Bob Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I thank the Leader for his strong support, and I am pleased that the administration is also supportive. I know how many long hours the Attorney General is putting in on this issue, and how committed he is to winning this war on terrorism. I look forward to passing this important provision which will be an invaluable tool for the Attorney General and the President in this war. deterring money laundering

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I say to my colleagues, I will be very brief. If there are others who wish to speak, they may want to come to the Chamber. We have only, as I understand it, 20 minutes equally divided. This amendment, I say to my colleagues, is the one that has been known as the gun-in-the-cockpits amendment. I am pleased to report that, to the best of my knowledge, the Senate has agreed to accept this amendment, which I think is good news for the airline industry and good news for all of us who fly across America, and all over the world, as a matter of fact. First of all, I thank my colleagues, Senator Murkowski and Senator Burns, for their leadership, and also Senator Thurmond for working with me to put this amendment together. Also, Senator McCain and Senator Hollings were very helpful as we worked out the compromise so we could offer this amendment without a lot of rancor. The motto of my legislation is that armed pilots are the first line of deterrence and the last line of defense--the first line of deterrence because terrorists will know that armed pilots will be able to defend the cockpit and defend the aircraft from a hijacking; the last line of defense because when all else fails, including the air marshals and perhaps even a reinforced cockpit door, an armed pilot will be in the cockpit to defend that cockpit from terrorist hijackers. I think it is important for us to think and reflect back on what has happened in the past month. We all know what happened on September 11. Those terrorists got in that cockpit, and the pilots had no defense once that door was kicked in, except their bare hands. We have had another----

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I thank the Senator from California for her courtesy. In the last week, we have had another incident--not a terrorist incident but one where a person got into the cockpit and caused the plane to be destabilized momentarily. I think it is important to understand, after all of the events of September 11, and all of the efforts we have made to encourage and bring people back to flying again, we still had another incident where a person actually got into the cockpit. Now we know--and we are working on all of this--we are going to reinforce the cockpit doors; there will be armed marshals; we are going to increase security on the aircraft. All of these things are being done. But I would ask my colleagues to reflect for a moment as to what would happen if, in spite of all of that--in spite of all three of those things: The marshals, the reinforced cockpit doors, and increased security around the aircraft--somebody got into that cockpit again. They could bring that plane down. If, in fact, a pilot had a gun, that pilot would have the opportunity to stop that hijacker or person coming into that cockpit to cause damage. If the pilot could not do it, if the pilot did not have a weapon, and that person got into the cockpit, the worst of all things could be that the hijacker would commandeer the plane and do some terrible destruction using the aircraft as a weapon of mass destruction. But what might happen, and what could have happened last time, were it not for the brave passengers on Flight 93, we could have to shoot down our own commercial aircraft with our own American citizens in that aircraft. It is far preferable to have the pilot shoot the hijacker and maintain control of the cockpit than it is to have the hijacker get control of the cockpit and have the President of the United States have to make that god-awful, gut-wrenching decision to shoot down a commercial aircraft to save the lives of thousands, killing perhaps a couple hundred American citizens. So this is the right thing to do. The Senator from California mentioned that she wants to know the content of the amendment. The content of the amendment, I say to the Senator, is very reasonable. It says that the FAA is authorized to permit, if the airlines and the pilots would agree to do it--if they did agree; no one is forced to carry a weapon into the cockpit. That is the pilots' and the airlines' decision. So I think it is reasonable. I have met with dozens of pilots on this issue, many from New Hampshire and Massachusetts, some here, from most of the airlines. I know there are very few who disagree with this amendment, but the vast, overwhelming majority of the pilots, probably 95 percent of them, agree with it. It is the right thing to do, and not only for safety reasons but also, if we are going to bring back the airline industry and get those people back to work who have lost their jobs, we have to bring passengers back to the airplanes; we have to restore their confidence. I am going to feel a lot more confident knowing that pilot is going to have the opportunity to stop that hijacker when that hijacker comes through that cockpit door, if he gets through the cockpit door in spite of all the other things we are doing. So remember, this is not an amendment that is just hanging out there with nothing else. This is an amendment that is working in conjunction with increased airport and aircraft security, reinforced cockpit doors, and perhaps a Federal marshal--at least spot-checked on flights. It goes with all of that. And this is the final stop, so that pilot can have the assurance, with that TV camera or monitor, so he or she can see what is going on in the back of that aircraft, in the cabin. At that point, the pilot can turn and be prepared to face that hijacker who could cause unbelievable destruction. So I am pleased and proud to offer the amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Burns, Senator Murkowski, and Senator Thurmond. I know there are others who support it as well. Madam President, I know other people would like to speak, so I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I yield the Senator whatever time she wishes to consume.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I yield to the Senator.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1875

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I yield whatever time he may consume to the Senator from Montana.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Before I yield, however, I ask unanimous consent to have three letters of support printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, the evil acts perpetrated on September 11, which took thousands of innocent lives in New York, Washington, D.C. and Pennsylvania, have brought out the best and worst in man. In the days following the terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans gained a clearer picture of who our friends were by their sincere words and by their actions. In particular, I applaud the Government of the Republic of China on Taiwan which quickly offered its assistance, support, and strong condemnation of terrorism. Recently, I learned that the Republic of China on Taiwan has canceled here in the United States what should have been a great day of celebration for the Taiwanese people living in this country. The Republic of China's National Day was to have been held today, October 10, in order to honor and remember those who perished in the September 11 attacks. I am touched by the Republic China's actions and their sympathy for the victims. Despite continual attempts by the People's Republic of China politically and militarily to threaten the Republic of China on Taiwan, that island nation has remained committed to democracy and has matured into a prosperous nation. On Taiwan's National Day, I believe Taiwan needs a greater international presence, and I support that island nation's desire to share its resources and ideas. This can only be done through Taiwan's inclusion into international organizations. As we struggle to recover from the catastrophic events of September 11, 2001, let us always be mindful of who America's true allies and friends are.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the pending bill regarding normal trade relations with Vietnam. It is significant for us to look at what is occurring on the Senate floor as compared to what happened on the House side. There are two issues involved. One is the numerous human rights violations committed by the country of Vietnam, and the second is the other issue--which is the issue binding--of whether or not we should have so-called normal, if you will, trade relations with the country of Vietnam. I want to point out a few facts. Before I do that, I again point out that before the House passed normalization of trade with Vietnam, it passed H.R. 2833, dealing with human rights violations in Vietnam. I have a copy of the vote, which I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, this is a vote of 410-1, which noted the human rights violations Vietnam has committed. I ask my colleagues for the Record why we cannot have a similar vote in the Senate. If those who want to normalize relations with Vietnam choose to ignore the numerous human rights violations of that country, is that right? Where we had something that passed the House 410-1 and was sent over here, why can't we have a vote on that either before or after the vote on normalization of trade relations? I will tell you why. Because one Senator objects. I want to point out to the majority side that at the appropriate time when someone from the majority is here on the floor, I am going to ask unanimous consent that we move to that legislation. I believe that is the appropriate thing to do. Let me proceed by saying I don't think it is a secret that I have been a long-time critic of the regime in Hanoi. I have visited there four or five times, if not more, as a Senator and as a Congressman. I think I know pretty well the situation there. A lot of the criticism that I brought up has focused pretty much on the POW-MIA issue in the sense that in spite of all the statements to the contrary by many, they have not provided full disclosure on our missing. I will get back to that. First, I want to comment on the passage in the House of H.R. 2833, the Vietnam Human Rights Act, before they took up normal trade relations. The House is saying: We know what you are doing; we are putting you on notice. We can't do that here in the Senate today because one Senator is blocking, as far as I know, it coming to the Senate floor--410-1, and we can't even get a vote on it in the Senate. I commend the House for its action. They did the right thing. I don't agree with their passing normal trade relations, but they at least passed the human rights violation notification so that we now know and the world now knows about these violations. We should expect Vietnam to improve its record on human rights if we are trying to trade with them. Why is that so unreasonable? We make these demands on other nations. But when it comes to Vietnam, we have to ignore their horrible record of open human rights violations. It is abysmal. Our own State Department explains it in its ``Country Report on Human Rights Practices.'' We can't ignore these things. My question is, Why doesn't the Senate do what the House did and pass the Vietnam Human Rights Act? It is here at the desk. We could pass it. I have a letter from the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom requesting that the Senate pass H.R. 2833, the Vietnam Human Rights Act. I ask unanimous consent that the letter from the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. How much time do we have?

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I yield myself such time as I might consume. Madam President, I will try to put back into perspective the issue before the Senate subsequent to some of the remarks made since I last spoke. The issue is whether or not we want to continue to provide normal trade relations with the Vietnamese. That is the matter on which the Senate will be voting. The point I have been trying to make in my discussion is whether or not the Senate would be willing to do what the House did by a vote of 410-1 and approve the Vietnam Human Rights Act, H.R. 2833. I would like to see a favorable vote on H.R. 2833, but I am not asking for everybody to vote for it. I am simply asking for the opportunity to vote on it. I don't understand, given all of the circumstances of the human rights violations that the Vietnamese have committed, why it is, if we are going to provide normal trade relations with them, that we cannot go on record as the House--and properly so--stating we object to those human rights violations. We do it to other countries all of the time. There is only one conclusion that can be drawn; let's be honest. We don't want to embarrass the Vietnamese. Those Members of the Senate holding up the opportunity to vote on H.R. 2833 are doing it strictly because they are afraid somehow this will embarrass the Vietnamese or somehow make it awkward for them. As I said earlier, this is a quote from People's Army Daily which speaks for the Vietnamese Government on numerous occasions when they talked about the terrorist attack on the United States of America: . . . It's obvious that through this incident, Americans should take another look at themselves. If Americans had not pursued isolationism and chauvinism, and if they had not insisted on imposing their values on others in their own subjective manner, then perhaps the twin towers would still be standing together in the singing waves and breeze of the Atlantic. I don't know about you, but I am offended by that remark. I am offended by that, to put it mildly. That is not what President Bush was talking about when he said: You are with us or against us in this fight against terrorism. I know there was read on the floor an official statement by the Vietnamese Government which contradicted that, which expressed some concern about the outrage of the terrorist attack. It is also important to understand that in the paper where that was printed, there was also printed right next to it an article decrying the ``brazen'' interference by Washington in Vietnam's human rights matters. So you are getting a double message here. The point is, we do not want a double message from the Vietnamese Government on what happened in New York and Washington 3 weeks ago. We want one very clear message, which is what President Bush asked for: You are with us or you are not. I don't know how you feel, but as I read that statement, that doesn't strike me as somebody who is with us and supporting us in our acts against terrorism. But however you feel about that remark--that offends me; I think it offends most Americans--that is not the issue before us today. I wish to repeat what I am asking for, which is a vote on the human rights bill--that is all--in addition to a vote on this bill. Unfortunately, because of holds on the human rights bill--I repeat, it passed 410-1 in the House of Representatives--we can't have that vote. All it is going to do is cite and recite--and I will have some of these in the Record now--some of the human rights violations of which the Vietnamese Government is guilty. I do not want to normalize trade relations with them for a number of reasons--first and foremost, because they have never fully accounted for POWs and MIAs, and I don't care how many people come on the floor and say they did. They have not. It is an issue I have worked on for 17 years, and I can tell you right now they have not fully cooperated in accounting for POWs. If anyone wants to sit down with me and go through it on a case-by-case basis, I will be happy to do it. It is false. Paul Wolfowitz said it was. The archives have not been opened. Have they been cooperative to some extent? Yes. Have they been fully cooperative? No. There are lots of families out there who have not gotten information on their loved ones that the Vietnamese could provide. They have not done it. So I don't want to hear this stuff that they are fully cooperative. They are not fully cooperative. There is a big difference between being cooperative and being fully cooperative. They are not cooperative fully. You can ask anyone who works on this issue in the Intelligence Committee--and certainly Paul Wolfowitz knows what he is talking about. He says they are not fully cooperative. So let's not stand on the floor of the Senate and say let's normalize trade with Vietnam because they have been fully cooperative when every one of us knows differently. End of story; they are not. If you want to go beyond that, that is not the only issue. All I am asking is that the Senate, in addition to voting on this normalizing trade, would also give the Senate the opportunity to be heard on what the House did on the human rights violations. That is it. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International recently criticized the Vietnamese Government's use of closed trials to impose harsh prison terms on 14 ethnic minority Montagnards from the central highlands of Vietnam--closed trials, kangaroo courts. The Montagnards were the ones who helped us tremendously during the Vietnam war. That is a nice thank-you for what they did. Many of them gave their lives and lots of freedoms to stand up with us--stand with us during the vietnam war. Now we are having kangaroo courts, defendants charged. This is one of the charges: destabilizing security. Why do we have to tolerate it? I understand we cannot necessarily go back into the Government of Vietnam and change their way of life. That has been said. I wish it would change. But we do not have to condone it by simply ignoring it while we give them normal trade relations. Give them the normal trade relations, if you want--I will vote no--but at the same time give us the opportunity to expose this and say on the floor of the Senate, as the House did 410-1, this is wrong. That is all I am asking. The only reason I can't do it is because people have secret holds. I have said, and I will say it again publicly, I hate secret holds. I do not use them. When I put a hold on something, I tell people. If anybody asks me do I have a hold, I say, yes, I do, and here is the reason. If I can't take it off, I will tell you. If I can, I can work with you. I wish we did not have secret holds. I think it is wrong. I think those who have the holds should come down and say they have the holds and why. Why is it we cannot vote on the human rights accord as the House did? I mentioned the Montagnards. I will repeat a few. But it is unbelievable, some of the things that are going on and we choose to ignore them because we do not want to offend them for fear we might not be able to sell them something. To be candid about it, there are things more important than making a profit in America. There are about 6,500 people in New York who would love to have the opportunity to make a profit. They cannot because they have lost their freedom permanently because of what happened. This is the insensitive, terrible comment that was made by these people in Vietnam. And there were more. I read more into the Record. I will not repeat them. Students on the street saying it is too bad it wasn't Bush and it is too bad it wasn't the CIA, on and on, comments coming out of the Vietnamese Government, and students and populace, and put in their papers, on the public record. They can stop anything they want from being printed. They do not have a free press in Vietnam. If they don't want this stuff printed, they could say: We won't print it. But they did print it because it is a double slap. Here is the official message: We are sorry about what happened. But here is the other message. That is what bothers me. Again, all I am asking for is the right to vote on this human rights accord and we cannot do it because we cannot get it to the floor. The Government of Vietnam consistently pursues the policy of harassment, discrimination, intimidation, imprisonment, sometimes other forms of detention, and torture. Sometimes trading in human beings themselves--having people try to buy their freedom to get out of that place and after they pay the money they retain them anyway and will not let them out. The recent victims of such mistreatment--it goes on and on. We could give all kinds of personal testimony to that--priests, religious leaders, Protestants, Jews, Catholics--anybody. They have all been victims of this terrible, terrible policy of this Government of Vietnam. Yet we ignore it. We refuse to even vote on it. Everybody has to work with their own conscience. Again, however you feel about it, whether you agree or disagree with the violations, or whether you agree or disagree with normalizing trade with Vietnam, that is the issue. The issue is: Why can't we be heard? Why can't the Senate vote as the House did to point out what these terrible human rights violations are? These are the Senate rules. I respect the Senate rules. Every Senator has a right to do that. I do not criticize the rule nor anyone's motives, other than to say I wish those who oppose voting on human rights would have the courage to come down and say why not. Why can't we say, at the same time we are giving you trade, that we are also willing to tell you it is wrong, what you are doing to people in Vietnam: torturing, slave trading, forcing people to buy their freedom and then not allowing them to get free after they pay the money, on and on--persecution of religious leaders. These things are wrong. We criticize governments all over the world for doing it, all the time. We take actions against them, sanctions and other things. Then, on top of that, the insensitivity of this remark, and others-- that is reason enough to say OK, we are not going to interfere with the trade, we will give you the trade, but we also want to point out to you that what you are doing is wrong. What you said here is wrong. What you are doing to citizens in Vietnam is wrong, and we are going to say that in this resolution, as the House did. That is all I am asking. I know it is not going to happen. That is regrettable. I think, frankly, it is not the Senate's finest hour that we ignore that remark, ignore the human rights violations and give them trade. Sometimes you just have to let your heart take priority in some of these matters. You know what your heart says. You know in your heart that is wrong. You know it is. I don't care how much profit we make buying or selling--whatever, grain. It doesn't matter to me what it is. Profit should not take precedence over principle. Believe me, we are letting that happen today at 2 o'clock when we vote. I am telling you we are. It is not the Senate's finest hour. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, if the Senator will agree that we postpone this vote until we have this bill go back to the committee where it can be heard and brought to the floor, I would be fine with that. Apparently that is not going to be the case. I think it is only fair if the Committee on Foreign Relations is going to discuss human rights violations, we should hold off the vote on this and do both at the same time. That is not going to happen.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Certainly.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. The resolution passed the House 410-1. I don't know if it has been referred to the committee. I assume so.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. If it needs to be referred to the Foreign Relations Committee, it should be, and the Foreign Relations Committee should act post haste and get it up to the Senate floor before we consider the action we are now taking. That is my point. We should not give free trade to a Communist regime that ignores basic human rights and insults us--``insult'' isn't even strong enough--by saying something like that, having those comments made on the streets of Hanoi and proudly printing it in their propaganda rags. We stand here on the Senate floor and refuse to even talk about it. That is outrageous. It is my understanding that the bill has been held at the desk after the House sent it over, to get it straight on the record. I know my colleague from Iowa wishes to make some remarks, and I will be happy to yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I quote from this letter. Congress Should Demand Religious-freedom Improvements As It Considers Vietnam Trade Agreement. The Senate will soon consider the Bilateral Trade Agreement with Vietnam approved by the House of Representatives last week. Given the very serious violations of religious freedom in that country, the Commission in May made a series of recommendations to the Bush administration and Congress. Primary among these was that U.S. lawmakers should ratify the BTA only after Hanoi undertakes to improve protection of religious freedom or after the Congress passes a resolution calling for the Vietnamese government to make such improvements. You have the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom asking us to do this. The House did it, and we are not doing it. The Vietnam Human Rights Act which passed the House last week implements this and other Commission recommendations. The Commission urges the Senate to do likewise. However, we cannot do that because of the fact that someone is holding it up. That, to me, is unfortunate. I am going to propose a unanimous consent request. At that time, I know the majority will object, but I want to propose it. I want to also say that I may ask for this a number of times. I believe the individual Senator or Senators who oppose having a vote on human rights should come down and defend themselves. I would like to hear why it is we can't pass something that passed the House 410-1. I know my colleague from Montana has a hearing to go to. I am more than happy to yield to the Senator from Montana in just a second so that he can go off to his hearing, providing I can reclaim the floor after the Senator from Montana speaks. I ask unanimous consent that following the vote on H.J. Res. 51, extension of nondiscrimination with respect to products of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the Senate immediately proceed to a vote on final passage of H.R. 2833, the Vietnam Human Rights Act.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I yield to Senator Baucus and that I can regain the floor after Senator Baucus completes his remarks.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Certainly.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Absolutely.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, my colleague from Montana mentioned human rights violations. Yet in spite of the fact that the House voted 410-1 to cite those violations, we cannot have a similar vote in the Senate today, either before or after voting on normal trade relations with Vietnam. That is my issue and my concern, and it is why I did request unanimous consent to proceed to that bill. For the life of me, I don't know why we choose to ignore these violations. Everyone knows where the votes are on normal trade relations. I know my view does not carry in this Chamber. But I don't understand why we can't at least vote on the human rights violations. We should not approve the U.S.-Vietnam trade agreement without at least addressing these human rights violations in Vietnam. I don't understand why we can't address them. What is the fear? That somehow we are going to antagonize the Vietnamese? I am going to be giving you some information very shortly that makes one wonder why we would not want to antagonize the Vietnamese. We will talk about that. Let me first ask, what does this human rights act do that we are not allowed to pass it in the Senate because somebody is holding it up with a secret hold? Well, it prevents the United States from providing nonhumanitarian assistance to the Government of Vietnam above 2001 levels unless the President certifies that the Government of Vietnam has made substantial progress toward releasing political and religious prisoners it holds; secondly, that the Government of Vietnam has made substantial progress toward respecting the right to freedom of religion, which it does not; thirdly, that the Government of Vietnam has made substantial progress toward respecting human rights, which it does not do; and the Government of Vietnam is not involved in trafficking persons. They do that, too. We are going to ignore all that. We are going to ignore that, and we can't possibly have a vote today to cite the Vietnamese for those human rights violations because somehow we are going to offend them. We don't take that position against other nations that have human rights violations. The President has the ultimate waiver authority under this legislation. If the continuation of assistance is deemed in the national interest, if he thinks it is in the national interest, he can waive these issues. He can waive the certification process, if he believes it is necessary. It is no big deal. There is no harm done if the Senate would pass this resolution. This resolution authorizes appropriations of up to $2 million to NGOs, nongovernment organizations, that promote human rights and nonviolent democratic change. It states: It is the policy of the U.S. Government to overcome the jamming of Radio Free Asia by the Vietnamese. It authorizes $10 million over 2 years for that effort. It helps Vietnamese refugees settle in the United States, especially those who were prevented from doing so by actions of the Vietnamese, such as bribes and government interference. Yes, that goes on, too. We are going to ignore it, but it does go on. It requires an annual report to Congress on the above-mentioned issues. As you can see, this is a very reasonable piece of legislation. It doesn't tie the hands of the President. It only involves nonhumanitarian aid. It only concerns increases in nonhumanitarian aid above the 2001 levels. My personal belief is we should not approve normal trade relations with Vietnam. I know where the votes are. I know this legislation will pass. I am particularly disgusted by a press report which contained an excerpt from the Vietnamese People's Army Daily commenting on the recent terrorist attacks. I want my colleagues to hear what the official organ of the Vietnamese Army thinks. And remember, they will profit handsomely from this trade agreement with the United States. As I display the quote, I want to put everything in perspective. We had a terrorist attack, the worst ever in the history of America. This is what the Vietnamese official People's Army Daily said about it. In spite of that, we are not even allowed in the Senate to pass a resolution criticizing them for their human rights violations before we give them normal trade status. I heard the President of the United States very clearly state and articulate over and over again, you are either with us or you are against us. It is not gray. It is either black or white. You are on our side in the fight against terrorism or you are not. Let's read what they said: . . . it's obvious that through this incident, Americans should take another look at themselves. If Americans had not pursued isolationism and chauvinism, and if they had not insisted on imposing their values on others in their own subjective manner, then perhaps the twin towers would still be standing together in the singing waves and breeze of the Atlantic. That is what they said. But we are going to ignore all that. This is Vietnam. We now have to normalize trade relations with them, but we can't even criticize them on their human rights violations. I will withdraw any recorded vote on normal trade relations if we will just bring up by unanimous consent and vote on the human rights violations that the House passed 410-1. Of what are we afraid? Why are we afraid of offending? Do my colleagues like that comment? How do they like that? How do they think the 6,000 families feel about that comment? That is what they said. If we think that is bad, while it is up there, let me give a few more comments. This was 2 days after the incident: A visit to the city's institutes of higher learning on Thursday revealed an alarming level of excitement and happiness over the recent devastating terrorist attacks in the United States. This was in the international news section of the Deutsche Presse. Here is what one person said on the streets of Hanoi: ``Many people here consider this act of terrorism an act of heroism, because they dared confront the almighty United States,'' said one post-graduate student at Hanoi Construction University. Another student, 22-year-old class monitor Dang Quang Bao, said terrorism as a means is not ideal. ``But this helped the U.S. open its eyes, because it has blindly imposed its power on the world through embargoes and intervening in the internal affairs of other nations. ``When people heard about the attack in America,'' he added, ``many said it was legitimate.'' Privately, thousands if not millions of Vietnamese admire the U.S. for its economic power, military supremacy. . . . But Communist-ruled Vietnam, like many Third World nations, maintains a testy relationship with the United States. ``If Bush had died, I would be happier, because he's so warlike,'' said Tran Huy Hanh, a student at the Construction University who heads his class's chapter of the youth union. ``America deserves this, because of all the suffering it has caused humankind,'' said one freshman at National Economics University. ``But they should have attacked the headquarters of the CIA, because the CIA serves America's political plots,'' he said. This Senate won't even give us a chance to vote to condemn their human rights violations. We are not even asking you to condemn this. All we are asking you to do is condemn the human rights violations they are committing. What are we doing? What are we saying to the American people? It is unbelievable. I am stunned. In the cafes and barber shops--not to mention the classrooms in Hanoi--people expressed broad consensus that the U.S. reaped what it has sown. Listen to this one: ``I feel sorry for the terrorists who were very brave because they risked their lives,'' said a motorbike guard, who did not wish to be named, in Hanoi. ``I am happy,'' gloated a 70-year-old Hanoian who said he was an army officer in wars against the French and Americans. ``You see, America always boasts about its power, but what has happened proves America is not invincible.'' ``The United States is king of the jungle,'' said 25-year-old Phan Huy Son. ``When the king is attacked, the other animals are happy.'' This is what we got from Hanoi. Somebody will come down here and they will read the official little cable that came in. That is what it said ``officially.'' But this is what the People's Army Daily said on September 13. It is outrageous in and of itself that they said it. But let me tell you something. We are further compounding the outrage by standing on the Senate floor and voting to normalize trade relations with them. That is bad enough. But even worse, we don't have the guts to bring up on the Senate floor and pass something that was supported 410-1. Don't tell me one Senator has a hold. I know one Senator has a hold on it. Let's go to that Senator and say take the hold off and let us vote on it, whatever the vote is. ``The towers would still be standing together in the singing waves and breeze of the Atlantic'' were it not for us imposing values on others. Does that sound like somebody who is for us? It sounds like somebody who is against us to me. It is an insult, an outrage. I didn't even hear Saddam Hussein say that. It is an outrage that that was said. It is a further outrage that we are compounding by refusing to even consider the human rights violations. I understand a resolution approving normal trade relations is going to pass. I know it will pass. But why can't we have a vote? Why can't we have a vote right now after this debate on the human rights act? Mr. President, after showing this material and talking about it, I am going to again, since there is representation of the majority side on the floor, ask unanimous consent that following the vote on H.J. Res. 51, the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment with respect to the products of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the Senate immediately proceed to and vote on final passage of H.R. 2833, the Vietnam Human Rights Act.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, it is well known that concerns about future liability have been a significant impediment to the remediation and reuse of military installations closed through the BRAC process. Private insurance products have proven an effective tool for addressing the liability concerns of local governments, contractors and developers of BRAC installations. With these products in hand, local governments, contractors, and developers of BRAC installations have been willing to accept the early transfer of contaminated DOD sites, and they have been willing to accept fixed price arrangements with DOD to complete the cleanup of sites. These arrangements encourage the better coordination of remediation and reuse, accelerating both, they save the Federal Government significant money in the process. Would the distinguished managers of the bill agree that the military services should consider the use of private insurance products as a method for expediting the remediation and reuse of BRAc installations, when appropriate cost savings can be achieved?

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I am glad that the Space Management Organization Amendment to this year's National Defense Authorization Act has been approved. As you all know, space issues have long been a keen interest of mine, even long before I served as the Strategic Forces Subcommittee Chairman. My interest is not derived from my New Hampshire industry constituents, because there is very little space business in my State. Rather, my interest in space is derived from my firm belief that whoever controls space will win the next war. More and more our deployed forces are relying on the ``reach'' that space communications provide and the ``high ground'' that space surveillance affords. Space is absolutely critical to future war fighting! That is why I feel proper management and operations of our space assets is absolutely critical. I look forward to working with Senator Reed as the Chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee to further the role of space in our strategic planning. This amendment is intended to capitalize on the expertise the Space Commission brought together, the Nation's greatest national security space experts from the military and civilian world. Ironically, military space operations are not usually run by senior officers with any space experience. Surely this lack of experience has some impact on their ability to leverage, to the maximum extent, the very complex high-technology military space assets under their command. In researching this issue, I found that the reason many of these officers don't have space experience is that they are required to be pilots in the ``dual- hatted'' relationship that U.S. Space Command has with the North American Aerospace Defense Command, NORAD. Because of the complexity of training to fly aircraft and maintain satellites, you rarely find officers with experience in both to staff appropriately U.S. Space Command, with space experts, and simultaneously meet the NORAD requirement for pilots. I think this current situation impacts our ability to leverage our space assets, precludes our best space officers from holding the highest positions, and perpetuates a culture in the Air Force that SPACE is secondary to AIR, despite the rhetoric to the contrary. This amendment is not intended to be an affront to the current or past Commanders of the U.S. Space Command or the officers who have served honorably under them. Rather, this amendment is intended to acknowledge that we have a defense space management issue and to seize the opportunity to correct it. Space is growing in importance as shown in the Gulf War, the Balkans and as will be demonstrated in the upcoming war against terrorism. It will be critical to winning the next war, and we need to establish the best space management and operations system that this Nation can bring to bear. Amendment No. 1705

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I rise today to pay tribute to Electropac Company, Incorporated, of Manchester, NH, on the celebration of their 25th year in business. For 25 years, Electropac Company, Incorporated headed by Raymond Boissoneau, has provided high quality printed circuit boards to businesses in New Hampshire, the United States and worldwide markets. The company has constantly invested in the latest technology and processes and has produced innovative products for their customers. Electropac is one of North America's leading suppliers of printed circuit boards with $45 million in annual revenue and currently employs more than 400 dedicated team members. Electropac has consistently prided itself in their dedication to complete customer satisfaction and teamwork. I commend the leadership and employees of Electropac for their exemplary accomplishments in the business world. The contributions of Electropac have been of significant benefit to the citizens of our state and have provided economic stimulus and employment opportunities. It is truly an honor and a privilege to represent you in the U.S. Senate.