorton amendment because of the reasons I have given. Bear in mind, we all understand the rules, we understand the constitutional provisions of what we do in the Senate. We all understand that if a bill is defeated, it can be defeated because the President vetoes it, it can be defeated because the Senate or the House defeats it, but in this case, if the Senate passes it with this amendment and the House passes it with this amendment, who knows, the President may sign it with this amendment. We do not know the answer to that. And if he does not sign it, we can override his veto, and if we do not override his veto, we go right back to where Senator Jeffords is now. So what have we lost? A little time, that is all. But I guarantee you, if you talk to those teachers out there in those inner cities and other locations where these kinds of things are happening, it would be very interesting to hear their remarks in terms of how they feel about this. Let me close by saying, again, I understand and respect what Senator Jeffords is trying to do. This is an advancement of current law in the right direction. I applaud that and support that, but I resent the fact that we cannot make an attempt, where there are deficiencies overlooked, where we are denied the opportunity to make the attempt to reform them because we are going to ``undo'' some compromise on the legislation. Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve any time I have.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to my distinguished colleague from West Virginia.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Geraldine Sylvester of Dover on her retirement after 25 years of service to Dover and the State of New Hampshire. Geraldine has ended a distinguished career as a State health leader, city councilor, businesswoman, educator and mother. Gerry has been my friend for more than a decade. She grew up in Milton and graduated from Nute High School. She and her husband Bob raised 5 daughters and 2 sons and now have 16 grandchildren. Geraldine served seven consecutive terms as a Dover city councilor beginning in 1970. In 1974-75 she also served as mayor. Geraldine officially retired as director of New Hampshire's Office of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention in December 1996, which was the single State authority for substance abuse problems in New Hampshire. Geraldine was appointed for this post in 1983 by former Gov. John Sununu, and continued her service under Governors Judd Gregg and Steve Merrill. Gerry is a woman of many talents who approaches any challenge with determination. She served in miscellaneous local, State, and Federal positions, such as the National Advisory Committee on Alcohol and Drug Abuse and Mental Health Problems. In 1980 she was a delegate to the National Republican Convention, chairwoman of the New Hampshire Small Business Advisory Council in 1978, and from 1976 to 1981 she became trustee of the New Hampshire Youth Development Center. Gerry and Bob are also humanitarians. Their compassion is illustrated in the fact that, for 12 years, the Sylvester home was a group home for physically and emotionally distraught minors in the seacoast of New Hampshire. Gerry and Bob founded GFS Manufacturing in 1971 in the garage of their house. Through the energy, dedication, and drive of Gerry and her family, the business grew and prospered. In 1978 they were named citizens of the year by the Greater Dover Chamber of Commerce. Mr. President, Geraldine Sylvester has dedicated her time, talent, and energy to serving the residents of Dover in an exemplary way. I am proud to honor her outstanding community commitment, which is so important to the future and prosperity of Dover. We are indeed indebted to Gerry for her efforts. I thank her for her 25 years of dedicated service, commend her for an extraordinary job and say that I am privileged to call her my friend. I wish her every happiness and health for the years to come as she embraces retirement.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Arthur and Roena Moses from Sanbornton, NH, on the celebration of their 50th wedding anniversary. Arthur and Roena were united in marriage on March 2, 1947, in a double ring ceremony at the Congregational Church in South Danbury, NH. After a motor trip honeymoon around New England, the couple made their home in Sanbornton and have lived there for the past 50 years. Arthur and Roena raised four children, Eugene, Gail, Jeffrey, and Barry Moses. Roena Moses grew up in South Danbury. She attended local schools and graduated from Franklin High School in 1945. She worked in the Franklin Public Library, and then for Cormier Hosiery until she retired in 1985. Today she spends her time knitting garments for newborn babies, and enjoys doing puzzles, camping, playing games, and visiting with all her friends. Roena has also contributed to the arts and crafts program at the Shaker Village in Canterbury, NH. Arthur has lived his whole life in Sanbornton. He grew up at a farm and was a farmer for 40 years. He also worked for the New Hampshire Department of Transportation [DOT] in the maintenance division 3. Arthur retired in 1985 after working for 25 years at the same Tilton DOT location. Arthur and Roena both enjoy camping. For the last several years Roena has been elected president and trail boss of the North American Family Campers Association [NAFCA] where she and her husband are charter members. Their journeys have taken them all over the United States, making friends wherever they go. On March 2, 1997, Arthur and Roena celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary in the vestry of Sanbornton's First Baptist Church. Mr. President, Arthur and Roena Moses provide an inspiring example of the joys of marriage. I am pleased to congratulate them on the celebration of their 50th wedding anniversary and I wish them luck and happiness in the years to come.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to 10-year-old Joshua Gagnon from Merrimack, NH, for being chosen the New Hampshire champion by the Champions Across America Program of the Children's Miracle Network. These champions are children who have triumphed over life-threatening health problems. Joshua, along with champions from other States, will represent the 7 million children treated at children's hospitals each year. Joshua was only 3 years old when his family discovered his illness. An MRI revealed that he suffered from the Dandy Walker syndrome, which required an extensive shunt that extended from his brain to his stomach. In the past 7 years the shunt, which is susceptible to clogging, has required three replacements. Another surgery Joshua had undergone was to correct a condition known as Streeter's dysplasia. The Genesis fund, which funds the National Birth Defects Center, made it possible for Joshua's webbed fingers and toes to be reshaped by a plastic/reconstructive surgeon. Even though he only has use of his ring finger and his pinky finger on his right hand, Joshua writes very well and loves to assemble model airplanes and cars. Like any other boy his age, Joshua has many hobbies, such as reading, riding his mountain bike and playing basketball. He is very inquisitive and his sense of humor gives his mother many reasons to laugh. Mr. President, I want to call attention to the uniqueness of children's health care and the importance of non-profit hospitals for children. Joshua is an inspiring example for children and their families to fight the battle and beat the odds. He and the other champions show children in New Hampshire and across the Nation how to pursue a happy life, despite their illness. I am proud to represent Joshua in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the town of Nottingham on its 275th anniversary. On May 10, 1997, at the 275th anniversary celebration, the Nottingham Historical Society and the anniversary committee will be reading the Royal Charter of May 10, 1722, which founded the town of Nottingham. When the charter was formally issued in 1722, there were 132 persons who were allowed to draw lots of land to establish the town. Now, Nottingham is a quaint New England town of 3,002 people, still dedicated to the Yankee ingenuity that formed the town in colonial times. Nottingham was at the forefront of America's industrial history. In 1727, the townspeople decided to build the first sawmill on the Tuckaway River which was the beginning of 17 water powered mills for the purpose of sawing lumber, grinding grain, and fulling, a process of cleansing and working up a nap on rough, woolen homespun cloth. The rugged land was too rocky for the planting of crops and the land had to be cleared to allow the family's provisions to be raised, and to provide winter food for the livestock. Charcoal was produced for sale in the seacoast towns like this one; it was used as the fuel in the furnaces for making iron and for heating and cooking in city fireplaces. The ironmills along the two-mile streak--also known as New Portsmouth--required large amounts of charcoal, too, for building furnaces and making iron. The name of today's Smoke Street still indicates how much charcoal was produced in the former Summer Street of the 1700's. In spite of the hardships of nature in the cold northeast, Nottingham started to grow. By the late 1760's the Nottingham Square included a school house, a church, a meeting house, and a store. Landowners were building homes which were substantial. The Butler Inn, for example, and many other colonial and federal style homes remain in good condition today. Nottingham also has a place of honor in our Nation's military history. Gen. Henry Dearborn led Nottingham in the march of the Minutemen to the Battle of Bunker Hill in the American Revolution. Three other brave Revolutionary War generals, Joseph Cilley, Thomas Bartlett and Henry Butler, remained in Nottingham to become leading citizens and many of their descendants are still actively involved in the improvement of Nottingham today. During the Civil War, Nottingham residents provided many able-bodied men to fight and supplied the Union Armies with food and clothing. From the Civil War to the gulf war, many members of Nottingham's families have served their country proudly and honorably in all branches of our Nation's services. Nottingham's residents today serve in professional, semiprofessional, trade, and service occupations. Though individualistic, these townspeople are family-oriented and prudent. They always strive for the betterment of their community and are willing to contribute their time and talents on behalf of their neighbors. I congratulate all the dedicated and patriotic residents of Nottingham on this historic milestone and wish them an enjoyable year of celebration and remembrance. They all should be very proud of the town's heritage and 275 years of distinguished history. I send them my best wishes for continued success and prosperity. Happy Birthday, Nottingham.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to 21 students from Gorham High School in Gorham, NH, who were recently selected to compete in the national finals of the ``We the People . . . the Citizen and the Constitution'' program to be held April 26-28 in Washington, DC. These high school students competed on the State level on February 10 for the opportunity to represent New Hampshire at the national competition, and will be among more than 1,200 students from 49 States and the District of Columbia to participate. The distinguished members of the team representing New Hampshire are: David Arsenault, Jan Bindas-Tenney, Melissa Borowski, Alyssa Breton, Mire Burrill, Kevin Carpenter, Todd Davis, Rebecca Evans, Brad Fillion, Cindy Gibson, Patrick Gilligan, Sean Griffith, Reid Hartman, Sarah King, Michelle Leveille, Monica McKenzie, Ashley Thompson, Michael Toth, Julie Washburn, Tuuli Winter, and Melanie Wolf. All 21 New Hampshire students will be tested on the Constitution and Bill of Rights before simulated congressional committees to demonstrate their knowledge of constitutional principles and their relevance to contemporary issues. The competition in Washington will consist of 2 days of hearings; and the 10 finalists, with the highest scores, will compete for the title of national winner on Capitol Hill in a congressional hearing room. Michael Brosnan, a teacher at Gorham High School, also deserves special recognition for helping these students prepare for the intense constitutional testing. Raymond Kneeland the district coordinator of the ``We the People . . . the Citizen and the Constitution'' program, Holly Belson, the State coordinator, and Howard Zibel, of the New Hampshire Bar Association, all contributed a significant amount of time and effort to help the students reach the national finals. As a former teacher myself, I applaud all of them on their commitment to enriching the lives of these students. The ``We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution'' program provides an excellent opportunity for students to gain an informed perspective about the history and principles of our Nation's constitutional government. I wish these young constitutional experts from Gorham High School and their teacher, Michael Brosnan, the best of luck in preparing for the April national finals. We are proud to have them representing New Hampshire, and wish them luck as they prepare to be America's leader in the 21st century.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order following the remarks of Senator Daschle, the minority leader.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, following the period of morning business on Monday, the Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 543, the Volunteer Protection Act. Under the order previously agreed to, there will be a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to S. 543 at 2:15 p.m. on Tuesday, April 29. There will be no rollcall votes on Monday, April 28. However, the Senate will continue to debate the motion to proceed to the volunteer protection legislation.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I now move to proceed to S. 543 and send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I now withdraw the motion to proceed.