Bob Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Katie King of Salem, New Hampshire, for winning a silver medal in the women's ice hockey event at the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, Utah. I commend Katie for her exemplary skill and talent as an ice hockey player on the United States team. The women's ice hockey team rose to the occasion representing our country with dedication and pride in a fiercely competitive series of match ups during the Winter Olympics. Katie was a member of the 1998 United States Olympic ice hockey team which earned the first gold medal in Nagano. She was the third-leading scorer during the 2000-2001 national team season and also scored a goal and seven assists at the 2001 World Championships. During her senior year at Brown University, Katie was named as the Eastern Collegiate Athletic Conference's Player of the Year and also lead the Brown University Bears to an Ivy League softball title. On behalf of the citizens of New Hampshire and the country, I congratulate Katie for her Olympic award. Through her focus and dedication to the sport of ice hockey, Katie has earned the Olympic silver medal and the respect of her peers and fellow countrymen. 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 Tara Mounsey of Concord, New Hampshire, for winning a silver medal in the women's ice hockey event at the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, Utah. I commend Tara for her exemplary skills and achievements 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. Tara was a member of the 1998 United States Olympic ice hockey team in Nagano, Japan, and she also participated in the 1999 World Championships in Espoo and Vantaa, Finland. She is a two-time silver medalist in World Championship competition in 1997 and 1999. Tara won a silver medal at the 1996 IIHF Pacific Women's Championship where she was named Outstanding Performer. She played collegiate hockey at Brown University and was named as the 1995-1996 New Hampshire Hockey Player of the Year, the only female to ever win the award. On behalf of the citizens of New Hampshire and the country, I applaud Tara'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 Tricia Dunn of Derry, New Hampshire, for winning a silver medal in the women's ice hockey event at the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, Utah. I commend Tricia for her exemplary skills and achievements as an ice hockey player on the United States team. The women's ice hockey team rose to the occasion representing our country with dedication and pride during a fiercely competitive series of games during the Winter Olympics. Tricia was a member of the 1998 United States Olympic ice hockey team in Nagano, Japan. She also participated in World Championship competitions in Espoo and Vantaa, Finland in 1999, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada in 2000, and Minneapolis, Minnesota in 2001. As a World Champion, she is a four-time silver medalists. Tricia is a graduate of the University of New Hampshire who has played at two Three Nations Cups and was a member of the University of New Hampshire women's ice hockey team that defeated Providence College to win the 1996 Eastern Collegiate Athletic Conference Championship. On behalf of the citizens of New Hampshire and the country, I wish to congratulate Tricia for her 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 send a second-degree amendment to the Allard amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I am pleased to join with the Senator from Colorado in sponsoring this important amendment to reserve voting rights for our service men and women. I yield the floor to the sponsor.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of Senator Allard's efforts to protect the voting rights of our military men and women. It would be a pretty empty debate on election reform if the Senate ignored the discrimination that military voters suffered in the last Presidential election and, indeed, I would say probably have suffered in the past, in prior elections. I visited Afghanistan just a month or so ago and saw the circumstances that those men and women were under out there. Had that been at election time, I can imagine how difficult it might have been to make all the arrangements to get ballots to these people, get these ballots out, get them back, and have them counted on time. I think it is important to understand it is the spirit and intent that matters. If a person is trying to get his or her ballot in and it gets in a day or so late but it is in time to be counted, then we ought to err on the side of caution for the military person who is out there putting his or her life on the line for us every day. I can speak from firsthand experience. I was aboard a ship during the Vietnam war. Although that was not an election time at the time I was out at sea, there were periods of time when we were out at sea for 3 weeks, sometimes longer, with no access to any mail or the opportunity to get any mail off the ship. So had I been in a situation where the Presidential election or any other election was going on during that time, there may have been a time when I might not have been able to get a ballot off the ship. So I think we have to err on the side of caution and make absolutely certain we go out of our way to make sure these ballots are counted. That is what the Allard-Smith amendment is. I am proud to support it and proud to have my second-degree amendment to be sure we get a vote on this very important measure. The uniformed services election reform amendment is a comprehensive package for all of our military voters. Section 401 of the amendment provides, for example, that a State may not disqualify a military absentee ballot for some technical reason. Stop to think about it. Maybe somebody didn't put his name on right or something--some technical reason. Think about the circumstances where, for a smudge, for example, or something might be a technical violation, that ballot could have come out of the mud of Afghanistan, making its way perhaps through rain or sleet or snow or some other way to get to a vehicle, perhaps to a helicopter and then out of there and over to some other location where it can eventually make its way back to Florida or Colorado or New Hampshire or wherever the votes are supposed to be counted. That is a long trek through some very difficult conditions sometimes. I think it is sad that this new provision of law is necessary. Really, reasonable people ought to make reasonable efforts to count the ballots of our military. We saw, unfortunately, that didn't happen. In Florida, military voters were systematically disen- franchised and there was an organized effort even to refuse to count these ballots. I find that outrageous. There is some irony that all this effort took place in Florida, to disenfranchise military voters, and now look what happened just 9 months later, 9-11. I wonder what some of those same people who refused to count military ballots and were looking for excuses not to count them might be saying right now. There are no allegations of military voter fraud. That is not the issue. There is a difference between fraud and trying to disqualify ballots for every technical reason that comes down the pipe. Yet military votes were disqualified in the last Presidential election. If, for example, someone was out at sea and the mail call was missed by an hour and because the mail call was missed by an hour a ballot may not get to the returning ship for another week or so, or perhaps even-- whatever, a couple of days or weeks or whatever, and because they missed that one mail call, that means they can't get that ballot in. If it comes in a day late or an hour late or whatever, is it the intent, is it the right thing to do to count that person's ballot? Of course the answer is yes. Section 402 provides new protections to recently separated uniformed service voters as well. It protects the rights of military voters to register to vote and request absentee ballots. It provides that the Secretary of Defense provide to the States new laws on military voting. On April 6, I introduced a bill entitled the ``Armed Forces Voting Rights Protection Act of 2001.'' This bill provides an amendment to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, to protect against a discriminated class of voter--the military voter. Isn't it somewhat tragic and ironic that the military voter is discriminated against? Senator Allard's amendment is more comprehensive than mine, and I am more than pleased to support his comprehensive effort to protect the voting rights of the military. The reason why the pending amendment is needed is because current law failed members of the Armed Forces in the last Federal election. We are not making allegations against anybody about fraud. It needs to be tightened up so we can make it work so the military folks get the benefit of the doubt. Federal law allowed military voters to be disenfranchised in the State of Florida. The pending amendment would stop discrimination against our military men and women. Over time, the Federal Government has increased protection of the voting rights of military personnel who serve overseas. Several Federal laws have been enacted since 1942 to enable those in the military and U.S. citizens who live abroad to vote in Federal elections. The Soldier Voting Act of 1942 was the first attempt to guarantee Federal voting rights for members of the armed services, and that law only applied during wartime. But members of the armed services were provided the use of a postage free, Federal postcard application to request that absentee ballot. Again, when the request comes in, when you send that request out, are you in a position to get that ballot and mail it out promptly? Not if you are out on some bivouac for a week someplace or you are out in a combat zone somewhere for a month and you don't get back. It may not be convenient for you to get it back that quickly. So we need to get them out there promptly so they can get these ballots filled in and sent back. That expired at the end of World War II. In 1986 President Reagan signed the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Voting Act, which required the United States to permit uniformed services voters, their spouses and dependents, and overseas voters who no longer maintain a residence in the U.S., to register absentee and vote by absentee ballot for all elections for Federal office. These Federal laws were insufficient to protect our men and women in the last election because many of these military voters were disenfranchised by canvassing boards throughout the State of Florida. Anyway, the pending amendment fixes Federal law to prevent this discrimination. Whether it is accidental or intentional, it does discriminate against military voters stationed overseas. This law would fix that law. Over 1,500 overseas ballots were challenged in the State of Florida during the election in 2000. Think about that: 1,500 military ballots changed most of the time on technicalities, and many of those military men and women who served our country in some hostile environment were disenfranchised. In Tallahassee in November of 2000, Robert Ingram, who was awarded a medal for heroism as a Navy corpsman serving in the Marines in Vietnam, said the following about Florida elections boards: They need to count the votes for service people abroad. It seems to me that to even allow one military ballot to be disqualified on a technical reason is really outrageous. According to the Miami Herald of November 26, 2000: Many canvassing boards have said, however, they followed State law to the letter in disqualifying overseas ballots with no signature, no witness, incorrect address, no postmark or date and a variety of other problems. Let me focus on one from my own personal experience. When I was aboard ship, you would give a letter to the so-called mailperson on the ship. If he didn't take that down and postmark it that particular day, he might carry it around for a couple or 3 days. Why? Because the mail is not picked up from off the ship. It doesn't happen until you enter port. If you are not going to enter port for 3 days, why postmark it the day it was picked up from you as the person who is mailing the letter? That is what could happen. That is one example of why the postmark should not be a criteria for why we take a person's right to vote. The pending amendment would fix that law. The Miami Herald did not cite actual fraud to disqualify 1,500 votes, mere technicalities in the State law. The pending amendment repairs this problem with Federal law and does not allow a ballot to be disqualified without ``evidence of fraud.'' If there is evidence of fraud, absolutely the ballots would be disqualified. I think if there is any suggestion, or any indication, or any evidence whatsoever that there was fraud committed, disqualify them. Fraud applies to everybody--military or nonmilitary. If you commit fraud, your ballot shouldn't be counted. There is evidence that there was a coordinated effort to disenfranchise our military voters, I am sad to say. Former Montana Governor Mark Racicot said last fall: In an effort to win at any cost, the Vice President's lawyers launched a State-wide effort to throw out as many military ballots as they can. Forty percent of the 3,500 overseas ballots in Florida were thrown out in November of 2000 for technical reasons. You can go on and on. There is plenty of indication. We don't need to go through all of it. Felon convictions ranged from murder to rape and drunk driving. What crime did our military personnel commit? I can understand why you wouldn't put a ballot in the hands of a rapist or a murderer or a drunk so he could vote. But no such crimes were committed by our military. It is not a crime to volunteer to serve in the military. Every vote must count including our military votes. Basically, the ballots in Florida were disqualified for two reasons: The requirement that ballots must be postmarked by election day, and failure to either have a proper signature or date on the actual ballot. Neither of these issues are currently addressed in the Federal law. So this changes that. Federal law leaves details to the State, such as postmark requirements and authentication of ballots. In conclusion, I ask that voting rights be restored to our military voters. This is not something that anybody should oppose. It is not controversial, in my view. I think the Senator from Colorado has a good amendment. It is the least we can do. The statute did not cover it. People got a little bit excited in the heat of a political campaign and were trying to disqualify ballots, or qualify ballots, whatever the case may have been and on whichever side you were on, and the military was caught in the middle. That is not right. We owe it to our service men and women to at least allow them to participate in this great Republic that they sacrifice so much to defend. I am pleased to support the Allard amendment. If it is appropriate, I will ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment at this point.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I didn't formally request it. I said if it is appropriate, I would do it. I withdraw my request.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. If I could have the indulgence of the leader, I would like to share a personal anecdote that does not relate to voting but relates to smudges and things that may occur from time to time. For military personnel, as you know, some of the ballots were disqualified because of a smudge mark or something not clearly readable. In 1945, when my father was killed at the end of the Second World War in a plane crash in the Chesapeake Bay--serving in all of his combat missions, he was killed in a military aircraft that went down in the Chesapeake Bay--his body was recovered 2 days later. Of course, in the recovery of his body, they recovered his wallet. My mother--who was then a young widow with two boys--had to follow the limousine from Virginia back to the funeral parlor in Trenton, NJ, where my father was buried. She had no money for gasoline because we could not use it then; you had to use stamps. The only stamps she had were the stamps from my father's wallet. After filling up with gas, when she went into the gas station to present those stamps, the attendant would not take the stamps because he said he could not read them; they were smudged. My mother never forgot that story. Until almost the day she died, she talked about it, about how much that hurt her, that no matter how much pressure was put on that attendant, he refused to accept those stamps. So I think we have to err on the side of caution for our military. They go through a lot. There is a lot of sacrifice. That story was not about a ballot, but it was about a document, if you will. So I really appreciate the support of Senator Dodd and Senator McConnell and Senator Allard and others for this amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the Robert Kraft Family, Coach Bill Belichick and the New England Patriots team on their achievement as victors of Super Bowl XXXVI. The people of New Hampshire and the entire New England region are proud of the exemplary accomplishments of the Patriots organization. The talented players and coaches of the team have demonstrated that hard work, perseverance and unity are the foundation of success. I commend the New England Patriots for the benchmark that they have created for all Americans who seek to achieve the highest of standards in their lives. Each player on the team cast aside ego and self promotion for the good of the team realizing the best talents individually transformed into a power house of skill and sense of purpose. I applaud the contributions of the New England Patriots organization including the team owners, the Robert Kraft Family who have steadfastly stood by the Patriots since the origination of the franchise in 1962. I congratulate Robert Kraft and his family for this tremendous achievement and wish them well as the franchise grows and flourishes. On behalf of the citizens of New Hampshire, I want to sincerely thank the players and coaches of the New England Patriots for providing sports fans with some of the best football competition seen in the United States in years. We will not easily forget the excitement of the talented skill and ability of kicker Adam Vinatieri during game winning field goals at the Oakland Raiders snow bowl game nor the thrill of his dramatic kick more recently as the clock ticked down to 7 seconds at Super Bowl XXXVI. I commend the efforts of the mastermind of the operation, Coach Bill Belichick and the National Football League Champion team for their efforts, accomplishments and contributions to the New England region. We are all very proud of you and thank you for being the best of the best in a very competitive and talented industry. 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. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Peter Hamblett of Dover, NH, on being named as the 2002 Volunteer of the Year by the Greater Dover Chamber of Commerce. Peter was the recipient of the Volunteer of the Year award in 2001 and is an exemplary member of the community in Dover. His community involvement includes: member, Dover Rotary Club, activist in Main Street program in Dover, member, Board of Directors for the United Way of the Greater Seacoast, member of the New Hampshire Bankers Association and member of South Church in Portsmouth. Peter has also served on the Boards of Strawberry Banke and the Manchester Boys and Girls Club. I commend Peter for his tremendous energy and contributions to the community at large in Dover. In addition to his volunteer service to community groups, he also serves on the Greater Dover Chamber of Commerce Government Affairs and Waterfront Committees. The City of Dover and the State have benefitted greatly by Peter's efforts and selfless dedication. The citizens of the greater Dover area are most fortunate to have a talented leader and volunteer such as Peter. I congratulate Peter on this well deserved recognition and wish him the very best. 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. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Kerry Forbes of Dover, NH, on being named as the 2002 Citizen of the Year by the Greater Dover Chamber of Commerce. A true champion of the community at large, Kerry has been involved in numerous volunteer programs including: member of the Dover Economic Commission that oversaw the creation of the Enterprise Industrial Park and the creation of the Dover Economic Development Loan Fund, volunteer counselor at the Seaborn Hospital, board member of the Strafford Rivers Conservancy, member of the Greater Dover Chamber of Commerce, member Board of Directors of the Dover Main Street Program and member of the Dover Rotary Club. The citizens of the greater Dover area and the State have benefitted greatly by Kerry's efforts and talents. I commend Kerry for the exemplary leadership and spirit of service which he has consistently exhibited while serving his community and congratulate him for this prestigious recognition. 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. I thank the chairman. Amendments Nos. 2732 through 2735, En Bloc

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I send four amendments to the desk, and I ask unanimous consent that they be called up and temporarily set aside for consideration at the appropriate time.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I direct a question to the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee. I have four amendments on which I will be very brief. My intention is, if there is no objection, to offer the four amendments, debate one of them at a time, and if someone else comes and wants to offer another amendment, they can put my amendment aside. What is the position of the chairman on that suggestion?

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, these amendments I have offered encompass a number of important issues, including property taxes, commuter taxes, tip taxes for those who work as waiters and waitresses for the most part, and Reservists. Those are the four categories. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their courtesy in allowing me to offer four amendments. I will have a very brief discussion of each of these amendments. Amendment No. 2735 The amendment No. 2735 is an amendment dealing with property taxes. It provides an above-the-line deduction for State and local property taxes. Right now, these taxes are only deductible for those who itemize their taxes. The nonitemizers are at the lower income levels. Therefore, this will help stimulate the economy by encouraging home purchases and home ownership for those at the lower income levels that do not itemize their taxes. As we all know, property taxes tend to fund local education. So providing this tax deduction makes it easier for a local taxpayer to afford the quality education. As a former teacher and a parent, I believe it is very important to our economy. It is important to understand, if a citizen makes enough money to have enough deductions to itemize taxes, they can deduct property taxes. But what about the senior citizen who has property that has gained in value, they don't want to sell their home, and they are on a fixed income? They could be forced to sell their home to pay the property taxes--which go up every year, usually because of the schools or other costs in the community. This gives immediate tax relief to every working American or senior citizen or anyone else who owns property, pays property taxes, but does not get a tax deduction because they do not itemize. There is a direct stimulus to the economy. Imagine being able to deduct $2,000 or $3,000 in property taxes and having that cash on hand to be used for something else, whether the purchase of a refrigerator or whatever. If we want to stimulate the economy and help those who need it most, this is the kind of legislation that does it. I hope my colleagues will look seriously at this matter and pass it as an amendment to the stimulus package. Amendment No. 2733 The second amendment I will speak to, No. 2733, involves a commuter tax. This prohibits the imposition of a nonresident income tax unless two States agree to a compact permitting that tax. It happens in New Hampshire; it happens in other States. A State does not have an income tax and a person who lives in a State with no income tax works in another State. That State taxes their income. It is taxation without representation. It is not fair. This prohibits this tax from being implemented. In the long run, it is fair, and it is best for all people, no matter in what State you live. Even if you are in a State that collects those taxes, it is the issue of fairness. Is it fair for you to collect an income tax from a person who works in your State who gets no benefit? It does not mean only the interstate exchange of goods and services, it also means the exchange of labor. One of the best ways to stimulate economic growth is allow people to work wherever they want in whatever State they want. Why make it a disincentive for the person living on the border of one State to go to another State. That is what we are doing. It is especially unfair in States such as New Hampshire, where there is no income tax, and there is no reciprocating. In the State of New Hampshire, $2 or $3 million goes out of that State into several of the surrounding States. We all have constituents who work in neighboring States. In most cases, these constituents pay income taxes to those States; they are called commuter taxes. This is called taxation without representation, where I went to school. This is one of the issues that the colonists in our country fought over when they began to remove themselves from the authority of the King. The Declaration of Independence lists the reasons our country broke away from the Crown, and one of them was imposing taxes without our consent. That is exactly what happens in every State in America where there is an income tax for a person, say, living in Montana, who works in a neighboring State, and they have to pay the tax of that neighboring State. It is not fair. I understand where politically it is easier for a State legislator to support an income tax on citizens who cannot vote them out of office. There is no way you can vote these people out of office for imposing these taxes, but it goes against the very principles on which our country was founded. My amendment says if the State consents to allow its citizens to be taxed by a neighboring State, that is OK because now the constituents have an opportunity to either support or not support the legislators who imposed that. It is a very important distinction as to this amendment. If a State consents to allow citizens to be taxed by a neighboring State, fine. But right now that is not the case. They could sign an interstate compact, which would be fine, but it should be up to the States. My amendment preserves the right of citizens to be governed by their own States, not by the tax-hungry legislators of another State. If you examine this issue, it is a States rights issue, and I urge its adoption. Amendment No. 2734 Mr. President, the attacks of September 11 have left a great deal of devastation in their wake. Thousands perished during the attacks while tens of thousands of friends and family members are left to grieve for their loved ones. But the economic impact of those attacks continue to be felt throughout the Nation. With more than 1.6 million working men and women laid off last year, we need to look for ways to provide assistance to working individuals and their families. The business community, particularly the travel industry, are bearing the brunt of the burden. With airline travel and hotel bookings down sharply, communities which largely depend on tourism and travel as their chief source of revenue will soon, if not already, be in the red and may soon be forced to cut vital services. It is, therefore, imperative that we pass a strong, sensible economic stimulus plan that will provide immediate relief to all Americans and stimulus to local businesses to help them weather this storm and expand employment. However, we must not overlook those who need help the most. The working poor. Many of the these hardworking Americans supplement their often, minimum wage incomes, with tips received for their excellent service. However, this discriminatory tax is levied against those who can least afford it. Therefore, I am offering an amendment to address this unfairness in the tax code and provide direct relief to hardworking Americans. My amendment is very simple. It recognizes a tip for what it is: a gift. All tips, not exceeding $10,000 annually, would be tax- free. Result: hundreds of dollars a month remains in the pocket of hard working individuals. By exempting these monies from both income and FICA taxes, more money will be returned to the pockets of both employees and employers. Under current law, service employees who typically receive tips are assumed to have made at least 8 percent of their gross sales in tips. Taxes are applied regardless of the actual level of the tip. The end result for these employees is that they may have to pay taxes on income they didn't receive. By passing my amendment, the Federal Government will provide direct relief to at least 2.3 million low to middle income individuals who depend on tips to make ends meet. Industry statistics show that most of the employees that will be helped by my amendment are either students, single mothers, or employees at the beginning of their careers. My amendment will benefit millions of Americans directly, substantially, and quickly, while lifting some of the heavy burden of Government off of thousands of small businesses. My amendment eliminates the current cumbersome system under which tips cannot possibly be reported accurately. Hard working, law-abiding citizens who are given tips as a result of their extra effort do not wish to be labeled cheaters by the IRS which does not understand the realities of their work. It is time to change the tax law covering income from tips. My amendment caps the tax-free earnings at $10,000 for the small percentage who make a career of waiting on tables in high-end restaurants and resorts. For States that have a tip credit rule, this bill will not impact the employee's and employer's obligations and contributions up to the minimum wage. Congress should show the hard working men and women of America that the Federal Government is not out of touch, and that it has some compassion for the struggle facing the millions of citizens in the service industry. By passing my amendment, we pass a common sense proposal that will directly help millions of hard-working Americans. To reiterate, the third amendment is No. 2734, known as the tip tax. This amendment would consider tips to be gifts for income tax purposes. This would provide a great amount of much needed relief and stimulus to the hospitality and other service sectors of our economy by eliminating the tax burden imposed on these tips. Think about the types of people who hold these jobs. There are many single mothers, working women, working hard. You have all been to restaurants and you see how hard waiters and waitresses work. Frequently these are single-income mothers who have children at home. They are working hard. This would exempt the first $10,000 of those tips from Federal income tax. That is a pretty good incentive and would help every waitress, every waiter, every person who receives gratuities as the primary source of their income. It would help them tremendously to exempt the first $10,000. We treat the tip income the same way--the first $10,000 a year tax free. It is good policy and good stimulus, and I urge its adoption. In summary, again, if you work as a waitress or waiter, the first $10,000 of the money you earn in tips would be exempted from Federal taxes. Amendment No. 2732 After the treacherous attacks of September 11, the need to increase security around the country was and continues to be imperative. Much of the security needs were filled by National Guard and Reserve units. Many were forced to leave high or higher paying jobs than the military was able to pay. In some cases, this caused a financial burden on the men and women who were called to duty. In order to help the Guard and Reserve units who were called up as a result of the terrorist attacks, my amendment would allow those units to access their retirement plans without paying the 10 percent penalty for early withdrawal. The legislation would also allow them an underpayment waiver as well as a catch-up contribution without caps up to the amount they withdrew from their retirement fund. While we have rightfully provided tax relief to the business and families involved in the September 11 attacks, we must also look for ways to provide relief to those brave men and women who have been called up to protect us from further attacks. I ask the Senate to support the members of our National Guard and Reservists and agree to my amendment. In conclusion--I may want to speak to these amendments a little bit later--these are four opportunities for us to help people who need help and stimulate the economy at the same time. These are working women, for the most part, single mothers, working women who have children at home, to exempt that first $10,000 in tip income; to help the reservist who is called up on active duty who has a tough time now making payments on the home; third, to help those who work in one State and have to pay taxes in that State even though they do not get any vote on it; and finally, the property tax where with the above-the-line deduction, if you don't itemize, you can deduct your property taxes. That will help mostly seniors, those people who are on fixed incomes who are basically property poor. They do not want to sell their house. They don't want to mortgage their house. Why should they have to? They have worked all their lives for it. They can't pay the taxes on it. This will give them a chance to deduct it right off their income. My amendment will provide tax relief to low income homeowners who do not have enough in deductions to itemize. Giving low income working Americans an above the line tax deduction for their family home will encourage home ownership and provide a much needed economic stimulus in financially challenged neighborhoods. School districts depend, in large part, on property taxes. Encouraging home ownership will increase greater tax dollars to these school districts and provide greater learning opportunities for our children. As a former teacher, I believe it is very important to our children and our economy. I ask that the Senate consider the working poor and agree to this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Darrell Lockwood of Goffstown, NH, for being named by the New Hampshire School Administrators Association in coordination with the American Association of School Administrators as New Hampshire Superintendent of the Year for 2001-2002. Darrell has been a dedicated member of the educational community for many years. He was appointed superintendent in 1998 and formerly served as a teacher, principal and business administrator from 1976 through 1987. An exemplary community contributor, Darrell has been actively involved in many educational associations and organizations including: adjunct faculty member Rivier College and Plymouth State College, chairman South Central School Administrators Association, representative Northeast Superintendents Leadership Council and member and past president of the Goffstown Rotary Club. Darrell received his Doctorate of Education in Curriculum, Instruction and Administration from Boston College in Chestnut Hill, MA, his Masters in Education from Antioch University in Keene, NH and a Bachelor of Science in Education from Westfield State College in Westfield, MA. As a former school teacher, I applaud Darrell for his devoted service to the educational community in New Hampshire. Thanks to his leadership and guidance, many young people in the state have benefitted from his skills in teaching and administration. 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. I again would like to thank my colleagues for agreeing to fight for these provisions during conference. It was with great reluctance that Senator Jeffords and I agreed to allow S. 1765 to be brought to the floor without our legislation included so that we can move forward on this important bill and conference it with the House. However, it is important that these immediate needs be addresed and that our proposals be included in the the final legislation. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that the provisions we agreed to that comprise the modified versions of S. 1593 and S. 1608 are included in the bioterrorism bill.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I too would like to thank Senator Frist, Senator Kennedy and Senator Gregg for agreeing to work with us to ensure these two proposals are included in the bioterrorism proposal. I regret that with the end of session quickly approaching, there is not time to incorporate these provisions into the underlying bill. As we all recognized in our support for these proposals, since the September 11th attacks, Americans throughout the country have become concerned about the security of our nation's water supply. While it is widely believed that our water supply is safe, there are a few vulnerabilities that must be addressed. Our bills would provide resources for research into security at facilities and assessment tools while also providing seed money to encourage additional spending on security measures.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, for the third day this week, I have come to the floor to speak about MTBE. This is the gas additive that has become a huge concern for millions across the Nation because of the contamination it has caused. That is certainly true of many communities throughout New Hampshire where it has become a crisis. And the crisis will continue to escalate unless it is dealt with. I was pleased last week when the majority leader made a commitment to me that the Senate will vote on MTBE legislation before the end of February. Until the day of that vote arrives, I will continue to come to the floor to remind Senators of the terrible impact that MTBE is having on the Nation. And remind them why it is important that we act now. In 1990, the Clean Air Act was amended to include a clean gasoline program. That program mandated the use of an oxygenate in our fuel-- MTBE was one of two options to be used. The program with MTBE is that when it is leaked or spilled, it moves through the ground very quickly and into the water table. Many homes in New Hampshire and across the nation have lost use of their water supply because of MTBE contamination. Many others have had to install expensive water treatment systems in order to drink the water or even shower. According to the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, there may be up to 40,000 private wells with some MTBE contamination. Of those, up to 8,000 may have MTBE contamination over state health standards. So far this week, I have talked about the problems faced by families and small businesses throughout the regions of New Hampshire. Today I want to talk about the Sojka family who have a home on Cobbetts Pond in Windham. The water supply for the home is a deep, bedrock on-site well. Just about two years ago, the Sojkas began noticing that the water had a strange odor and that it left a residue on their hands. So they did a little test of their own to see if there really was anything unusual with their water. Their son Brian filled up a bowl full of tap water and let it sit overnight. They were horrified with their finding next morning. The water had a slick oily film floating on top--the same water that the family had been drinking, bathing in, and cleaning their food with. As a result, the Sojkas had their water tested. The test revealed MTBE contamination at a level twice as high as the State standard. They contacted the State of New Hampshire for help--by now, it had become quite common for the state to get this type of request. The state began providing bottled water to the family. Just like the Miller family I spoke of yesterday, the Sojka's pointed out similar concern--that while bottled water is fine for drinking, it doesn't help with other daily needs such as: bathing; washing fruits and vegetables; and cooking. Within a few months of the initial tests at the Sojka home, the MTBE contamination levels in the well jumped up by almost 8,000 percent. Unbelievable contamination! Last summer, the State installed an elaborate and cumbersome water treatment system on the Sojka's property. Unlike the Millers that I spoke of yesterday, who had a system installed in their home, the system needed for the Sojka's was too large to fit in the home The State had to build a shed separate from the house for the commercial water treatment system. The system consists of an enormous commercial air stripper and two 6 cubic foot carbon units. Such a system costs in the neighborhood of $20,000. Fortunately for the family, the state is providing the system and cost of operation and maintenance to the tune of an additional $5,000 per year. Can you imagine having a large chuck of your back yard being occupied by a commercial water treatment system. It is terrible that this has to happen to any family. And it is horribly wrong for federal mandate to cause such pain. This problem isn't unique to New Hampshire--it exists in Maine, California, Nevada, Texas, New York, Rhode Island, and on and on. We would be delinquent in our duties as United State Senators if we were to sit back and do nothing about this. We must act soon. I have a bill that has been reported out of committee two years in a row that will address these problems. Mr. President, the time to act is now--it is time to help out the families who have fallen victim to a Federal mandate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, the gas additive MTBE has become a huge concern for millions across the nation because of the contamination that it has caused. That is certainly true of many communities throughout New Hampshire where it has become a crisis, and the crisis will continue to escalate unless it is dealt with. I have been fighting for the past two years to get the Senate to act on legislation that will solve this problem and up to now, unfortunate roadblocks have prevented this from happening. I was pleased last week when the majority leader made a commitment to me that the Senate will vote on MTBE legislation before the end of February and I know that the majority leader will honor that commitment and I want to express my appreciation to him for working with me. Until the day that vote arrives, I will continue to come to the floor to remind Senators of the terrible impact that MTBE is having on the nation and remind them why it is important that we act now. Make no mistake about it--cleaning up MTBE contamination and preventing further contamination is something that the residents of New Hampshire are demanding and I will do all that I can to solve this problem. Let me step back and provide some background on how we got where we are and why this legislation is so important to those many States that have suffered from MTBE contamination. MTBE has been a component of our fuel supply for two decades. In 1990, the Clean Air Act was amended to include a clean gasoline program. That program mandated the use of an oxygenate in our fuel--MTBE was one of two options to be used. The problem with MTBE is its ability to migrate through the ground very quickly and into the water table. Several States have had gasoline leaks or spills lead to the closure of wells because of MTBE. MTBE is only a suspected carcinogen, but its smell and taste do render water unusable. Many homes in New Hampshire and across the nation have lost use of their water supply because of MTBE contamination. According to the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, there may be up to 40,000 private wells with some MTBE contamination and of those, up to 8,000 may have MTBE contamination over State health standards. Because of MTBE, New Hampshire has been left with no option but to divert funds from other programs in order to pay for safe water for residents with contaminated wells, in many instances, the State has had to provide bottled water. They are also installing and maintaining extremely expensive treatment equipment and these costs are so expensive that an average family could not afford to have clean drinking water without assistance. Yesterday, I came to the Senate floor to talk about the hardships faced by many in the Western part of New Hampshire and I focused on the plight a small business owner and two families in the Richmond area. Today I want to talk about those in the Southern part of New Hampshire that have faced similar problems. This past spring, as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I held a hearing in Salem, NH, at the hearing, the committee heard about the nightmares caused by MTBE. I want to take a moment to tell you about one particular witness who lives in Derry, NH, Mrs. Christina Miller shared with the committee the experience that her family and neighbors have been dealing with because of MTBE. Mrs. Miller, her husband Greg, and their infant son Nathan live in the Frost Road community in Derry, the area has been particularly hard hit by MTBE. The gas additive was first detected there a little over three years ago and the concentration of MTBE in the well water was over ten times higher than the level where a person can smell it and taste it. Since the discovery of MTBE in the wells, testing in the neighborhood has been on-going. Currently, some 40 homes in the Frost Road community are being monitored for MTBE and so far, seven treatment systems, including one in the Miller home, have been installed in homes on and around Frost Road. In April of last year, while Mrs. Miller was pregnant with Nathan, a water sample from the Miller well showed a high MTBE contamination level, and due to this discovery, the Millers began receiving bottled water from the State to replace the contaminated drinking water. But while bottled water is fine for drinking, Mrs. Miller pointed out that it doesn't help with other daily needs such as: bathing; washing fruits and vegetables; and cooking. There is also the potential health concerns associated with the contamination and not much is known about the health affects of MTBE-- but when you have a new born, as the Miller's do with Nathan, the health uncertainties add to the already existing anxiety. The State has installed a treatment system in their basement and it is a large, cumbersome intrusion in their house--it is also expensive. This system consists of a residential air stripper and two carbon filter units and while the State is currently paying for the system, there is the concern about how long this will last and whether they will pay for any upgrades as well. Needless to say, with the MTBE contamination and the presence of a large treatment system in their home, the Millers' are quite concerned with impact on the home's resale value. What adds to the concerns is that the State still has not been able to determine the source of the MTBE. It is a bad situation--one that begs for a remedy and the people of Derry are looking for help and relief from this federally mandated gas additive that has caused so much pain. This problem is not unique to new Hampshire, it exists in Maine California, Nevada, Texas, New York, and on and on. In fact, in Maine, one single car accident rendered 12 drinking wells unusable--just like that--we must do something. I have a bill that has been reported out of committee two years in a tow--briefly, the bill will: Authorize $400 million out of the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Fund (LUST Fund) to help the states clean up MTBE contamination; Ban MTBE four years after enactment of this bill; Allow Governors to waive the gasoline oxygenate requirement of the Clean Air Act; Preserve environmental benefits on air toxics, and; Provide funds to help transition from MTBE to other clean, safe fuels. Also, I am very pleased to be joining our subcommittee ranking member, Senator Chafee in introducing a new underground storage tank bill that includes MTBE cleanup funding. The time to act is now--Just as I said yesterday, I will continue to come to the floor until the Senate acts on this issue. It is time to help out the families who have fallen victim to a Federal mandate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I rise to say a few words about the Conference report to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act also known as the Better Education for Students and Teachers Act, H.R. 1. First of all, I want to thank President Bush for his leadership on this important issue, which he has made a cornerstone of his domestic agenda. He is to be commended for this commitment to local control of education, and for ``leaving no child behind.'' As a former civics and history teacher and school board chairman, I know that decisions regarding education are best executed at the local level, and that we should not run our public schools from Washington DC. Although the Senate's education bill, S. 1, lacked several important reform provisions, I voted for the bill's passage on June 14 of this year. I supported the bill because I wanted to move the ball forward to improve our nation's educational system. I supported the bill because I am tired of the status quo. I am tired of failing schools, and smart kids who are trapped in them. I am tired of money that is directed to our classrooms being spent on bureaucracy. I am tired of the United States' academic progress falling far behind that of other nations. The reconciled education bill will make modest but necessary and much needed reforms with the goal of making lasting improvements for our nation's schools. Bill Bennett, the Secretary of Education under President Ronald Reagan and one of the most respected leaders in the education reform movement, said in a recent article that there are several basic ingredients to a quality education for America's children. These ingredients are: First, strong leadership and excellent teachers; Second, principals and teachers sharing a common vision of the school's academic mission with clearly defined goals which are adhered to; Third, a commitment to homework and testing; Fourth, teaching character education; and Fifth, a successful school hinges on parents being involved in the academic lives of their children. I agree with Mr. Bennett completely. I want to first speak about funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Act, or IDEA as it is commonly called. I have heard from a number of New Hampshire constituents who are concerned about the Federal Government's commitment to funding our share of the costs associated with educating children with disabilities. IDEA does receive substantial funding increases in this bill. I support fully funding the IDEA mandate, and I am also committed to making sure that localities have more flexibility and that true reforms, such as cost control, are enacted to IDEA. I look forward to addressing IDEA next year when this bill is reauthorized by Congress. I hope to be able to offer amendments to reform and improve this important legislation at that time. I am also proud to report that this bill reflects the principles of two out of three amendments that I passed during consideration of S. 1. The first amendment requires the Department of Education to initiate a study on sexual abuse in our nation's schools. This is a very serious problem that, unfortunately, has received very little national attention, and I am glad that this amendment was included in the final bill. The second amendment applies ``Dollars to the Classroom'' principles to all Federal formula grant programs, and directs 95 percent of this money to the local level. Unfortunately, the vast majority of all federal education funds do not go to schools or school districts. According to the Heritage Foundation, audits from around the country have found as little as 26 percent of school district funds are being spent on classroom expenditures. Classroom expenditures are defined as expenditures for teachers and materials. Twenty six percent is unacceptable to me. Heritage also found that my home State of New Hampshire only receives 47 cents to the dollar of federal education money. What becomes of the remaining 53 cents? Many of my colleagues believe that throwing more money at our education system will solve all of its problems. I respectfully disagree, and let me briefly tell you why. Over the last 36 years, the federal government has spent more than $130 billion to shrink the scholastic achievement gap between rich and poor students. I am here to report that not much has improved. Poor students lag behind their peers by 20 percent even though the scope of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) has expanded. In fact, the average fourth grader today who comes from a low-income family reads at two grade levels less than his or her peer in that same classroom. One of the biggest reasons for this failure is that very little accountability exists for how all of this money is spent. Greater accountability and flexibility, not more money, is the key to education reform. I am also proud to report that the House/Senate agreement would provide all States and local school districts with the flexibility to shift Federal dollars earmarked for one specific purpose to other uses that more effectively address their needs and priorities. States would now be allowed to make spending decisions with up to 50 percent of most of their non-title I administrative funds that they receive from the Federal Government. The proposal would give every State the freedom to choose alternative uses for these funds within certain broad guidelines; for example, technology funds could now be used by the state to improve teacher quality. States can also use Federal funding to improve education for disadvantaged students. In addition, every local school district will be able to transfer up to half of its non-title I funds at its discretion. I am also pleased to report that the proposal would also allow 150 districts to apply for waivers from most Federal education rules and requirements associated with a variety of ESEA programs, as long as they obtain certain achievement levels for their lower-income students. Additionally, seven States will receive additional flexibility, making it possible for State and local education agencies to enter into State-local ``flexibility partnerships'' to coordinate their efforts and put Federal resources to their most effective use for students. Although these provisions fall short of what was originally envisioned for the Straight A's concept, I am pleased that we have a foundation on which to build regarding funding flexibility. It is my hope that these States and school districts will effectively demonstrate that less government heavy-handedness, with more local control and broader decision making power at the local level is the key to improving schools in this nation. The conference report also consolidates wasteful federal programs. The proposal would reduce the overall number of ESEA programs to 45, which is 10 fewer programs than in current law, and 34 fewer programs than in the Senate-passed legislation. The proposal would accomplish this by streamlining programs and targeting resources to existing programs that serve poor students. Additionally, H.R. 1 would, for the first time, require States to begin using annual statewide assessments and insisting that states show that progress is being made toward narrowing the achievement gap. National testing and federally-administered exams would be prohibited: States would be able to design tests that are consistent with its current academic standards--not Washington D.C.'s standards. States would need to ensure that student academic achievement results could be compared from year to year within the State, and federal funding will be provided to States so they can develop their annual assessments. I also believe that parents should have a choice in schooling options for their children. This can come in the form of tax credits, the option to change to another public school, or private school vouchers. Under the agreement reached by the House and Senate, approximately a portion of title I funding would, for the first time ever, be used to allow parents to obtain supplemental educational services for their children. These services include tutoring, after- school services, and summer school programs. I am pleased that private, church-related and religiously-affiliated providers would be eligible to provide supplemental services to disadvantaged students. For the first time ever, Federal title I funds would be permitted to flow to private, faith-based educational providers. Another component of H.R. 1 would provide parents with the opportunity for a child trapped in a failing school to transfer to a better public school, including a charter school, with their transportation costs paid for. Although I would have preferred Federal funding being permitted to flow to private schools as well, I am glad that we obtained a good, first step toward the goal of greater accountability in our schools. H.R. 1 contains language to push States and local districts to take responsibility for ensuring teacher quality through testing and certification. It also protects teachers who are trying to maintain order in the classroom by shielding them from frivolous lawsuits. Finally, there are several provisions in the reconciled bill which will give rights to parents that were not available to them previously. Schools must now develop a policy to allow parents the right to inspect surveys given to their children as well as instructional material used as curriculum for their child's education. Parents must be notified about surveys and medical exams and will have the right to opt their child out of them. In addition, parents have new rights to see the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) test, comment on it, and to receive a response to their concerns. Parents may also choose to opt their child out of the NAEP exam. I am pleased with several aspects of H.R. 1, because it: Attempts to close the achievement gap; provides flexibility to States and school districts; promotes accountability and teacher excellence; increases parental involvement; provides for a limited education choice component; and finally, this legislation returns decisions regarding education back to the local level, where they belong. Our children are the future of this Nation. Now, more than ever, we need to guarantee that they will receive a quality education and that federal money will flow to where it is most effective. We need to support our kinds and push them to excel. We need to equip teachers to effectively educate our children. And we need to empower parents to be more involved in the lives of their children. Although there are still aspects of the conference report that I wish were stronger, I am pleased that we are taking incremental steps to raise the grades for our Nation's schools.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, we are moving into the season of festivities. Hopefully, we will get an opportunity to celebrate the holidays. Unfortunately, for many in my State of New Hampshire and in other States across the country, this is a holiday season filled with the anxiety that comes with knowing their water is contaminated. This contamination is caused by a Federal mandate that I believe is wrong. Another year has gone by and Congress has still done nothing to right that wrong. Over the past few years, a good deal of the Nation has learned firsthand of the damage that MTBE has done to our drinking water supply. That certainly is true of many communities in New Hampshire where it has become a crisis where people cannot even drink their water or shower with it. I have been fighting for the past 2 years to get the Senate to vote on a bill that will solve this problem. I am pleased that last week the majority leader made a commitment to me that the Senate would at least vote on this issue before the end of next February. I am grateful for that. Until that day arrives, though, I plan to come to this Chamber on a regular basis, while we are in session, to remind Senators of the terrible impact that MTBE is having on our Nation and on so many thousands of people and to remind them that it is very important that we act now. For the past 2 years, I have met with a number of small businesses and families across New Hampshire who have been devastated by this problem. They cannot sell their homes. They cannot drink their water. They cannot shower with water. They have filters in their basements to get the MTBE out of the water. According to the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, there may be up to 40,000 private wells with MTBE contamination. Of those, 8,000 may have MTBE contamination of above State health standards. This is a crisis. We have to deal with this. I know it is nice to say we can make money by replacing MTBE with ethanol and all that. That is fine. Make all the money you want. But we need to get this issue resolved. In many instances, the State has had to provide bottled water to my constituents. They are installing and maintaining extremely expensive treatment equipment. These costs are high. Particularly hard hit have been communities in the southern tier of my State: Arlington Lake in Salem, Frost Road in Derry, Green Hills Estates in Raymond, and so many more. But I want to briefly tell you a story about one particular site in Richmond, NH. It is in the southwestern part of the State. It is a beautiful area, and the type of beauty for which New Hampshire is so well known. In August, I visited the Four Corners Store and several surrounding homes in the town of Richmond. It is called the Four Corners Store because it is at a rural crossroad, like so many in America, and takes up one of the four corners. Common sense is very pervasive in New Hampshire. Mr. and Mrs. Stickles are the store's proprietors. When they purchased that country store a few years ago, they believed the MTBE contamination problem had been solved. They do have new underground storage tanks and are completely in compliance with the law. Unfortunately, the MTBE plume from years ago still persists. A number of the nearby homes are having their wells polluted. It has contaminated a number of homes near the Four Corners Store. I met with the owners of the store and visited those homes. The Goulas and the Frampton families were kind enough to invite me into their homes. They showed me the treatment systems that had been installed by the State. They shared their concerns about their health and their children's health. At one of the homes lives a young couple with small children. First and foremost, they are worried about the long-term health impacts on their children. They told me about the daily inconveniences of having to deal with this contamination in their wells. They were told the water was safe for showers; however, showers should only be with cold water, limited to 10 minutes, and well ventilated. That is what they were told. So take a cold shower and make sure it is well ventilated. It is outrageous that we would stand by and allow this to continue in our country while the debate rages about replacing the MTBE additive with ethanol. Let's get real. We need to deal with this problem now. I intend to fight for these constituents throughout the rest of this session and also early into next year until we get this legislation passed. It is not right. Sometimes you just have to speak out when things are not right--that somebody should make a profit at the expense of somebody else getting sick and not being able to use their water. Making a profit is wonderful. That is the American way. I am all for it. But we do not need a guaranteed MTBE market. We do not need a guaranteed ethanol market. We do not need a guaranteed anything. Let the market play, but we have to be able to replace MTBE with something, and we cannot mandate that it be ethanol. It is not right for those of you in ethanol States to make the people in my State have to suffer. It seems to me the passage of this bill should be easy. I tried for weeks and months and years to reach an accommodation. I have debated every Senator who deals with ethanol privately and publicly, behind the scenes and in committee, but we cannot seem to get agreement. I urge my colleagues from all States to join with me to pass this legislation now so we can get the MTBE out of the wells in New Hampshire and many other wells and water supplies throughout the country.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Torricelli, for his cooperation in working together on two amendments which are slightly different but share the same goals. I am pleased to work with him. Cuba is currently one of the nations listed by the State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism. They are in good company: Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Syria, Libya, and the Sudan. Until the State Department removes Cuba from this list of state sponsors of terrorism, the U.S. Government should not permit the private financing of agricultural sales to prop up that regime. That is essentially what Senator Torricelli and I are talking about. The administration is opposed to the language in the bill and Senator Torricelli and I modify that language. If the President certifies that Cuba has stopped sponsoring terrorism or that American fugitives who are hiding in Cuba who committed atrocious crimes--some of the crimes in the home State of Senator Torricelli from New Jersey--they ought to be returned. That is the gist of the amendments. I remind my colleagues what President Bush said: Every nation in every region has a decision to make. Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime. It seems to me reasonable that if there are murderers who Fidel Castro is hiding in Cuba, he could easily return them so they could be prosecuted in New Jersey or other States where they committed the terrible crimes. If Cuba is on the State Department list of terrorist nations, it seems reasonable they ought to be removed before we give them help. I rest my case. I hope my colleagues will support the Torricelli-Smith amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to George Bandouveres of Rollinsford, NH, for being honored with World War II medals for acts of bravery. George, a veteran of the U.S. Army, served his country with honor during World War II. I admire the many veterans who have served America with courage and devotion. My own father, a naval aviator, was killed in a World War II related incident days before my fourth birthday. As a Vietnam veteran, I admire the heroism of George Bandouveres. The medals he so bravely earned while serving in the 103rd Infantry Division are a tribute to his service to our Nation. George was active in World War II campaigns including: Sicily, Naples-Foggia, Rome-Arno, southern France, Rhineland, and Central Europe. For his services he received military medals including: Bronze Star Medal, Good Conduct Medal, World War II Victory Medal, American Campaign Medal, European-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal with bronze and silver service stars and a bronze service arrowhead, Combat Infantryman Badge and Honorable Service Lapel Button. I was honored to help George secure the medals he acquired while serving in the U.S. Army during World War II. His courage and devotion to America are to be commended. It is truly an honor and a privilege to represent him in the U.S. Senate.