Bob Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Christos Nickolas Kalivas, the first Greek American from Manchester, NH to be killed in action during World War I. He is being honored at the re-dedication ceremony of Kalivas Park in Manchester on March 23, 2002. The city has completed extensive renovations and upgrading of the park in anticipation of the event. Christos was born on September 24, 1885 in the village of Vithos in Kozanis, Macedonia, Greece. In 1908, he left his wife, Vasilike, and daughter, Gilkeria, to immigrate to the United States in search of a better life. He hoped to eventually raise enough money to bring his family to the U.S. as well. Unfortunately, the difficult economic conditions of World War I made this goal impossible and he was forced to live with relatives in Manchester and work as a laborer for ten years. In May of 1918, he entered the United States Army. Just two months later, on July 6, he went overseas as a member of Company C, 16th infantry, 1st division. He was killed in action during the October 1918 Meuse-Argonne offensive in France, one month before the war ended. Tragically, he had never reunited with his family. Christos represented the citizens of New Hampshire and the United States with courage and bravery. I commend the contribution he made in our Nation in a time of despair. It is truly an honor and a privilege to represent him in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would provide equity and fairness to the application of the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program, or the Fee Demo Program, as it is more commonly called. This bill, the Host Community Fairness Act, would exempt local residents from fees imposed as part of the Fee Demo Program. As I am sure my colleagues are all aware, the Fee Demo Program, which started in fiscal year 1996, was established to fund recreational and resource needs, and repair facilities throughout our national forests, parks and other public lands. Currently, each land management agency can establish any number of fee projects and retain and spend all the revenue collected. However, at least 80 percent of the fees collected are retained at the site where collected. The program was originally supposed to end at the end of FY98; however, due to extensions that have occurred through the appropriations process, it is now set to expire at the end of FY04. While I agree that the intentions of this program are good, there are flaws that must be addressed. What concerns me most is double-taxation for the local residents who live in and around these Fee Demo areas. These individuals should not also be required to pay to use these lands. Especially when they already suffer from a decreased tax-base due to the presence of Federal lands in their community and who help to provide emergency services. It is wrong to ask them to pay to use land that they already support and is essentially in their own backyard. Just to be clear, this legislation would exempt residents of any county or counties that host any Federal land that has a Fee Demo project from paying the fee, regardless of where in the forest or park the fee is being imposed. When I say Federal land, I mean any National Forest, National Park, National Wildlife Refuge or Bureau of Land Management land. I would like to take a moment to talk about how this impacts the State of New Hampshire. Nearly 50-percent of Berlin, New Hampshire, which has a population of about 10,000, falls within the boundaries of the White Mountain National Forest. Unfortunately, the city of Berlin has dealt with several economic setbacks, including the recent closure of a local paper mill, its largest employer. When this situation is combined with the fact that half their land is tied up in the National Forest, the result is a severe hit to this city's tax base. Asking these citizens to pay a fee to hike in their own backyard is not only unfair, it is also wrong. I think it is also reasonable to assume that this kind of economic situation is not unique to host communities in New Hampshire. Finally, it should be noted that a clear and convincing majority of the New Hampshire House of Representatives sent a message to the U.S. Congress regarding their serious concerns with this program. On February 14, 2002, the New Hampshire House overwhelmingly voted in favor of a resolution that clearly outlines what they see as the negative effect this program has had on their local communities. The New Hampshire House is one the largest parliamentary bodies in the world. Its 400 members receive only a $100 per year stipend and they are truly citizen legislators. The resolution's primary sponsors included both Republicans and Democrats as well as the Speaker of the House and the former Speaker of the House, who is now a State Senator. What concerns me most with what these citizen legislators are saying is that, ``. . . the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program has undermined the longstanding goodwill between the White Mountain National Forest and New Hampshire citizens and communities . . .'' and ``. . . the traditional support of the New Hampshire citizens for activities such as trail maintenance and fire safety have been compromised . . .''. As the senior Senator from New Hampshire, I find these statements very disheartening. In New Hampshire, there is a longstanding tradition of open access to both public and private lands. The Fee Demo program runs counter to that tradition. Members of Congress have a duty to their constituents to maintain a cooperative relationship between the Federal land management agencies and the communities that are required to host them. Enactment of the Host Community Fairness Act is one small step we can take in addressing these legitimate concerns and restoring the goodwill previously enjoyed between the Federal lands across this country and their host communities. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would provide equity and fairness to the application of the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program, or the Fee Demo Program, as it is more commonly called. This bill, the Host Community Fairness Act, would exempt local residents from fees imposed as part of the Fee Demo Program. As I am sure my colleagues are all aware, the Fee Demo Program, which started in fiscal year 1996, was established to fund recreational and resource needs, and repair facilities throughout our national forests, parks and other public lands. Currently, each land management agency can establish any number of fee projects and retain and spend all the revenue collected. However, at least 80 percent of the fees collected are retained at the site where collected. The program was originally supposed to end at the end of FY98; however, due to extensions that have occurred through the appropriations process, it is now set to expire at the end of FY04. While I agree that the intentions of this program are good, there are flaws that must be addressed. What concerns me most is double-taxation for the local residents who live in and around these Fee Demo areas. These individuals should not also be required to pay to use these lands. Especially when they already suffer from a decreased tax-base due to the presence of Federal lands in their community and who help to provide emergency services. It is wrong to ask them to pay to use land that they already support and is essentially in their own backyard. Just to be clear, this legislation would exempt residents of any county or counties that host any Federal land that has a Fee Demo project from paying the fee, regardless of where in the forest or park the fee is being imposed. When I say Federal land, I mean any National Forest, National Park, National Wildlife Refuge or Bureau of Land Management land. I would like to take a moment to talk about how this impacts the State of New Hampshire. Nearly 50-percent of Berlin, New Hampshire, which has a population of about 10,000, falls within the boundaries of the White Mountain National Forest. Unfortunately, the city of Berlin has dealt with several economic setbacks, including the recent closure of a local paper mill, its largest employer. When this situation is combined with the fact that half their land is tied up in the National Forest, the result is a severe hit to this city's tax base. Asking these citizens to pay a fee to hike in their own backyard is not only unfair, it is also wrong. I think it is also reasonable to assume that this kind of economic situation is not unique to host communities in New Hampshire. Finally, it should be noted that a clear and convincing majority of the New Hampshire House of Representatives sent a message to the U.S. Congress regarding their serious concerns with this program. On February 14, 2002, the New Hampshire House overwhelmingly voted in favor of a resolution that clearly outlines what they see as the negative effect this program has had on their local communities. The New Hampshire House is one the largest parliamentary bodies in the world. Its 400 members receive only a $100 per year stipend and they are truly citizen legislators. The resolution's primary sponsors included both Republicans and Democrats as well as the Speaker of the House and the former Speaker of the House, who is now a State Senator. What concerns me most with what these citizen legislators are saying is that, ``. . . the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program has undermined the longstanding goodwill between the White Mountain National Forest and New Hampshire citizens and communities . . .'' and ``. . . the traditional support of the New Hampshire citizens for activities such as trail maintenance and fire safety have been compromised . . .''. As the senior Senator from New Hampshire, I find these statements very disheartening. In New Hampshire, there is a longstanding tradition of open access to both public and private lands. The Fee Demo program runs counter to that tradition. Members of Congress have a duty to their constituents to maintain a cooperative relationship between the Federal land management agencies and the communities that are required to host them. Enactment of the Host Community Fairness Act is one small step we can take in addressing these legitimate concerns and restoring the goodwill previously enjoyed between the Federal lands across this country and their host communities. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I rise today to pay tribute to Fidelity Investments of Merrimack, New Hampshire, on being named as the 2001 Business of the Year by the Merrimack Chamber of Commerce. An active member of the community, Fidelity Investments has been a model in stewardship for the greater Merrimack area. I commend the achievements of Fidelity Investments for the growth of the company and the opportunities it provides to the citizens of Merrimack and the State. In 1996, Fidelity Investments opened its Merrimack facility with 300 employees and a single business unit on the former Digital Equipment site. Five years later in 2002, Fidelity has expanded to more than 20 Fidelity-affiliated business units with more than 3,500 employees. Fidelity Investments has been a dedicated member of the Merrimack Chamber for the past five years. Always active in community events, Fidelity has contributed to programs including: Merrimack Chamber Golf Tournament and Banquet, Fidelity Foundation, Mentor Program with Mastricola Middle School, Career's Academy of Finance program at the South Central School, sponsor of the Union Leader's Stock Market Made Easy program, sponsor of Junior Achievement's Titan Cyber-Biz program, and sponsor of Kids Voting New Hampshire. The company also has a strong relationship with members of the Merrimack law enforcement and public safety communities providing sponsorships for training and donations of equipment including participation in the Local Emergency Planning Committee. Fidelity also offers access to and usage of the company's helicopter pad by the Merrimack Fire Department during medical emergencies. I applaud the exemplary acts of community involvement by the leadership and employees of Fidelity Investments and congratulate them on this prestigious award. The Town of Merrimack and entire State have benefitted from the economic and charitable contributions made by the concerned citizens at Fidelity Investments. It is truly an honor and a privilege to represent you in the United States Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I rise today to pay tribute to Nelson Disco of Merrimack, New Hampshire, on being named as the 2001 President's Award recipient by the Merrimack Chamber of Commerce. A dedicated member of the community at large, Nelson has worked diligently donating his time and talents to projects and programs benefitting the Town of Merrimack including: Parks and Recreation Department tennis court designer, member of the Board of Selectmen, and Planning Board. Nelson was a recipient of the Paul Harris Fellowship Award from the Merrimack Rotary Club and was the 1990 Chamber Business Person of the Year. Retired from Sanders Corporation in 2000, he has been an exemplary contributor to the Chamber of Commerce assisting with programs including co-chair of the Gourmet Festival and volunteer on the Banquet Committee. Nelson enjoys his retirement exercising with friends four days per week and volunteering at the American Canadian Genealogy Library. I applaud the service that Nelson has selflessly provided to the citizens of Merrimack. His caring efforts have benefitted the residents of Merrimack and the community at large. I congratulate Nelson on this prestigious award and wish him well in his retirement years. It is truly an honor and a privilege to represent him in the United States Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I rise today to pay tribute to the citizens of Milton, New Hampshire, on the occasion of the Town's bicentennial celebration. The Town of Milton, located in Strafford County, has a rich history in the State of New Hampshire. A petition was submitted in 1794 by the citizens of Rochester to be incorporated as a separate town. On June 11, 1802, the Town of Milton was incorporated. Milton is located on Milton Three Ponds, an area blessed with an abundance of waterpower which was utilized by different industries including several sawmills and a woolen mill, Miltonia Mills which specialized in fine wool blankets that were used by Admiral Peary on exploratory exhibitions. A distillery and five icehouses which supplied ice to Boston, Massachusetts, were also located in Milton. Construction of homes began in Milton during the early 1800's and the first rural schools, Plummer's Ridge School #1 and Nute Ridge School #2 were built. Both school buildings remain standing in Milton today. In 1853, Lewis Worster Nute, a native of Milton, provided financial support in his will to build a school and a library in Milton and a chapel in West Milton. Today, the Town of Milton, situated in southeastern New Hampshire, has a population of approximately four thousand residents. Teneriffe Mountain overlooks Milton Three Ponds which connects to the Salmon Falls River, offering spectacular scenery year round. Milton's municipal government consists of an elected three member Board of Selectmen and numerous other boards and committees. The Town's representatives in the New Hampshire legislature include: Representatives Nancy Johnson and Rodney Woodill and State Senator Carl Johnson. The Town has an excellent on-call Fire Department and Ambulance Corps, along with a well staffed Police Department and a summer marine patrol. Each year the townspeople of Milton nominate a ``Citizen of the Year''. In 2002, the Fire, Police and Ambulance Corps will be honored as the true heroes in Milton, New Hampshire. I congratulate the citizens of Milton, New Hampshire, as they celebrate the Town's bicentennial anniversary and wish them continued success and prosperity in the years to come. It is truly an honor and a privilege to represent the people of the Town of Milton in the United States Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I want to speak briefly on four issues this morning. Let me start, first, with the issue of MTBE, which is probably not a household word in many States. It is methyl tertiary butyl ether. I will be calling it MTBE from now on in these remarks. Over the past few years, countless families and businesses in my State and throughout the Nation have learned firsthand the devastating effect of this gasoline additive known as MTBE. It is in our drinking water. People can't shower because of the smell. They cannot drink the water. Their homes have to have three or four huge tanks with filters in order to be able to drink and use their water. It depreciates the value of their home. This is a real problem nationally. Fortunately, there is help on the way. I am very pleased that the energy package we are now considering finally contains a solution. I thank the majority leader for including my legislation in the Federal Reform Leaded Fuels Act in the energy package that we are debating. This legislation was voted out of committee both last Congress and this Congress. I am pleased that it will finally get a vote, I hope, on the Senate floor. I thank a lot of people who helped. This does not come easy. We all have strong views. We have a number of different interests: Those who produce the MTBE, those who produce ethanol, those who refine gasoline, those regions of the country that can't use ethanol for various reasons, and those who are worried about the higher cost, if they do. It took a lot of compromise and a lot of negotiations, which we have been working on now for many months--particularly Senator Reid of Nevada, Senator Voinovich, Senator Jeffords, Senator Inhofe, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Senator Hagel, and Senator Murkowski--there are others, but in particular their hard work and cooperation with my staff. I also want to say that the refiners, the ethanol producers, the environmental groups--all of them--have worked with me over the last few years to reach a consensus. It was not easy, that is for sure, with so many diverse issues and views. I thank all of them for negotiating in good faith and keeping the work product to ourselves as we went through this. The result is good. It is a comprehensive legislative package that protects our drinking water while preserving air quality and minimizing negative impacts on gasoline prices and supply. Understanding where we are, it is worth taking a step back to discuss how and why we got to this point. In 1990, the Clean Air Act was amended to include a reformulated gasoline program. This program requires clean burning gasoline in specified areas with high levels of air pollution. Four counties in southern New Hampshire chose to participate. The program has been successful in achieving the air quality benefits beyond our requirements. Unfortunately, one provision of the program mandates the use of an oxygenate in areas that use reformulated gas, requiring States to use MTBE or ethanol. Because New Hampshire is far from ethanol production, economics dictated that MTBE be chosen as the oxygenate. There was also concern with the impact ethanol could have on the air quality of New Hampshire, particularly the potential of increased smog. So the State chose MTBE. Of course, at that time no one was aware of the looming nightmare as a result of that choice. What we put in the gasoline to clean up the air has now contaminated our water. How does that happen? Because the tanks underground that hold the gasoline leak, or after you fill up your tank with gasoline and you take the nozzle out, a drop or two of the gasoline may hit the pavement, and then it washes away into our ground water. I remind all who are listening to me now, think about that when you put that nozzle back: Don't let any of that gasoline drip, not even a drop, because it goes so quickly into the water supply. MTBE is a clean, cheap gasoline additive that boosts octane. It is a very effective product. But it migrates through the ground and into the water table and the aquifer very quickly and diffuses quickly. At even low levels of contamination, MTBE renders water unusable because of its foul odor and taste. Particularly hard hit by the MTBE contamination are the communities in the southern tier of New Hampshire, such as Salem, Derry, and Raymond. I have come to the Senate Chamber on several occasions to speak specifically about these families and small businesses that have been impacted by the MTBE contamination, continuing to reiterate the desperate need that the Senate take action. Time after time, in committee, month after month, I have almost begged the Senate to take action on this matter because it isn't fair that people, in the interests of making a profit, selling one product, should do it at the expense of those whose health is being impacted by contaminated water. I spoke to the Miller family--Christina and Greg, and their son Nathan--who live in Derry, NH. This young family has been struggling for over 3 years with MTBE contamination in their well--not being able to drink the water, not being able to shower. I have spent time at the Four Corners Store and surrounding homes in the town of Richmond. Gasoline in those tanks spread from that location into the aquifers of the surrounding homes. This plume has contaminated a number of private wells near that store. I visited some of those families who have those wells. We went down in the basements and saw these large tanks with filters. When a prospective buyer comes to look at the house, what are they going to think? The first question is: What is this? The Goulas and Frampton families were kind enough to invite me into their homes and show me this massive treatment system that had been installed by the State. The answer is, yes, we are getting the filters, we are getting the help, the remediation we need, but that does not take care of the problem. We do not want more homes contaminated. Once we remove the MTBE, then it is not going to get anymore into their wells. Once it is cleaned up, they will be able to use their water again. We take for granted, in this country, the fact we can turn that faucet on and get a clean drink of water or take a shower and not have to smell the water. These are cumbersome systems that have to be set up, and costly to operate, not to mention the concerns and fears they face on a daily basis. There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of stories similar to these New Hampshire examples of nightmares that are the result of MTBE contamination. We made a mistake. The Government made a mistake. They put MTBE in gasoline to clean up the air, not knowing the harm they were doing. We did not do enough research and science, and we made a terrible mistake. We have to correct it. We have to do it now. To help understand the magnitude of the problem in New Hampshire alone, it is worth noting just a couple of statistics. The State Department of Environmental Services in New Hampshire estimates that up to 40,000 private wells in New Hampshire have some MTBE contamination. In the year 2000, over 16 percent of the public water supplies had detected levels of MTBE. Almost 20 percent of that public water with MTBE contamination is at levels above the State drinking water standard. The State has had to buy bottled water. I mentioned the installation of the expensive treatment equipment with contaminated wells. Currently, New Hampshire has two dedicated State funds and a federally funded program that are used to address MTBE problems. During discussions with State officials, I learned that the money is running low and will soon run out if new sources of funding are not found. This is a crisis. We have to deal with it. New Hampshire is not alone. Many other States have had to address problems from MTBE contamination. I know the distinguished Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, and I have talked about this a number of times. This is a bipartisan issue. It is not a partisan issue. This is a national problem. It has to be addressed at the national level because to not do so would force communities to say, we are going to ban MTBE, and they would be in violation of the Clean Air Act. So this legislation I have written is an effective solution. I am pleased that the energy package includes the text of that legislation. Specifically, it bans MTBE, provides money for the cleanup of MTBE, eliminates the oxygen mandate in the RFG program, and maintains the current level of air quality protection. There is no backsliding. In addition, the legislation requires the EPA to conduct an expedited review of State petitions to suspend the oxygen mandate in the RFG program. If the EPA fails to complete the review of a State petition within 30 days, the petition will automatically be granted. This provision could allow New Hampshire to begin to eliminate MTBE from the fuel system even before the oxygen mandate is lifted. I have promised to help New Hampshire in any way possible to stop the use of MTBE and I promise those families the same thing. We owe it to them. The Senators who are not from New Hampshire owe it to them, as I would help those in other States who have similar problems. And there are those in other States who have similar problems. Finally, the language includes $2 million for the research of techniques to clean up bedrock contamination and to establish a clearinghouse for sharing the information. This is a huge increase beyond the pilot study currently funded. The greatest difficulty, according to Dr. Nancy Kinner, a scientist from the University of New Hampshire, is tracking and cleaning up MTBE in fractured bedrock. This research will help to address that problem. It has not been an easy deal to reach, but a lot of people participated. They came in with the right approach, understanding the desperate need those families have. Again, I thank the majority leader, and all of the Senators involved. I particularly thank Chris Hessler and Melinda Cross from my staff for their help, and Dave Conover, of course, for his assistance in helping me to work through this. Madam President, I see there are no other Senators in the Chamber. I ask unanimous consent to speak for an additional 10 minutes.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, there has been a lot of discussion about the Pickering nomination and about the delay in approving judges. It seems to be a perennial issue. Senator Specter just spoke about it. But there are times when we need to put some of these partisan feelings behind us and look at some of these nominations. I rise to discuss the nomination of Jeffrey Howard to be a justice for the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Attorney Howard is like many other of President Bush's nominees who have yet to even receive a hearing. These men and women whom we nominate, their lives go on hold. They have law practices. They have responsibilities. They have families. What do you do? Jeff Howard is a young man. He has a family. He was nominated on August 2, 2001. I was pleased to have been the prime mover and sponsor of that nomination because Jeff Howard is extremely well qualified for this position. But his nomination, with all due respect to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has now been pending for 217 days. The vacancy he was nominated to fill was formerly held by Judge Norman Stahl. This vacancy was created on April 16, 2001. You may want to keep this in mind. We are almost to the first-year anniversary of the creation of the vacancy, and yet, how does he conduct his law practice? How does he take on new clients? What does he do? His paperwork has been complete since September 20, 2001. Both Senator Gregg and I returned our blue ships--that means approval slips--on September 20, 2001. There is no reason this nomination cannot have a hearing. There is no controversy here. He should have a hearing. Jeff Howard has an impressive array of legal experience that well qualifies him to be a Federal appellate judge. He served as U.S. attorney for New Hampshire from 1989 to 1993. In that post, he litigated numerous cases at both the trial and appellate levels and was a member of the Attorney General's Advisory Committee of U.S. Attorneys. For his efforts, he received the Attorney General's Edmund Randolph Award as well as the U.S. Attorneys' Award. He has Federal experience that includes a stint as principal associate deputy attorney general at the U.S. Department of Justice from 1991 to 1992. He performed this job at the request of former Attorney General Bill Barr. In addition to his work as U.S. attorney, he served as attorney general of New Hampshire from 1993 to 1997 and deputy attorney general in 1988 and 1989. In these State and Federal capabilities, Jeff Howard has been involved in thousands of litigated matters covering the full range of issues that are going to come before him as a Federal judge. In particular, he has been either on the brief or lead counsel in more than 100 cases in the First Circuit, the court to which the President has nominated him. Over the last 10 years, he has performed approximately 2,500 hours of pro bono work for victims of domestic violence. He grew up on his grandfather's dairy farm in Cornish, NH, and later graduated from Plymouth State College with a B.A. and later Georgetown Law School, and he was editor of the American Criminal Law Review. This is a well qualified judge. He should be on the court. He does not deserve this kind of treatment. How are we going to get good people to come forth and take these jobs when their lives are put on hold for years, sometimes, let alone months and days? The circuit court nomination pace is incredible. During the first year of the Clinton administration, only five court of appeals nominees were nominated. Of those five, three were reported out that same year. That is 60 percent of President Clinton's court of appeals nominees. In contrast, President Bush has nominated 29, and the committee has only reported 6. That is 21 percent. There were only two circuit court nominees left pending in committee at the end of President Clinton's first year in office. In contrast, there were 23 of President Bush's circuit court nominees pending in committee at the end of last year. It is unfair to compare the first years of the second Bush administration and the Clinton administration by looking only at the mere number of nominees confirmed. This approach fails to take into account the fact that President Bush chose to nominate 24 more circuit court nominees than President Clinton did. We can get lost in the numbers, and I don't want to go through it. I just repeat that Jeff Howard is as highly qualified a judge for the First Circuit as any judge I have seen. Yet we still have the nomination pending without even a hearing. His life is on hold. His family's life is on hold. I appeal to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee to give this good, decent, honorable judge a hearing so we have the opportunity to bring his nomination forth and put him on the bench where he belongs and where I was proud to support him.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, the final item I rise to discuss involves another nomination, but not for the judiciary. It is the nomination of Joe Schmitz. I have already submitted a statement for the Record, but I want to say this in the Chamber because I believe strongly in it. Joe Schmitz was nominated for the inspector general at the DOD. This is a position among the most important in the Department because the inspector general's office is responsible for ensuring accountability and efficiency, and therefore it is the heart of the integrity of the Pentagon. There have been numerous scandals in the IG's office in the recent past. Essentially, the inspector general's office has been rudderless without a confirmed nominee now for 3 years. With the IG's office in disarray, there is the impression left that the Department is without proper and necessary oversight. It is more than impression; it is fact. I am also told that the IG's office has been leaderless, headless, for some 10 years--over the past couple decades, which is a disgrace when you stop to think about it. Without strong leadership, direction, and motivation, no office can function efficiently and effectively. Secretary Rumsfeld needs an inspector general. If you stop to think about the job Donald Rumsfeld has done as the Defense Secretary in this country, the way they have responded, the way they have conducted themselves in countless briefings, and the way they have administered the war and come back after the terrible events of 9/11, he deserves an inspector general. He deserves Joe Schmitz because that is his choice. We are, after all, at war. Remember that. It doesn't seem to bother those who are deliberately holding up the nomination of this good man. He was the Secretary of Defense's choice, the choice of President Bush in this important post. This is not a lifetime appointment. This is not a judge. This is an appointment of who President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld want to be inspector general for the Defense Department at a great critical time. He is an individual with a strong background for the job, with impeccable personal and professional credentials. I hope we move forward expeditiously with this nomination. It has been cleared by the Armed Services Committee by voice vote and the Governmental Affairs Committee, yet it is on the calendar with no action. Individuals who undergo the nomination process put their names and reputations on the line. They open themselves up for intense scrutiny of their past employment, finances, conduct, associations, somebody's opening every door--everybody who wants to say something negative about you, they find. They interview you. He has been held up long enough. There are no ethical issues impacting this nomination. He has received strong recommendation from those who know him and have worked with him, regardless of party affiliation. You will find it on both sides. Joe Schmitz was a superlative choice by Secretary Rumsfeld and President Bush, and he will make an outstanding attorney general, and that is a fact. The Senate needs to act. Again, I put this nomination in the same box with Charles Pickering and Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork and John Ashcroft and others. Why do we have to put people through this? Why do we have to attack them publicly in nomination hearings? If you have a problem, be man enough to sit down and talk with them. If I have a problem, I bring them into my office and talk to them privately. If there is still a problem, I might have to say something publicly; but for the most part, if I know something and I need an answer, I am man enough to bring the person in, sit him or her down and say: Here is what I want to know. It is not real bravery and courage to sit up on the dais in Senate hearings, with the nominee sitting down at the table, and you are pounding away on him, criticizing him in front of everybody. You have the gavel, you are the Senator, what is he going to say? He has to sit there and take it in order to get this job. We do it and we character- assassinate people day in and day out. It is not right. We wonder why we can't get good people to serve and why there is so much exasperation and condemnation about the people who serve in government. That is why. It is not right. Schmitz is a good man. I say to my colleagues who have the power to make it happen: Get him on the floor of the Senate and let's vote and give Don Rumsfeld his inspector general. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I rise to discuss the nomination of Charles Pickering. Senator Specter just spoke on it. This is a tragedy, when we have to drag people through the mud when they get finally to the hearing process, as Charles Pickering has. He is a man whose name is being dragged through the mud, even though people in his hometown of all races and creeds are praising him and saying: Whatever mistakes he made in the past, we understand. He has moved beyond that. He is a good man. He ought to be on the bench. Yet here we are, stuck with probably seeing a situation where Charles Pickering will be defeated by one vote on a party-line vote and not be allowed to come to the floor. Why not give the Senate a chance? It is done. Maybe it has not been done that often on circuit court matters, but it has certainly been done many times with Supreme Court Judges. I hate to say it because I will not get into the partisan rhetoric here, but this is a classic case of getting ``Borked'' again. We all know what Judge Bork went through, and Clarence Thomas. We know what John Ashcroft went through. Is this the way to treat people? Just be fair about it. If we are going to hold people accountable for every single mistake they make in life, then we will have to have perfect people. I don't know too many perfect people walking around this Chamber. If there is anybody in this Chamber who has not made any mistakes, they probably should vote against Pickering. This is ridiculous. He is a good man, a good judge. To have his name dragged through the mud is disgusting. I hate to see it. It reminds me of the Ashcroft hearing, of the terrible things said about Clarence Thomas and, of course, Robert Bork. Bork was probably one of the most qualified people ever to even be nominated for the Supreme Court. Whether you liked him or disliked him on his views, he was still qualified. The last time I looked, a President had the right to pick somebody of his choosing, of his philosophy. I voted for I don't know how many Clinton nominations to the Supreme Court, to the Federal court system. I didn't expect to get Reagan-type judges out of Bill Clinton, but he was the President. I supported most of them unless there was some particular thing that, in my view, made them not qualified. To echo what Senator Specter said, it is my hope we will move this nomination to the Senate floor and let the Senate make the decision. That is not unreasonable. The committee is deadlocked on a partisan vote. Bring Judge Pickering out. If he loses, fine; if he wins, fine. But let him have a vote. He deserves that. At worst, we can say maybe some of the things are true. How do you know whether what he said and did 30 or 40 years ago is over now? Can you be the judge of that? Let all 100 Senators make that judgment. I would like to have a chance to have a vote on that.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I rise in very strong support of the Voinovich-Bingaman Price-Anderson amendment. Senator Voinovich has long been a leader at the EPW Committee on nuclear issues. I am proud to join him as a cosponsor of this amendment. Last year, Senator Voinovich introduced S. 1360 to reauthorize Price-Anderson for NRC licensees--a bill of which I was an original cosponsor, as the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee. I am also pleased to be joining my colleagues on both the Energy Committee and on my own committee in cosponsoring this amendment. I especially thank Senator Bingaman for his cooperation with us on this issue. Price-Anderson addresses two classes of nuclear facilities: commercial nuclear reactors and Federal nuclear facilities operated by ``DOE contractors.'' It combines both NRC licensee and DOE contractor provisions of Price-Anderson. I want to speak for a couple of minutes to the provisions of the amendment that deal with NRC licensees, as that is where the EPW Committee has focused its efforts. It does two very simple things. No. 1, it reauthorizes Price-Anderson for NRC licensees for an additional 10 years--consistent with NRC recommendations. Secondly, the amendment recognizes that new nuclear technologies--technologies that provide smaller, modular, cost-effective, and even safer reactors--are on the horizon. That is the future. This amendment allows for that new technology to come forth and to be used. For the purposes of secondary protection requirements, this amendment treats modular reactor facilities containing modules of 100 to 300 megawatts, up to a total of 1,300 megawatts, as a single facility. These modular units--now being developed--are the future of nuclear power, and it is important that Price-Anderson recognize the difference between these smaller modular units and the current larger facilities. Again, this legislation--this amendment--will allow for this modular concept to take hold and bring us into the future with nuclear power. The background has been stated on Price-Anderson by my colleagues, but just briefly to summarize, it was a law passed in 1957 in order to provide immediate compensation in the event of a nuclear accident. Price-Anderson is the best mechanism for providing the highest level of compensation in the shortest period of time, without having to put victims through an arduous and protracted legal process. Equally important, it is the best deal for the taxpayer. With Price- Anderson, if there were a nuclear accident or incident, up to $9.5 billion would be available to compensate any victims. Not one dime of that money would come from taxpayers. It comes from a combination of insurance coverage and the industry itself--the entire nuclear industry pooling their collective resources--and this is compensation without having a lengthy judicial process to determine liability or culpability. So the law requires the insured and the insurers to waive most standard legal defenses. Fault does not need to be established. That is very important. Absent Price-Anderson, victims would have to rely on the court system, and damages would effectively be limited by the assets of a single company. It is unlikely that any one company, on its own, would ever be capable of paying out $9.5 billion in damages in the case of an accident. So the bottom line is that without Price-Anderson there would be less money available and it would take years for the dollars to work their way through the courts and then to those who need immediate assistance. That assumes there would be something left after the lawyers have taken their share. We don't know whether that would be the case or not. It is likely that the taxpayer, via Congress, would already have stepped in and provided whatever financial assistance was needed. The events of September 11 showed how quickly Congress can act in a disaster situation. Price-Anderson is a good deal for the taxpayers, for the industry, and for victims seeking damages. I understand there are those who don't like nuclear energy and will see the Price-Anderson debate as a means to stop nuclear power. I respect the rights and integrity of those who hold this view. I don't think they are right. We will have a lot of energy needs in the coming decades, and nuclear power can provide them cleanly and efficiently. There are enormous benefits to nuclear power. The majority of energy generated in New Hampshire is from nuclear power from the Seabrook nuclear powerplant--about 60 percent of it to be exact. I wonder where we would be today for our energy needs had that reactor not been built, in spite of the controversy and hard times we had to get it built. Seabrook Station has proven to be a safe, reliable source of power, not only for New Hampshire but for a large part of New England. These are great benefits. They are tremendous benefits. It can't be overlooked. I have spent the better part of 2 years working to come up with a bipartisan plan for reducing utility emissions without compromising our long-term energy security. In fact, Senator Voinovich has been a valued partner in that effort. Nuclear power allows us to generate enormous amounts of energy at low cost and with zero emissions. I know the issue of the waste comes up and it is very controversial; that is an issue we are going to have to confront. But when you are talking about emissions, this nuclear power is safe and efficient. It allows us to generate this power, as I said, at low cost with zero emissions, no SOX, NOX, mercury, and no carbon dioxide. Zero. Nuclear provides 20 percent of our Nation's energy production, with no emissions. We need to be able to not have that diminished further as these powerplants get older and older. One way to do that is with this modular concept for which we provide. If we want clean air and energy security, nuclear has to be a part of any reasonable energy plan. We should be encouraging the development of new, more effective and safe nuclear technologies. I am not saying this to the exclusion of other sources of power--renewables such as water, wind, solar, and others; we are not excluding those. We want to continue to do research there. I want to make it clear from this Senator's position, it is not only about nuclear power, it is all sources of power that can be efficient, clean, and produce what we need. At a minimum, we ought not to be discouraging this kind of technology and what this nuclear industry can do. If we don't reauthorize Price- Anderson, we effectively kill all the new promising technologies that are the next generation of emissions-free power production. We can't afford to do that. This amendment recognizes the recommendations made by the NRC, and they should be adopted. Price-Anderson enjoys strong bipartisan support in this body, as well as on the other side of the Capitol in the House. Again, I thank Senator Voinovich and Senator Bingaman for their leadership. It has been a pleasure to work with them and Senator Inhofe on nuclear issues in the committee. They deserve a great deal of credit--Senators Voinovich and Inhofe--for the work they have done. I particularly thank my friends on the Energy Committee for their collective effort in bringing this bipartisan amendment to the floor--in particular, Senators Murkowski, Domenici and, again, Senator Bingaman. Madam President, I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment to reauthorize the Price-Anderson Act. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I believe that the Department of Defense Inspector General position is among the most important in the Department, because the IG office is responsible for ensuring accountability and efficiency, and therefore is the heart of integrity in the Pentagon. There have been numerous scandals in the IG office in the recent past, which has been rudderless, without a confirmed nominee for 3 years. With the IG office in disarray, there is the impression left that the Department is without proper and necessary oversight. I am also told that the IG office has been headless for some 10 years over the past couple of decades--which is a disgrace. Without strong leadership, direction and motivation, no office can function efficiently and effectively. Secretary Rumsfeld needs an Inspector General. We are, after all, at war. Joe Schmitz was the choice of the Secretary of Defense and the choice of President Bush for this important post. Mr. Schmitz is an individual with a strong background for the job, and with impeccable personal and professional credentials. I hope that we can move forward expeditiously with his nomination, now that it has been cleared both by the Armed Services committee--by voice vote--and by the Government Affairs Committee. Individuals who undergo the nomination process put their names and reputations on the line, opening themselves up to intense scrutiny of their past employment, their finances, their conduct and their associations. They fill out hundreds of documents. Mr. Schmitz has been held up for long enough--there are no ethical issues impacting his nomination, and he has received strong recommendations from those who know him and have worked with him, regardless of party affiliation. I believe that Joe Schmitz was a superlative choice by Secretary Rumsfeld and president Bush, and that he will make an outstanding IG. The Senate needs to act now, to fill this important position at the Department of Defense and to give Secretary Rumsfeld the team he needs to do his job.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, together with my friend from Arizona, Mr. McCain, and my friend from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold, I am introducing the Corps of Engineers Modernization and Improvement Act of 2002. ``Corps Reform'', as it is frequently billed, has been the subject of much heated debate over the last two years. In fact, the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 included a provision on independent peer review, requested by Senator Feingold. Since that time, it has become clear to me that we need to aggressively address a broad range of issue endemic in the Corps. That is why I am before you today, introducing this bill. The Corps has been the subject of ``the Fleecing of America'' too many times. My primary goal is to ensure that Federal taxpayer dollars are spent wisely, on sound investments that are in the national interest. Our bill achieves this goal by addressing the mammoth backlog of projects that plagues the Corps; changing the cost-benefit ratio that a project must meet in order to be economically justified; updating of the Principles and Guidelines; instituting independent review of certain projects; amending some of the cost-share requirements; and limiting the waivers of non-Federal cost-shares often granted to communities. It has been projected that there is currently a construction backlog of well over $40 billion in authorized projects, with annual appropriations for the construction account of the civil works mission averaging around $1.8 billion. As such, the majority of the projects in the backlog will never see a Federal dime. While a great number of these projects are meritorious and deserve funding, others are not in the Corps mission, are no longer economically justified, or violate non-Federal cost-share requirements. Our bill would require the Corps to provide a list of projects in the backlog, categorizing each project as ``active,'' ``deferred,'' ``inactive.'' There would be a deauthorization mechanism, more stringent than current law, for projects that have never received construction funds, for projects that have been suspended, and for those that don't pass economic muster. In addition, there are projects ``on the books'' that are more than 25 years old, which have never received construction funds. These projects should be deauthorized immediately. The Environment and Public Works Committee can authorize a restudy if any of these projects are thought to have modern benefits and meet the requisite standards. Currently, projects are only required to meet a 1:1 cost-benefit ratio. I find this appalling. No one would invest in the stock market at such a return. According to the Taxpayers for Common Sense, 36 percent of the 310 major projects authorized since 1986 have been authorized with a benefit-to-cost ratio of less than 1.5. Construction of these projects would cost more than $7 billion. Especially in these times of war and deficit spending, taxpayers cannot afford, nor should be asked to fund such projects. My bill would require that projects return benefits that are one and a half times the project costs, a vast improvement over current practice. My friends, do not fear deauthorization. It is a cleansing process, getting the inactive projects off the books will only serve to better the chances of completed funding for those projects that remain. I would also like to highlight the independent review provision in my bill. WRDA 2000 required the National Academy of Sciences to issue a report making recommendations on the effectiveness of independent peer review. Many will ask, why not wait until the Academy's report is issued before addressing this issue in legislation. I would like to explain to my colleagues, if the Academy makes recommendations that differ from what I have included in this bill, I am open to making refinements as this bill moves through the legislative process. But I wanted to include a provision on independent review to highlight the importance of the issue, as well as my belief that such review will help restore integrity to the Corps and its study processes. Let me say a word about cost-shares. I think it is important that a non-Federal sponsor partner with the Federal Government in the advancement of Corps of Engineers projects. The landmark WRDA 1986 established most of the modern cost-share formulas. But some of these cost share arrangements could be stronger. For example, the benefits realized by beach replenishment projects are highly localized. The non- Federal interests should thus be responsible for a larger portion of the replenishment costs. I also believe that there should be a financial incentive, in the form of a better cost share, for non- structural flood damage reduction projects. This only seems logical from a financial sense, as well as an environmental standpoint. And as for the costs associated with the Inland Waterways system, IWS, there should be a distinction between those segments of the System that carry most of the traffic and those that are underutilized. Approximately 30 percent of the Operations and Maintenance funds are devoted to segments of the IWS that realize a mere 3 percent of the traffic. My bill attempts to address this issue by reformulating how O&M costs are paid. I say to my friends, my intention here is not to beat up on the Corps of Engineers. As the ranking Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, I have a great deal of respect for the Chief of Engineers and the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. This bill should not be interpreted as a statement on their effectiveness. I merely want to implement mechanisms to make the Agency more fiscally responsible. The taxpayers deserve our attention to this matter. I realize that many of my distinguished colleagues will oppose our efforts to improve and modernize the Corps of Engineers. I daresay, part of the problem is that any meaningful reform of the Corps will require a reform of the practices of Congress, as well. If your project is meritorious, if it has local support and adheres to cost-sharing requirements and cost-benefit ratio, if your project is in the Corps mission, you need not worry. This bill is about clearing the way for projects that warrant the taxpayers' investment. As for where we go from here, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will hold a hearing on the issue of Corps Reform in the upcoming months. I expect this bill to be part of the debate of the hearing. Average Americans toil all day long, and some, all night, trying to make meager ends meet. How can I look these Americans in the eye and say, your tax dollars pay to maintain a waterway that sees two barges a year or to replenish the sand on a beach where the median home price is $1.5 million? Taxpayers' hard-earned money should not be devoted to pouring sand on the beaches of the wealthy. Taxpayer dollars should be spent more wisely than to maintain deadbeat waterways. Particularly during this time of belt-cinching, we should show more fiscal restraint! I would like to quote another Mr. Smith, that is, Mr. Smith of Maine, who served on the House Committee of Ways and Means in the days before this country was embroiled in Civil War. Mr. Smith, in a Report of the Ways and Means Committee dated February 10, 1836 wisely counseled: ``Heedless and useless or unavailable expenditure of the public treasury are alike to be avoided in all legislation.'' He further noted: ``Every Government . . . is susceptible of acquiring habits of lavish expenditure and extravagance in its operations.'' Every Government ``requires constant watching to preserve its own purity.'' Well, folks, I am here to say, our government's practices are not pure. But there is something that we can do about it. Corps Reform. It's going to be an uphill battle, but it's a start. I challenge, not just my fiscally conservative friends, but all my colleagues, to put aside their parochial interests for the general good of the taxpayers' hard-earned money. As we move forward, please understand that I am open to suggestions as to how to improve upon the ideas embodied in this bill. I want to work together with my colleagues to make this bill as meaningful, responsive, and responsible as possible. Please join me in advancing this fiscally responsible legislation. Our bill is supported by taxpayer advocacy groups such as the Taxpayers for Common Sense, National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, as well as environmental groups, for example, National Wildlife Federation and Environmental Defense. I have some letters of support and ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, together with my friend from Arizona, Mr. McCain, and my friend from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold, I am introducing the Corps of Engineers Modernization and Improvement Act of 2002. ``Corps Reform'', as it is frequently billed, has been the subject of much heated debate over the last two years. In fact, the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 included a provision on independent peer review, requested by Senator Feingold. Since that time, it has become clear to me that we need to aggressively address a broad range of issue endemic in the Corps. That is why I am before you today, introducing this bill. The Corps has been the subject of ``the Fleecing of America'' too many times. My primary goal is to ensure that Federal taxpayer dollars are spent wisely, on sound investments that are in the national interest. Our bill achieves this goal by addressing the mammoth backlog of projects that plagues the Corps; changing the cost-benefit ratio that a project must meet in order to be economically justified; updating of the Principles and Guidelines; instituting independent review of certain projects; amending some of the cost-share requirements; and limiting the waivers of non-Federal cost-shares often granted to communities. It has been projected that there is currently a construction backlog of well over $40 billion in authorized projects, with annual appropriations for the construction account of the civil works mission averaging around $1.8 billion. As such, the majority of the projects in the backlog will never see a Federal dime. While a great number of these projects are meritorious and deserve funding, others are not in the Corps mission, are no longer economically justified, or violate non-Federal cost-share requirements. Our bill would require the Corps to provide a list of projects in the backlog, categorizing each project as ``active,'' ``deferred,'' ``inactive.'' There would be a deauthorization mechanism, more stringent than current law, for projects that have never received construction funds, for projects that have been suspended, and for those that don't pass economic muster. In addition, there are projects ``on the books'' that are more than 25 years old, which have never received construction funds. These projects should be deauthorized immediately. The Environment and Public Works Committee can authorize a restudy if any of these projects are thought to have modern benefits and meet the requisite standards. Currently, projects are only required to meet a 1:1 cost-benefit ratio. I find this appalling. No one would invest in the stock market at such a return. According to the Taxpayers for Common Sense, 36 percent of the 310 major projects authorized since 1986 have been authorized with a benefit-to-cost ratio of less than 1.5. Construction of these projects would cost more than $7 billion. Especially in these times of war and deficit spending, taxpayers cannot afford, nor should be asked to fund such projects. My bill would require that projects return benefits that are one and a half times the project costs, a vast improvement over current practice. My friends, do not fear deauthorization. It is a cleansing process, getting the inactive projects off the books will only serve to better the chances of completed funding for those projects that remain. I would also like to highlight the independent review provision in my bill. WRDA 2000 required the National Academy of Sciences to issue a report making recommendations on the effectiveness of independent peer review. Many will ask, why not wait until the Academy's report is issued before addressing this issue in legislation. I would like to explain to my colleagues, if the Academy makes recommendations that differ from what I have included in this bill, I am open to making refinements as this bill moves through the legislative process. But I wanted to include a provision on independent review to highlight the importance of the issue, as well as my belief that such review will help restore integrity to the Corps and its study processes. Let me say a word about cost-shares. I think it is important that a non-Federal sponsor partner with the Federal Government in the advancement of Corps of Engineers projects. The landmark WRDA 1986 established most of the modern cost-share formulas. But some of these cost share arrangements could be stronger. For example, the benefits realized by beach replenishment projects are highly localized. The non- Federal interests should thus be responsible for a larger portion of the replenishment costs. I also believe that there should be a financial incentive, in the form of a better cost share, for non- structural flood damage reduction projects. This only seems logical from a financial sense, as well as an environmental standpoint. And as for the costs associated with the Inland Waterways system, IWS, there should be a distinction between those segments of the System that carry most of the traffic and those that are underutilized. Approximately 30 percent of the Operations and Maintenance funds are devoted to segments of the IWS that realize a mere 3 percent of the traffic. My bill attempts to address this issue by reformulating how O&M costs are paid. I say to my friends, my intention here is not to beat up on the Corps of Engineers. As the ranking Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, I have a great deal of respect for the Chief of Engineers and the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. This bill should not be interpreted as a statement on their effectiveness. I merely want to implement mechanisms to make the Agency more fiscally responsible. The taxpayers deserve our attention to this matter. I realize that many of my distinguished colleagues will oppose our efforts to improve and modernize the Corps of Engineers. I daresay, part of the problem is that any meaningful reform of the Corps will require a reform of the practices of Congress, as well. If your project is meritorious, if it has local support and adheres to cost-sharing requirements and cost-benefit ratio, if your project is in the Corps mission, you need not worry. This bill is about clearing the way for projects that warrant the taxpayers' investment. As for where we go from here, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will hold a hearing on the issue of Corps Reform in the upcoming months. I expect this bill to be part of the debate of the hearing. Average Americans toil all day long, and some, all night, trying to make meager ends meet. How can I look these Americans in the eye and say, your tax dollars pay to maintain a waterway that sees two barges a year or to replenish the sand on a beach where the median home price is $1.5 million? Taxpayers' hard-earned money should not be devoted to pouring sand on the beaches of the wealthy. Taxpayer dollars should be spent more wisely than to maintain deadbeat waterways. Particularly during this time of belt-cinching, we should show more fiscal restraint! I would like to quote another Mr. Smith, that is, Mr. Smith of Maine, who served on the House Committee of Ways and Means in the days before this country was embroiled in Civil War. Mr. Smith, in a Report of the Ways and Means Committee dated February 10, 1836 wisely counseled: ``Heedless and useless or unavailable expenditure of the public treasury are alike to be avoided in all legislation.'' He further noted: ``Every Government . . . is susceptible of acquiring habits of lavish expenditure and extravagance in its operations.'' Every Government ``requires constant watching to preserve its own purity.'' Well, folks, I am here to say, our government's practices are not pure. But there is something that we can do about it. Corps Reform. It's going to be an uphill battle, but it's a start. I challenge, not just my fiscally conservative friends, but all my colleagues, to put aside their parochial interests for the general good of the taxpayers' hard-earned money. As we move forward, please understand that I am open to suggestions as to how to improve upon the ideas embodied in this bill. I want to work together with my colleagues to make this bill as meaningful, responsive, and responsible as possible. Please join me in advancing this fiscally responsible legislation. Our bill is supported by taxpayer advocacy groups such as the Taxpayers for Common Sense, National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, as well as environmental groups, for example, National Wildlife Federation and Environmental Defense. I have some letters of support and ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I am pleased to join my colleagues on the Environment & Public Works Committee in introducing the Water Investment Act of 2002. The introduction of this bill to provide clean water for our nation comes in the year that we are celebrating the 30th anniversary of the Clean Water Act. When I became chairman of the committee in 1999, one of my top priorities was a renewed commitment to our nation's water systems and the Americans served by them. Since that time, the committee has held a number of hearings, both at the subcommittee level, chaired by my good friend from Idaho, Senator Crapo, and at the full committee level. I am pleased that Senators Jeffords and Graham have continued to make this a priority in their new roles as full committee and subcommittee chairmen. Today that effort culminates with the introduction of this bipartisan piece of legislation that will address the many water infrastructure problems facing our local communities. So much of our nation's water infrastructure is aging and in desperate need of replacement. Coupled with the aging problem is the cost burden that local communities face in order to comply with ever increasing State and Federal clean water mandates. This bill addresses these problems and makes structural changes to ensure that we avoid a national crisis now and in the future. I am a strong advocate of limited government and when it comes to water infrastructure, I do not believe the primary responsibility of financing local water needs lies with the Federal government. I am equally adamant, however, that the Federal government shouldn't place unfunded mandates on our local communities. This bill recognizes both of these principles and strikes a responsible balance. The legislation authorizes $35 billion over the next five years in Federal contribution to the total water infrastructure need to help defray the cost of the mandates placed on communities. This is a substantial increase in Federal commitment, but not nearly as high as some would have preferred. Even so, this commitment does not come without additional responsibilities. When the Clean Water Act was amended by Congress in 1987, a debate I remember well, we set up a revolving fund so more federal money would not be required. The fund would continually revolve providing a continual pool of money for water needs. Unfortunately, many officials did not meet their commitment to properly plan for future needs and what was not to be Federal responsibility became a Federal necessity. Now we are faced with a near crisis situation. This bill makes certain that we do not go down that road again. The Federal government will help to defray the costs of Federal mandates, but with the new money comes a new requirement that all utilities do a better job of managing their funds and plan for future costs. The Federal trough will not continue to be filled up every so many years because there is a dereliction of responsibility--so that 15 years from now, these utilities will not be coming back to Congress looking for an additional $57 billion. The bill requires utilities to assess the condition of their facility and pipes and develop a plan to pay for the long-term repair and replacement of these assets. That plan will include Federal assistance, but it will be limited assistance. We also make additional structural changes to the law both to address financial concerns and to help achieve improved management of these water systems. One such change to the Clean Water Act is to incorporate a Drinking Water Act provision that allows States, at their discretion, to provide principal forgiveness on loans and to extend the repayment period for loans to disadvantaged communities. This flexibility will provide help to communities struggling with high combined sewer overflow cost to secure additional financial help. This bill also promotes other important cost saving measures that many communities are ready experimenting with throughout the country. Finally Madam President, New Hampshire is the midst of our worst drought in 50 years. In an effort to help communities facing water shortages, this bill directs the U.S. Geological survey to assess the state of water resources. The USGS is then to share with localities information on water shortages and surplus, planning models and streamlined procedures for local interaction with federal agencies responsible for water resources. This type of information will be helpful to New Hampshire communities facing a severe water shortage. I am pleased that Republicans and Democrats worked together to introduce this bipartisan bill to address one of the very urgent needs of the nation. It will be a tremendous help to many struggling communities in New Hampshire and across the country. It is my hope that we can move it through the committee process and see it passed by the Senate in short order. Madam President, I want to express my appreciation to Senator Crapo, who has been my partner in this for over two years. I also want to thank Senators Jeffords and Graham for their work in getting us to this point--their leadership will be crucial in getting this bill to the President's desk.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their courtesy. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside for the purpose of offering another amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily set aside the pending amendment in order to offer an amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I know the hour is late. I don't want to inconvenience my colleagues for too long. My purpose in rising now is to get an amendment in for tomorrow. I will try to keep that in mind and be as brief as possible. I was listening to my colleague, Senator Wyden, talking about getting voters to the polls and encouraging them to go to the polls. One of the ways to encourage them to go to the polls is to not have the broadcast media tell the voters the polls are closed before they are. That is really what my amendment is about. I am hopeful that the Senate will agree with me and realize it is improper to do that for obvious reasons, and join me in perhaps agreeing to this amendment overwhelmingly. I call it the broadcast fraud amendment. It simply prohibits the broadcasting of certain false information on election day. Unfortunately, this amendment is necessary to strengthen Federal prohibitions on the broadcast of false election information-- information, by the way, that the broadcasters know full well is false before they broadcast it. It could change the outcome of a Federal election. There are two provisions in this amendment. First, the amendment prohibits a broadcaster from knowingly broadcasting false information concerning the location or time of operation of a polling place. In other words, if the broadcaster went on the air at 6 p.m. saying all the polls are closed when he knew they were actually open until 7 p.m., that act would be a clear violation of this amendment. Second, this amendment prohibits a broadcaster from knowingly broadcasting the results of an exit poll or election projection as an actual election result before all polling places in the jurisdiction have closed. That would also be a violation of this amendment. For example, a broadcaster goes on the air saying at 6 p.m. the race is over and the winner is candidate A when the polls are actually open until 7 p.m. It is one thing if the broadcaster says based on exit polling, but that is not what we are talking about. So the act of calling the election at 6 p.m. would be a violation of this amendment because that act by a broadcaster would lead thousands of voters to not vote because they would believe their vote would not count. If they were being told on the television that the polls were closed over and over again, why would they vote unless they were to challenge the broadcaster and begin to ask questions? Supposedly, the press is supposed to be telling you the truth when they talk to you. Let me be clear, because there will be critics, this amendment does not prohibit a broadcaster at any time from saying we have exit poll numbers that show this trend or that trend, and, if the trend continues, candidate A is supposed to win the race. That is not the issue. This amendment only prevents the broadcasting of exit polls that project the actual election results. That is the issue. If they project these results as actual, that is what it precludes; in other words, saying candidate A has won the State when in fact it is only the exit polls that say that, not the actual poll. Furthermore, it only prohibits the broadcasting of this sort of information after the polls are closed. If you want to go on the air and broadcast false information to the voters, this amendment allows you to do it, but wait until the polls are closed. Let us say you have exit polls which say candidate A is a winner based on the exit polls. But the polls close at 7, and you have this information at 6. Wait until 7 when all the polls are closed, and then you can say anything you want. You can say the exit polls say this guy won regardless, and actually won. Then say anything you want. That is all we are saying. It is very important to understand that because that is a very serious distinction. Another serious problem with the premature broadcast of exit polling is that on occasion the exit poll is incorrect. Our 43rd President, Al Gore, and Senator Dick Swett of New Hampshire discovered that they were victims of false exit polls, because there was no Senator Swett. He was told he was the winner when in fact he wasn't. And there was no President Al Gore even though he was told he was President. He wasn't. If the media wants to make a total fool of themselves and say Gore was elected and Swett was elected to the Senate, they can go out there and say it. That is fine, but wait until the polls are closed. Then you can say it. That is all we ask. I don't think that is unreasonable. Most people do not know too much about my race, although it happened. In Florida, everybody knows about it. I bring it up because it really goes to the heart of the amendment. To understand the ramifications of voters receiving false information about the closing time of the polling place, we need to look no further than the recent Presidential election in Florida. The Florida polling places closed at 7 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. That meant that in the Florida panhandle, which is in the Central Zone, polling places actually closed at 8 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. The voters in the panhandle had their votes suppressed in that election because the media broadcasted explicit information that the Florida polls had closed. I know some I will say they really didn't say that. I will give you the actual quotes from most of the major networks and anchors in a few moments. This action happened 1 hour before the polls closed in the Florida Panhandle, and it was repeated constantly time after time and network after network throughout that final hour. No matter what channel you watched, you were going to hear that the polls in Florida were closed. If you were going to vote or wanted to vote, you were told by Peter Jennings or Tom Brokaw that the polls were closed. You would believe them. That is what they were saying. I will give you the quotes in a moment. The suppression of votes could have a dramatic effect on the election. I am not getting into intent. I don't know the intent, but I can show that they knew. The events that transpired in Florida have been studied to understand how the suppression of a few votes almost changed history. According to the Committee for Honest Politics, there were two interest studies of the Florida Panhandle situation in the last Presidential election. At 7 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, or 6 p.m. Central Time, the major networks stated that the polls in Florida were closed one hour before the polls in the Florida Panhandle actually closed. They said the State of Florida polls were closed when in fact only on the eastern side of the State was that true, and in the panhandle it was not true. The major networks went a step further. They called the Florida election for Al Gore as President at 7:50 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, ten minutes before the panhandle polls closed, and 50 minutes after the major networks announced that the Florida polls had closed. John McLaughlin & Associates compiled a survey that estimated the early call of the election discouraged more than four percent of Republicans more than Democrats to go to the polls. But that is a political issue, take it or leave it, like it or dislike it. The real issue here is that people were discouraged from voting no matter of what party. Another study by John R. Lott, Jr. of the Yale Law School estimated the dropoff at about 3 p.m., or a range of 7,500 to 10,000 Republican voters. Why do I say that? Because the Florida panhandle is traditionally Republican. Obviously, when you are talking about a few hundred votes--indeed a few dozen votes at times deciding an election--several thousand is a huge, huge issue. Here are excerpts from affidavits about what happened in the Florida Panhandle in 2000. There were some 40 affidavits from poll workers, poll clerks, poll inspectors, and bailiffs. This is what they had to say. I will repeat a few of these. A poll worker in Bay County, Precinct No. 23: I have been a poll worker since the 1970's. Voting was steady all day until 6:00 p.m. Between 6:00 and 7:00 p.m.-- This is panhandle time-- it was very different from past elections. It was very empty. The poll workers thought it was odd. It was like ``the lights went out.'' We joked with the deputy on duty because there was no one in line for the deputy to be placed behind when the polls closed. The clerk for elections, Okaloosa County, Precinct No. 37: We had over 1,300 people turn out with an average of about 100 voters per hour until the last hour. This is when the media was on the air saying the polls were closed-- every media. When the doors were open, there were quite a number of people waiting in line to vote. There was a heavy flow throughout the day. . . . Soon after 6:00, I noticed that the volume dropped to almost zero. So those are two poll workers saying that the numbers dropped to almost zero after the broadcasters began talking about this on national television. He said further: In past elections, there was usually a rush of people coming from work, trying to get to vote [in that last hour] before the polls closed. I think we have all experienced that. Clerk of elections, Okaloosa County, Precinct No. 34: As the Clerk, my duties included working the books, instructing people to vote, and handling the ballots, and making sure that things go smoothly and courteously. When the doors were open, there were about 50-60 people waiting in line to vote. During the rest of day, there was a constant flow of voters. We were expecting a rush after Hurlburt Field let out about 4:30. I began to get my workers to take their dinner breaks before 6:00 anticipating people coming before the polls closed. Between 6:15-6:20, I looked around and asked, ``Where is everybody?'' My poll workers were just as perplexed as I was. I don't think we had more than five people from 6:15 until we closed at 7:00. We had averaged 80 voters per hour until the last hour. Deputy for elections, Santa Rosa County, Precinct No. 34: On Tuesday, November 7, 2000, I was on duty and worked at the precinct from 6:00 AM until 8:00 PM. We have the second largest precinct in the county with 4,678 voters. I kept track of the number of voters per hour. There were many voters waiting to vote in the first hour and then there was a steady flow all day. By the last hour, there was a dramatic decline in voters. It is the deputy's job to stand behind the last voter in line at 7:00 PM. Eight years ago in the presidential election, there were so many people in line that the last voter did not vote until nearly 10:30 PM. When I went outside at the end of the day to tell people to hurry along, there was no one in the parking lot. Poll inspector, Escambia County, Precinct No. 8: I have worked elections for the past three years to include local and Congressional. On Tuesday, November 7, 2000, I was on duty and worked at the precinct from 7:00 AM until 7:00 PM for the general election. We had the usual rush in the early morning, at noon and right after work. There was a significant drop in voters after 6:00. The last 40 minutes was almost empty. The poll workers were wondering if there had been a national disaster they didn't know about. It was my observation that this decline in voters between 6:00 and 7:00 was very different when compared to previous elections. The last 30 minutes was particularly empty. There is usually a line after the poll closes. In this election there was no one. I think what the review showed clearly is that all five networks announced to the public, at the top of the hour, that the Florida polls had closed; that is, at 6 p.m. Central Time the polls throughout Florida had closed when, in fact, there was still a full and crucial hour of voting left. That is not right. Stated another way, when 361 polling places were open and expecting a normal end-of-the-day voter turnout, the west Florida public was told, falsely, that no voting places remained open. Let me say that again. In the last hour of the election in the Florida Panhandle, 361 precincts were ready to go in that last hour, expecting a rush of people coming home from work, and the public was told, on all of the major networks, that the polls were closed. I am not exaggerating. I am going to show you that in a second. With the exception of Fox, all the other networks repeated the Florida poll- closing information throughout the 7 p.m. eastern time broadcast over and over again. They reported that the Florida polls had closed, and so implied by calling the Senate race or discussing exist polling data from Florida in a way that implied or assumed the polls were closed. We cannot tell what was in the hearts and the minds of the network executives and producers who made the decision to air incorrect information. That is not for me to say. All I can tell you is that the facts are they aired incorrect information. I think, although they will say they did not know because they were never informed, that is not true. I would like to call your attention to this news release. The one thing the press does is they do take a look at their news releases. The election was November the 7th in 2000. This news release is dated October 30, 2000. It was put out by the Florida secretary of state, Katherine Harris. As I say, it was a news release. Secretary of State Requests Patience in Predicting Winners of Races. This is 8 days prior to the election. The news release says: Tallahassee, Fl--Secretary of State Katherine Harris today requested the media to delay predictions of the outcome of elections until after 8 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. Florida has six counties in the Central Time zone and the Secretary wants all Floridians' votes to be cast prior to predictions on the winners of races. With several races too close to call, full voter involvement is imperative for Floridians to participate in the electoral process. ``The last thing we need is to have our citizens in the Central Time zone think their vote doesn't count--because it certainly does!'' Waiting until 8 p.m. Eastern Standard Time allows all Floridians the opportunity to decide the outcome of races within Florida. It is very interesting that is from Katherine Harris because Katherine Harris became a very famous person after November 7. But this was 8 days prior to November 7. A lot of people had a lot of things to say about Katherine Harris, but she is not Nostradamus. She had no idea how this election was going to be counted and recounted and overcounted or undercounted, and dealing with the chads and all that. She did not know anything about that on October 30. She was trying to point out to the media: Be careful. Central Time is part of Florida and East Coast Time is part of Florida. Please be careful and be accurate. That went to every media outlet--every one--and they ignored it. The networks either ignored it or they did not read it. Now, come on, with all the people in every one of these news outlets, are we going to say they did not read it, no one read it? And I can prove to you, in a moment, that they did. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this news release be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to please--I know you get a million pieces of mail, and I know you have a lot of things to do--view a 7-minute video that I sent to each and every one of your offices. You all have it. Maybe your staff is hiding it from you or maybe they looked at it. I don't know. Maybe they didn't, but it is there. If they lost it, ask me. I will give you another one. It is excerpts of each and every one of these networks saying the same thing, over and over and over again, ad nauseam, between 7 and 8 o'clock: The polls are closed. Dan Rather: The polls are closed. Tom Brokaw: The polls are closed in Florida. Peter Jennings. If it was not so serious in terms of the consequences, it would be funny; it would be hysterical. When you watch it, you will laugh. But nobody was laughing then. It was serious. Think about the pain we went through in this Nation that night, and for weeks to come, and all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. I believe, honestly, that all of it would have been avoided had it not been for what the networks did that evening. I think the turnout would have been more and the election would have been decided, I think overwhelmingly in favor of President Bush; but maybe it would have been the other way. The point is, it would have been decided. I do not think we would have had all the problems. Let me read this just briefly, and then I will stop. Although I hope you all watch the tape, I have a feeling some of you will not watch the tape. So here are a few excerpts from some of the biggest names--the biggest names--in the media. Listen carefully. I am not exaggerating one word. These are quotes right off the air. And they are on the tape if you watch it. This is now between 6 and 7 p.m. Central Time, between 7 and 8 p.m. Eastern Time; 6 and 7 p.m. panhandle time, with an hour yet to go at the polls. At 7:01 they started. Al Hunt, CNN: We now go to our election headquarters in Atlanta where it is 7:00 p.m. in the East. Polls have just closed in Florida, New Hampshire, and Virginia. No doubt about that: ``Polls have just closed in Florida, New Hampshire, and Virginia.'' There is no qualifier. It did not say it was open in the Florida Panhandle. Brit Hume, Fox News: All right folks, we're coming up--right now it's 7:00 and we are in position to project a number of races. Looking at the State of Florida, where the polls have just closed, that race remains too close to call. Then he goes on to talk about the Senate race of which our colleague, Bill Nelson, won. Dan Rather, CBS News: The polls just closed in six states, with 66 electoral votes including Florida's big 25, but no call yet in what both campaigns say may be the key to this election--Florida. Peter Jennings, ABC News: And now the polls have closed in six more states, so first, in Florida, in the Presidential race in Florida, we simply believe it is too close to call. Tom Brokaw, NBC: The polls have just now closed in six additional states representing 66 electoral votes. Let's take you through them now. Look at this, states that are too close to call--even though the polls have closed now. Here we are in Georgia, with 13 electoral votes; New Hampshire, with 4; and a big prize, the brass ring for this evening--to start everything off, the State of Florida [where the polls have just closed]. Bernard Shaw, CNN: At 7:00 the polls have closed in certain states, and CNN is looking at what is going on in Florida. I am repeating these because they are saying it over and over again. They are not saying it just once. Dan Rather, CBS, again: Also just closed their polls, but the races are too close to call. Look at this--Florida--25. The States in white-- these are all the States where the polls have closed, but where it is too early to make a call. Florida the biggun'. Bernard Shaw, CNN: For your viewers, watching our coverage, this is the electoral map, every time we call the states, we will tell you what the totals are. What's going on at this hour across this country is a massive ground, war, he talked about Florida, he took it up the east coast, talked about the Republican strength in the panhandle. Peter Jennings, ABC: But the white states, as they appear on the map at the moment, are too close to call. Cokie Roberts: The Democrats are hoping to take advantage of some of the new people who have moved into Florida, and to pick up maybe one, maybe two, maybe three Republican held seats in Florida. We don't know the results there, even though the polls are closed. Peter Jennings again: It's also not true that turnout has been going down steadily over the last few years and that some of the places in Florida in the exit polls we looked at, so far, we don't see necessarily a vigorous turnout by young people. For example, but we do see many young people in that exit poll going for Mr. Gore. Dan Rather: Hold the phone all these states in gray here, all these states, are places where the polls are still open, and that includes Pennsylvania, with 23 electoral votes. Where the polls have closed, but no decision is in yet -- Florida with 25 electoral college votes. Peter Jennings: 270 electoral votes needed to win, I'm going to say it time and again, and there is our national map. The white are states in which we currently believe it is too close to call. Sam Donaldson, ABC: The Democrats have just picked up another important seat in Florida. It is an open seat. Connie Mack, the Republican, was retiring. ABC News projects that Bill Nelson, the insurance commissioner, has won that race. Bernie Shaw: Where ever you see yellow--that's an ooh-ooh, we can't tell you anything about that state. On and on. Cokie Roberts: It was called the Senate race for the Democratic candidate there. So these are very important seats for the Democrats. The polls are closed, we don't have any results yet. Judy Woodruff: We've had polls close in let's see--one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight states--eight states so far. We have been able to call George Bush the winner in four of those states. Dan Rather: It's 7:30 here in the East, and this is the electoral vote right now--with 270 needed to win. Bush 41, Gore 3. Jeff Greenfield: As we look at the electoral map we are obviously putting none of these states in anybody's column. Dan Rather: It's early--don't be misled by the early Bush lead. Right now, the polls have just closed in three more states. And on and on. This is about 7:45. Dan Rather again: Let me show the electoral map. In Florida, the polls have closed. No decision yet. That is a sample of the networks' awareness of the importance of voter turnout which aired between 6 and 7 p.m. central time that night. I ask you, if you lived there and you were hearing that, you flip the channel, you go to another channel, flip the channel, you say: Man, I thought I got a notice somewhere that the polls were open, and they are telling you they are closed. People believe what they see and hear in the media. They were wrong. They were misled. This was out there. That is not the only thing that was out there. I will point that out in a second. Listen to what else was out there. This is CNN now, the same networks calling the election. Here is what else they are saying: The Vice-President and Senator Lieberman we're told are still making calls. This is between 6 and 7 p.m. central time. These people are reporting this. And rightfully so, Vice President Gore and Senator Lieberman should be making calls. The election is not over. Guess where they are making them. Right into the Florida Panhandle. The Vice-President and Senator Lieberman we're told are still making calls, satellite interviews, radio interviews, their wives both making calls. Just spoke to a White House official who says the President of the United States has made 40 calls himself. Still making some at this hour, trying to turn out the Democratic vote. So they are telling everybody on one hand the polls are closed, and they are telling them on the other hand that the Vice President and the President are making calls to get out the vote. One final piece of evidence: There was further evidence that the national news media--I will be kind and say--recklessly ignored the fact that the polls were still open. That is pretty reckless to ignore that. That was out 7 or 8 days prior to the election. Let me read some excerpts from Jeff Greenfield's book ``Oh, Waiter! One Order of Crow!'' This is Jeff Greenfield, a very respected guy in the media. He is basically telling them what they knew. At 7:48 p.m., NBC called Florida for Gore, an act that raised the competitive juices at the other networks. So it was that CNN Political Director Tom Hannon, at 7:50 p.m., opened the microphone to the anchor desk and announced in our ears, ``We are calling Florida for Gore--Florida for Gore.'' (``I was surprised by the early call for Florida,'' Hannon said, weeks later. ``But it's like a laboratory situation. You look at the numbers, the models, the percentages. There was no reason to assume there was a problem.'') And for the next two hours, our coverage focused on one question: Could George W. Bush win the White House without Florida? So they kept right on talking about how Florida was not decided. They said it was decided, and then told everybody for the next 2 hours, could Bush win the Presidency without Florida, or Gore, for that matter. What we did not do was assume that Gore had the race won. What we did do was assume the accuracy of our call, even as the Bush campaign and its partisans were loudly questioning the call--and question it they did--loudly, urgently, almost desperately. In Austin, Bush political strategist Karl Rove was calling correspondents and news executives alike, with one message. Your Florida call is wrong! The polls in the Panhandle are still open! You're gonna have egg all over your faces! They dismissed it as partisan rhetoric from partisans, even though they had it in their press releases that the polls were still open. Still quoting Greenfield: Did anyone at the networks take these complaints seriously? No. After all, what were partisan voices against the cool objective certainty of the numbers and the models and the system that had worked so well for so long. Dan Rather, in 1996 on my election, called my opponent and congratulated him on his victory. Then he called me a couple of hours later wanting to know what went wrong. I said: Nothing went wrong, Dan. I won. It went right for me. I couldn't figure out how it worked. I said: In New Hampshire, we count the votes before we declare the winner. Maybe that is what you should do. It is pretty telling the kinds of things we have here. I think we know now that the arrogance is unbelievable. They used their polling results. They dismissed entirely people who were telling them over and over again, early in the hour, that the polls were still open, not to call the race, but they still did. I want to answer one or two constitutional questions before I stop because I am going to be told that it is unconstitutional. It is not. My amendment would be constitutional pursuant to the Supreme Court case Burson v. Freeman. There is no violation of the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution with these commonsense regulations. My amendment creates a new Federal statute to ban false or misleading information that confuses a voter. The whole issue, rightfully so, by the Democrats in this election was, Were the voters confused by looking at these butterfly ballots? That was the whole issue, the whole test. They were confused. They were misled. Yet not a word uttered about the confusion and absolute flat out misleading information put out by the media, not by political operatives. It wasn't Karl Rove on television saying the polls were closed or open either. It was Carl Rove trying to get the media to tell the truth. It was Katherine Harris trying to get the media to report the truth 8 days before the election. That is all. In the Burson case, the Court upheld a Tennessee statute that prohibited the solicitation of votes and the display or distribution of campaign materials within 100 feet of the entrance to a polling place. The Tennessee statute was subjected to strict scrutiny and the state had to prove that the regulation serves a compelling state interest and is necessary to serve the asserted interest. The compelling state interest in my amendment is preventing the suppression of votes. If a broadcast company willfully broadcasts information that it knows is incorrect about polling closing times, the broadcast company would be willfully suppressing an individual's right to vote. My amendment provides for criminal penalties for the willful broadcast of incorrect polling information and is the most effective means to prevent a broadcast company from knowingly and willfully changing the outcome of an election. Mr. President, I have here a memo from Henry Cohen, a Legislative Attorney for the American Law Division at the Library of Congress. Mr. Cohen gives an excellent legal analysis of my amendment and specifically addresses potential first amendment questions. According to Mr. Cohen, it is not even close. He says ``It appears that a court, following the decision in Burson V. Freeman would uphold the statute on the grounds that it served ``a compelling interest in protecting the voters from confusion'' and was necessary to serve that interest. He goes even further, citing the dissent in Burson. In his view, even under the dissent in Burson, this amendment would be constitutional. I ask unanimous consent that this memorandum be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. This is the first amendment on the right of the major media networks to knowingly broadcast false information leading to thousands of voters believing their vote doesn't count. In this case, it happened to be a Republican situation. It could be the other way around tomorrow. I would say the same thing if it were the reverse. It is not about party or about anything other than misleading information put out in a time zone where the election was still open. The secretary of State made a point of that, having no idea how important that statement was going to be. Clearly, it should not be allowed under the first amendment. Supreme Court precedents agree with that. I have cited that in my statement. This amendment bans the willful broadcast of false or misleading information that suppresses potentially millions--in this case thousands--of people to believe that they don't have to vote, that their vote isn't important, they won't vote because they have been told the election is over. I ask the Senate to give serious consideration to this amendment. I don't know what time we will vote tomorrow. That is up to the leaders. I ask you to look at the tape, because with me speaking about it, you can say he is putting the inflection wrong. Watch the tape and the body language and the way these broadcasters said this. It is very, very intimidating. They are basically saying, hey, go home, stop and get a beer, have a hot dog, stop at McDonald's, go home, don't worry about voting because the election is over, the polls are closed. That is what they are saying. I hope that you will watch the tape before the vote tomorrow. I can't show it on the floor, unfortunately. I will have it in the cloakrooms. I will bring down a copy tomorrow. I ask you to look at it before you vote. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Karyn Bye of Hudson, Wisconsin, for winning a silver medal in the women's ice hockey event at the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, Utah. I commend Karyn for her exemplary skills and talents as an ice hockey player on the United States team. The women's ice hockey team rose to the occasion representing the country with dedication and pride during a fiercely competitive series of games at the Winter Olympics. Karyn was a member of the 1998 United States Olympic ice hockey team in Nagano, Japan, and she also participated in the World Championships in Minneapolis, Minnesota in 2001, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada in 2000 and Espoo and Vantaa, Finland in 1999. She is a six-time World Championship silver medalist who received an Outstanding Performance Award in 1994. Karyn earned a bachelor's degree from the University of New Hampshire in physical education and was the Community Ambassador with Alana Blahoski for the Minnesota Wild team of the National Hockey League. She enjoys outdoor sports including camping, fishing and water skiing in addition to her passion for ice hockey. On behalf of the citizens of New Hampshire and the country, I applaud Karyn's Olympic award. Through her focus and dedication to the sport of ice hockey, she has earned the Olympic silver medal and the respect of her peers and fellow countrymen. Congratulations for a job well done and best wishes as you pursue your goals and dreams as an accomplished athlete. It is truly an honor and a privilege to represent you in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Sarah Tueting of Winnetka, Illinois, for winning a silver medal in the women's ice hockey event at the 2002 Winter Olympics. I commend Sarah for her exemplary skills and talents as an ice hockey player on the United States team. The women's ice hockey team rose to the occasion representing the country with dedication and pride during a fiercely competitive series of games at the Winter Olympics. Sarah was the gold medal winning goalie on the 1998 United States Olympic ice hockey team in Nagano, Japan, and is a three-time silver medalist at the World Championships. Sarah played collegiate hockey at Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire. After playing in one ice hockey competition at the 1997 World Championships, she focused her efforts on the 1998 Olympic Winter games. She graduated from Dartmouth with a degree in neurobiology and her aspiration is to become a doctor when her ice hockey career ends. On behalf of the citizens of New Hampshire and the country, I applaud Sarah's Olympic award. Through her focus and dedication to the sport of ice hockey, she has earned the Olympic silver medal and the respect of her peers and fellow countrymen. Congratulations for a job well done and best wishes as you pursue your goals and dreams as an accomplished athlete. It is truly an honor and a privilege to represent you in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Bode Miller of Franconia, New Hampshire, for winning silver medals in the men's alpine combined event and the men's giant slalom event at the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, Utah. I commend Bode for his exemplary skill and talent as he receives this prestigious award. An accomplished skier, Bode has won other important skiing competitions including the 1998 United States champion in the giant slalom and a bronze medal at the 2001 Giant Slalom World Cup in Val d'Isere, France. His silver medal represents Bode's first Olympic medal in his second Olympic games. Bode is a 1996 alumni from the Carrabassett Valley Academy in Maine, who earned a place on the U.S. Ski Team by placing third in slalom at the 1996 U.S. National Championship at Sugarloaf, Maine. By 1998, he was on the World Cup circuit full time and, at age 21, made his Olympic debut in Nagano. On behalf of the citizens of New Hampshire and the country, I wish to congratulate Bode for his Olympic award. There has been no United States dominance in the field of men's slalom events since 1983. Through his focus and dedication to the sport of skiing, Bode has earned the Olympic silver medal and the respect of his peers and fellow countrymen. We all wish you the very best as you pursue your goals and dreams as accomplished athlete. It is truly an honor and a privilege to represent you in the U.S. Senate.