Bob Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I support the Hutchison- Bingaman amendment and am pleased to cosponsor it. The purpose of my addressing the issue is two fold: One, to impress upon my fellow Members that if Congress intends to have input into the BRAC process, the only real time to do this is during the current session. While ``BRAC 2005'' leads people to believe that we have several years before we have to worry about this, the truth is that the criteria must be published prior to the end of 2003, and hence we should provide our input in 2002; two, this legislation, sponsored by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson sets up criteria that must be met before consideration in closing a military facility. We are not eliminating the ability of DoD to run the process, we are pursuing legislation that will clarify the process. To bring the process out into the open allowing us all to see how a decision was derived and these are decisions that affects thousands of people and cost many millions or billions of dollars. It is time to bring--businesslike competitive accounting into the consideration process when dealing with issues of BRAC. The Hutchison legislation will accomplish that by simply establishing some minimal, measurable, and articulated standards to be used in making major decisions. Some of these issues are: environmental costs, costs of Federal and State environmental compliance laws; costs and effects of relocating critical infrastructure; anticipated savings vs. actual savings; current or potential public or private partnerships in support of Department activities; capacity of State and localities to respond positively to economic, and this bill requires the SecDef to publish the formula to which different criteria will be weighed by the DOD in making its recommendations for closure of realignment of military installations. Not only do I support this move on its stand alone merit of bringing accountability and transparency to major defense and economic decisions, I also support it as a Senator who has had personal experience with the secretive BRAC process as it affects my own constituents and friends. The Portsmouth Naval Shipyard is a national asset to the defense industry and naval service. It has a long history of supporting the U.S. Navy, yet despite this long history, it has appeared on the DoD BRAC his list. Having seen the work this facility and its people contribute I will continue to support and work to enhance PNSY's capabilities. Its outstanding work performance, value to the Navy, and value to the America people are critical in ensuring national defense, and continue to examine innovative roles PNSY can perform in addition to its critical job of keeping America's nuclear submarines at sea. If the Secretary of Defense chooses to examine facilities across the country, he may do so and I encourage his attempts at streamlining DoD and enhancing its financial practices--to make sure the taxpayers get the most for their hard-earned dollars. However, clearly defined standards of accountability, and the decisionmaking process itself, should be open to congressional scrutiny and openness.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I compliment my colleagues, Senators Nelson and Roberts, for their continued leadership on this issue. I rise in strong support of the amendment. The case of Scott Speicher is a terrible tragedy that never should have happened. I know my distinguished colleague is not familiar with all of the background I have had on the issue. I began in the mid-1990s to question our Government based on information I was receiving from my own sources within the intelligence community, which, much to their consternation, they have not been able to identify yet, thankfully, that there was something wrong, that there may be information suggesting that Speicher may not, should not have been declared KIA or killed in action. As has been said, Speicher was shot down on the first night of the gulf war and immediately declared killed in action. The truth is, as I stand here today, that a search and rescue mission for Commander Speicher, now Captain Speicher, was never launched. At a Department of Defense press conference shortly after the shootdown, it was announced that he was killed in action and that was it. We told Saddam Hussein and the world that Speicher was dead and, therefore, there would have been absolutely no incentive for Hussein to provide him to us or any information on him to us. It was a mistake. That announcement, pure and simple, was a mistake. It was based on incomplete information which can happen in wartime. We understand that. But it was passed up the chain of command, and it was a mistake. Mistakes can be rectified. We didn't rectify it. Mrs. Speicher and the children were told that he was killed in action. There is a big difference between being killed in action and missing in action. Missing in action, there may be some hope, or POW there may be some hope you may be found alive. She made her decisions in life based on that information which was never corrected, never changed until recently. At the conclusion of the war, the Iraqis returned remains. I don't know if my colleague mentioned this; I was not in the Chamber at the time. They sent remains back that they claimed belonged to a pilot named Michael. When we tested the DNA, it was not Speicher. You have to ask yourself, why would the Iraqis return remains that were not Speicher if they didn't have some ulterior motive. In spite of that, Speicher was officially declared killed in action in May of 1991, and the status was reaffirmed again in August of 1996. Supposedly, all of these decisions were based on a comprehensive review of the case. The truth is, there was not a comprehensive review. I can assure you these decisions were a terrible mistake. When the U.S. Government finally visited the crash site in December of 1995, it was determined that Speicher had ejected from his aircraft. There was no information given to Mrs. Speicher about that. Our investigators were able to determine that, despite the fact that the Iraqis clearly tampered with the crash site to confuse us. We had that information. Navy statistics show that 90 percent of pilots who eject from an F-18 survive the ejection. Speicher was flying an F-18. He ejected. The ejection seat came out of the plane. In over 7 years that I have been involved in this case, I have never seen--I want to be clear about this--any information remotely suggesting that Scott Speicher was killed in action. I don't say that in any way to encourage anybody or enhance anybody's hopes. I am telling you that there has never been any information I have seen that would suggest that Scott Speicher was killed in action. Under the laws and rules of the Defense Department and the way we determine the definition of KIA, he should not have been declared killed in action. Yet he was. In spite of the fact that month after month, year after year, more and more information was coming forth, they still left him killed in action. In March of 1999, I sent a letter to then-Secretary of the Navy Danzig requesting that the ``finding of death'' determination made by the Navy in May of 1991 be changed because there was no evidence supporting the determination that Speicher was killed in action. In fact, there is information to the contrary--a lot of information to the contrary, which my colleagues have already discussed. I encourage my colleagues--and I know the Senator from Florida has done this, and I am not suggesting that this could be done prior to the vote. I think this amendment will pass overwhelmingly. I encourage colleagues to read the intelligence on this case. It is a fascinating case. Some of the things we cannot talk about. But I can tell you that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence out there that suggests Speicher could have survived. There is no evidence that suggests he was killed. There is a very important distinction here. Yet he was declared killed, and his wife made decisions in life that people do make, such as getting remarried and so forth, based on that information. In spite of the fact that I challenged it month after month, year after year, beginning in the mid-1990s, to try to get more information from my own sources who were saying, They are not telling you the truth in the intelligence community or giving you all the information--in spite of that, they would not change the designation. As a matter of fact, I say to my colleague--because I know this is his constituent--I was trashed by some in the agency to the family directly. The family will tell Senator Nelson that if he talks to them. They said I was a troublemaker, causing undue stress to the family. This was given by bureaucrats in this Government in the DPMO office. They provided information to Mrs. Speicher that I was a troublemaker for getting involved in this because, as one who lost his dad in the Second World War and was raised without a father, I wanted the son and daughter of Mrs. Speicher to know what happened to their father. That is what I was declared a troublemaker for. After working closely with Danzig for a number of months, the Secretary, to his credit, prior to the Clinton administration leaving office, changed the status of Commander Speicher from KIA to MIA. That is exactly what it should be. It should never have been otherwise. I think this has been read into the Record, but I will give one paragraph of the intelligence community's assessment of the Speicher case. This is unclassified: We assess that Iraq can account for Lieutenant Commander Speicher, but that Baghdad is concealing information about his fate. Lieutenant Commander Speicher probably survived the loss of his aircraft, and if he survived, he almost certainly was captured by the Iraqis. We know, because there is a lot of information to indicate, that he could have survived the ejection from the aircraft and that there is all kinds of intelligence information about what may or may not have happened to him afterwards. We also know that the Iraqis know the answer. They could return Speicher one way or the other, dead or alive, or give us information that would indicate one way or the other. I don't know if Commander Scott Speicher is alive, but I do know there is no information that he is dead. A lot of information suggests he may be alive. I want to again re-encapsulate this because it is very important. In spite of all the information we had at our disposal up until the last 2 or 3 years, from the early nineties, crossing two administrations, the previous Bush administration and the Clinton administration--in spite of the fact that information was in the DPMO office and in the intelligence office and the Navy, in spite of all of that information that showed an overwhelming amount of evidence that he may have survived, they still declared him KIA and refused to change the status. When I asked to change the status, I was declared a troublemaker in the secret conversations and documents to which I was not privy. I don't care because the issue is not me. If we can find out that Scott Speicher is alive and could come home to his family, I would like to join my colleague in Jacksonville for that homecoming. But we owe nothing less to the Speicher family than that. All the men and women who serve in uniform in our Nation's military deserve nothing less than that--that the U.S. Government finds out what happens. We realize we are dealing with a nation and a leader who isn't exactly willing to cooperate and is not the greatest humanitarian the world has ever seen. I don't blame the U.S. Government for that. I do blame the U.S. Government for not sharing this with me. I was not a member of the Intelligence Committee, so I was basically kept from getting the information, frankly, by the chairman of the committee. I wasn't able to get it. Finally, after raising enough ruckus, I began to challenge the intelligence reports and documents and evidence we were getting, and I was able to get before the committee--even though I am not a member-- and ask some questions, and then, subsequently, all this information began to come out. It is amazing. We know the Iraqis do hold prisoners. They released an Iranian pilot in 1998 who had been held for 18 years. So it is not unprecedented. I hope sincerely that we will move forward. I think the Senator's bill will help. I just caution one thing, which is that we don't turn this thing into a 90-day reporting period and get off focus. The main focus should be, let's find him, or find out what happened to him. And let's do it quickly so that the Senator's legislation will be over with quickly because, hopefully, in the first 90 days we will get the answers. I hope it will not be a series of 90-day reports in succession as we see years and years go by. If Scott Speicher is alive, the thought of him languishing in some prison cell somewhere in Iraq--God knows what is going on--is a horrible thing to even think about. If he is dead, then Saddam Hussein should tell us what happened to him. I want to make it clear, before I conclude, that the current intelligence community, starting in the previous administration and then into this one, Admiral Wilson of DIA, and others have been very helpful and very responsive in helping us to get the answers. We have had a number of occasions where we could do that. So I am optimistic and I know the Senator's legislation will help. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Ruling Before I yield the floor, this has an impact here. I want my colleagues to know this because here we are talking now about a missing pilot who was shot down in 1991 in the Persian Gulf war, fighting for his country, for the flag, fighting for this Nation under God, the flag we salute every single day, ``one nation under God.'' I want to announce to my colleagues a decision that just came down from the Ninth Circuit Court--the infamous Ninth Circuit court. Listen to this article on the ruling: A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that the Pledge of Allegiance is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion and cannot be recited in schools. That is the wording of the Ninth Circuit Court. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a 1954 act of Congress inserting the phrase ``under God'' after the words ``one nation'' in the pledge. The court said the phrase violates the so-called Establishment Clause in the Constitution that requires a separation of church and state. I will be very brief in deference to my colleague. But they further said: A profession that we are a nation ``under God'' is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation ``under Jesus,'' a nation ``under Vishnu,'' a nation ``under Zeus,'' or a nation ``under no god,'' because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion,'' Judged Alfred T. Goodwin wrote for the three-judge panel. I wonder what Scott Speicher would have to say about that. Unbelievable. I sponsored, in 1999, at the request of a constituent of mine, legislation to require the Senate--which ironically was not doing it-- to cite the Pledge of Allegiance before convening every day. Until 1999, we never recited the Pledge of Allegiance. A constituent was watching C-SPAN one day and said: What in the world is going on? Why don't you guys salute the flag? I said: I don't know; let's find out. We implemented it. The House of Representatives recites the Pledge every day. We had a unanimous resolution that passed the Congress. I wish to recite from the resolution because it shows we ought to be pretty outraged by that judicial decision: Whereas the Flag of the United States of America is our Nation's most revered and preeminent symbol. . . . And it goes on to talk about the flag and it even talks about the Pledge. Here we are talking about a Naval officer who may or may not be alive in Iraq who is basically not looked for by his own Government for 10 years, and now we get an appeals court decision in the Ninth Circuit that says we have to take ``under God'' out of the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. Frankly, to Judge Goodwin: May God bless us all and pray for us.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my friend and colleague, Senator Warner, to restore funding for missile defense. The cuts made during markup, while amounting to ``only'' 10 to 11 percent of the overall missile defense budget, are targeted to decapitate the program and destine it to failure. President Bush will likely veto the Defense authorization bill if we do not restore funding to missile defense. I have long been a strong proponent of missile defense. We must take the appropriate steps to protect our homeland against all threats. An effective missile defense is a key element in homeland security. There are those who discount the threat. However, a recent national intelligence estimate (NIE) warned that a rogue nation, other than China or Russia, will be capable of a ballistic missile attack against the United Stats before 2015. I believe we will face the threat in the near term, well before 2015. The threat is real, and it is now, not in the distant future. If this body turns a blind eye to this ominous threat, History will condemn us for our lack of action, and question why we sat idle while the threat grew. It is important to note that the public overwhelmingly supports missile defense. However, the vast majority of Americans do not realize that our Nation currently can do nothing to stop a ballistic missile attack against the United States. In fact, a majority of Americans expressed surprise, disbelief, and anger, when told that the United States has no defense against ballistic missiles. We need to get serious about developing and fielding a missile defense system. We can't wait for another September 11-like event to spur us into action. Complacency is our enemy. For the sake of our children and our grandchildren, I hope that reason will prevail and that we will vote to pass this amendment. I commend President Bush for withdrawing from the ABM Treaty. The ABM Treaty was a cold war relic that deserved to be discarded. I also applaud the Bush administration for its new approach toward missile defense. Approaching missile defense as an integrated ``system of systems,'' with layered defense in phases--boost, midcourse, and terminal--is the right thing to do. Unfortunately, the cuts during markup targeted the critically important systems engineering and command and control elements of missile defense. In effect, the cuts removed the ``system of systems'' architecture that is important to the new approach to missile defense. The national intelligence estimate was clear. North Korea, Iraq, Iran, and others actively seeking to acquire weapons of mass destruction and longer range ballistic missiles. China already has ICBMs capable of hitting the United States and has threatened to use them if the United States interceded in a conflict with Taiwan. Effective missile defense is one of the most complex technical problems to face our Nation, and one that requires innovative solutions. I applaud the new approach for the development and rapid fielding of missile defense. It is the right approach given the unique challenges of the program and the looming threat. There has been much unwarranted confusion over the non-traditional approach to defining requirements for missile defense, and the review and oversight process. Some allege that the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) has been given cart blanche to spend taxpayer money on outlandish technologies with no oversight. These allegations are totally unfounded, and are largely intended by ideological opponents of missile defense to alarm and confuse the public. Developing a missile defense system is, as Pete Aldridge, the Deputy Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics said, like operating in ``uncharted waters.'' In order to define the requirements for the system in the face of maturing technologies and the unpredictable future threat, the Missile Defense Agency will use an evolutionary or ``spiral'' development approach. In most complex programs like missile defense, it is extremely difficult in the early stages of development to define in sufficient detail what the fielded system will look like, how it will perform, and what its functional characteristics will be. These items are normally described in operational requirements documents, or ORDs. However, far too often, the services, with the best of intentions, write the operational requirements documents (ORDs) too early in development with their ``best guess'' on what the parameters should be, and then spend huge amounts of money trying to drive programs to meet those requirements. In missile defense, these final requirements at this point are impossible to determine. Using ``spiral'' development. In other words, developing the system in increments and fielding capabilities as soon as they are ready will allow the Department of Defense to field an effective missile defense as rapidly as possible. Some argue that this program will not receive the proper amount of oversight both within the Department of Defense and from the Congress. The truth is that this program will have more oversight than any other program in the DOD, and I am confident that the Armed Services Committee will continue its diligent oversight role as well. I would like to say a few words about the level of DOD oversight on missile defense so the record is clear. A group of senior Defense officials, including Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Pete Aldridge, and the service Secretaries will act as a ``board of directors'' for missile defense and will review the missile defense program on a periodic basis. In fact, this group has already reviewed the program multiple times in the last few months and will continue to do so in the future. Keep in mind that the average DOD acquisition program does not have this level of oversight. In addition, a second oversight group, the Missile Defense Support Group, also has been created to review missile defense. This group resembles the Defense Acquisition Board, which on traditional acquisition programs only reviews the program at key milestones. However, the Missile Defense Support Group will review the program on a quarterly basis. Furthermore, the oversight panel is supported by a staff that will conduct day-to-day oversight to ensure that the program remains on track. Of course, the Congress will continue its oversight role as before. Nothing has changed in that regard. The concerns about a lack of oversight are unfounded. I would like to conclude by once again applauding the Bush administration for revamping the Missile Defense Program into one that has the highest probability for success. Let's get on with the task. Our Nation's security and the safety of millions of Americans depend on us. I would also like to thank Senator Warner for his leadership on this issue, and would encourage all my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, today is June 24, St. Jean Baptiste Day, or St. John the Baptist Day, a day of recognition and remembrance. Today is also the first day of ``French Heritage Month'' in many States. This month also encompasses Bastille Day. I believe that we should also recognize the contributions of French Americans at the national level. This resolution will do just that. Many of my constituents in New Hampshire are of French descent. New Hampshire also, along with many other States, shares a common border with Quebec. Our French-Canadian partners have been great allies and partners in trade. Millions of Americans trace their ancestry to France, Quebec, Acadia or other French-speaking parts of the world. Many of my fellow Granite Staters are proud of their French heritage, as well they should, because the French heritage brings with it the virtues of liberty and freedom; virtues that helped us win our war for independence. King Louis XVI, the Marquis De LaFayette, and other brave Frenchmen made immeasurable contributions in our war for independence. After we won our independence, Alexis De Toqueville fell in love with our young country, and his writings on our fledgling democracy are still read by American students today. French Maj. Charles Pierre L'Enfant helped design the city plan of our Nation's Capital. The Statue of Liberty was presented as a gift from France to the people of New York. Our shared virtues also helped us win two of the greatest wars against totalitarianism that this world has ever seen. Over the years, the Franco-American people have given us many culinary delights, artistic pleasures, and a unique devotion to liberty and citizenship without which our Nation would not be the same. Our Franco-American community has enriched our common culture, and many Franco-Americans are productive members of our society. Franco-Americans bring a unique perspective and contribute to the diversity of our country, and they should be recognized as such. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I rise today to pay tribute to the ``New Hampshire Star of Life.'' Dennis Mechem has been chosen by his peers as someone deserving of the New Hampshire's Star of Life award. It is the thankless service of emergency medical personnel like Dennis that save so many lives in a normal day of work. Dennis Mechem, of Rockingham Regional Ambulance, is known for his positive work ethic as well as his professionalism and demeanor toward his patients, co-workers, and other healthcare professionals. Mechem's service doesn't stop there, he is also a registered Maine guide and a licensed wilderness EMT. Dennis deserves great praise for the work he does. The selfless dedication he gives to his career in serving the needs of others in their most vulnerable time is a great asset to his character. New Hampshire applauds this fine individual for a job well done. It is an honor and privilege serving Dennis Mechem in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I rise today to pay tribute to the ``New Hampshire Star of Life.'' Jennifer Shea has been chosen by her peers as someone deserving of the New Hampshire's Star of Life award. It is the thankless service of emergency medical personnel like Jennifer that save so many lives in a normal day of work. Jennifer Shea, of American Medical Response, was awarded New Hampshire's Star of Life because of her example of commitment and dedication to American Medical Response. Her serving attitude is a great source of motivation for other employees. Being a self motivator has consistently helped her move quickly to the top. It is Jennifer's hope to continue in her education to further assist in emergency medicine. Jennifer deserves great praise for the work she does. The selfless dedication she gives to her career in serving the needs of others in their most vulnerable time is a great asset to her character. New Hampshire applauds this fine individual for a job well done. It is an honor and privilege serving Jennifer Shea in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I rise today to pay tribute to Fisher Scientific International of Hampton, NH. Marking a century of success, the company celebrated its anniversary on May 6, by ringing the bell at the close of trading at the New York Stock Exchange. I commend Fisher Scientific for selling more than 600,000 products in 145 countries. Staying true to its mission, ``In the Growth of Science,'' Fisher or one of its subsidiaries has produced products, instruments, and supplies for Thomas Edison's inventions, defense from Nazi chemical weapons in WWII, development of polio vaccine, the Manhattan Project, the space shuttle, and the human genome project. I applaud your contribution to the growth in medicine and science. Fisher has acquired more than 30 companies, allowing it to expand and add to its growing list of products. I am pleased with your vision of a global company and foresight to move forward in the next 100 years in a similar course. I commend you for supplying safety equipment in the wake of the September 11th attack on the World Trade Center and encourage your focus on safety and other medical products. Your contributions are invaluable. Fisher continues to demonstrate why it won the Pittsburgh Award in 1947, a prestigious award from the American Chemical Society. Fisher has influenced and shaped every aspect of our modern life and will continue to prosper and serve the people of New Hampshire with its precise and steady growth. It is an honor and privilege to represent you in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I rise today to honor Captain Humbert Roque ``Rocky'' Versace, U.S. Army. On Monday, 8 July 2002, Captain Rocky Versace will be awarded posthumously the Congressional Medal of Honor for service in the Viet Nam war. On 29 October 1963, Captain Versace, along with First Lieutenant Nicholas Rowe, was captured in South Vietnam. Taken prisoner by the Viet Cong, he demonstrated exceptional leadership, resolute adherence to the Code of Conduct and unflagging faith in his country. Captain Versace ultimately sacrificed his life rather than betray his country and the Viet Cong executed him in September 1965 as he set an example of an American officer that the Viet Cong could not tolerate. Captain Versace died upholding the military creed of Duty, Honor, Country. I want to recognize Captain Versace through the words of his fellow captive, Nick Rowe, who escaped from captivity to freedom on 31 December 1968. Nick Rowe remained in the Army, rose to the rank of Colonel, and continued to serve in Special Forces until April 1989, when he was assassinated by the communist New People's Army in Manila, Philippine Islands. His captivity memoir, ``Five Years to Freedom'' was published in 1971 and contains this tribute. The tribute follows: Nick Rowe's Tribute to Rocky Versace He stood as others dream to stand; He spoke as others dared not even think; From soul deep faith, he drew his courage, his granite spirit, his ironclad will. The Alien force, applied with hate, could not break him, failed to bend him; Though solitary imprisonment gave him no friends, he drew upon his inner self to create a force so strong that those who sought to destroy his will, met an army his to command. Phrases of his I shall not forget, spoken sincerely, filled with truth: All I wish is to return to family, home and those I love; For I am young and life is dear, but to bargain for this life of mine when the price you ask requires of me to verify a lie and sell my honor short, makes clear the choice between the two; a life with honor, a life without; With me, you see, life without honor is no life at all, So I will not comply with what you require and choose to suffer whatever may come. This is my answer at this time, this is my answer in times to come; I only pray that I shall not weaken, for I am right and with God's help, I will have the strength to resist whatever means you use while attempting to fulfill your evil scheme. Thus his fate was surely sealed, for such a man, standing firm defeated them on their own ground and for him to live and tell of this was a thing that could not be. I saw him not the day he died, for, I imagine, as he lived alone; so they arranged for him to die alone; But in my mind there is no doubt, as he stood while he was alive, Duty bound, Honor bound, Unswerving in allegiance, so he stood the day he died . . . a Rock.--James Nicholas Rowe, ``Five Years to Freedom,'' pp. 205-206.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. George Crombie, Public Works Director for the City of Nashua. Named one of the Top Ten Public Works Leaders of the Year by the American Public Works Association, George has played a prominent role in the betterment of his community. As Director of Public Works for the City of Nashua, George manages a full-service public works division including engineering, traffic and parking, streets, wastewater, solid waste, and parks and recreation. His primary focus has been on instituting comprehensive public works management systems including the development of a senior management team, finance and budgeting principles, employee education and safety, time line management and capital development. Many of George's projects have focused on the environment. He recently led the City through the Multi-Site Landfill Closure and Park Renovation Project which provides state-of-the-art closure and post- closure refuse to five former City landfills, as well as construction of one of New Hampshire's few publicly owned and operated lined landfills. George is also credited with contributing to the APWA Reporter by writing an article commending the New York City Sanitation Department's cleanup of the World Trade Center. I applaud the dedicated efforts in public service that George Crombie has demonstrated throughout his distinguished career. George is a positive example in leadership for all to follow. The City of Nashua is privileged to have such a dedicated public servant working for the community. I wish him continued success in the coming years, and thank him for his contributions to New Hampshire. It is an honor to represent you in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. If the Senator will yield for a moment, I did have a couple of requests from Senators who may be here to speak. That is all. I didn't want to ignore that request. I have no objection to the Senator speaking to another matter. If the Senators do come down and wish to speak, I would like them to have that opportunity.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I reserve the right to object.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Support for lifting this mandate comes from both the left and right--the Rutherford Institute, which sued the Air Force on behalf of Lt. Col. McSally, to the National Council of Women's Organizations, an umbrella organization which now includes such well-known members as the League of Women Voters, the National Organization of Women, Women in Government, the YWCA, Hadassah, and the Feminist Majority Foundation. The House has already spoken, approving a similar bipartisan amendment by Representatives Langevin, Hostettler, and Wilson to repeal the mandate and stop the DOD from purchasing abayas. We purchase them on top of everything else. The taxpayers are paying for the abaya. The majority leader in a front page Washington Times story on June 17 commented about the U.S. relationship with the Saudi Government: We need to be more aggressive. We need to be even confrontational with the leadership of the Saudi government in those occasions when they're not doing enough, and when they are sponsoring this propaganda of the ilk we've . . . seen. He was talking about fighting terrorism. The same advice should apply to the Saudis when it comes to making our female troops wear Muslim clothing. We need to stand up to the Saudis, stand up for women in the military. We also need to stand up for ourselves as a nation, stand up for our values and our beliefs. I also note that the chairman of our Armed Services Committee made a pointed comment when the abaya issue surfaced about disrespect for female servicepeople in Saudi Arabia, and maybe we should reconsider our bases there in light of this disrespect. I totally agree with the distinguished Senator from Michigan. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. To repeat the four points this amendment addresses, it says: You cannot require or encourage an abaya to be worn; No. 2, no adverse action against women who choose not to wear it; No. 3, no money to procure abayas for regular or routine issuance; and No. 4, that the Secretary of Defense provide instructions to this effect immediately upon arrival in Saudi Arabia. That is it. That is the amendment. That is what it does. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I yield the floor and thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I didn't realize I was under a time constraint. I ask unanimous consent for 2 more minutes.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I offer this amendment today, an amendment to the Defense bill, along with Senators Cantwell, Grassley, Dayton, Reed, Craig, Landrieu, Harkin, and Boxer, to rectify a DOD policy that is, frankly, unfair, inequitable, inexplicable, and which violates our basic values and beliefs as a nation that believes in freedom of expression and freedom of religion. We are seeking to eliminate the abaya policy still being imposed upon our female soldiers in Saudi Arabia. For those who do not know what this is, the abaya outfit covers, from head to toe, the person wearing it, and this abaya covers the entire military uniform of female officers who serve in Saudi Arabia. This policy is unfair, and it is inexplicable. More than a year ago, I wrote to Secretary Rumsfeld, along with four of my colleagues: Senators Helms, Craig, Nickles, and Collins, and I asked for an explanation from the Department of Defense regarding the abaya mandate upon females stationed in Saudi Arabia. We received interim responses to the letter but never a substantive reply. Finally, the letter was bucked down to General Shelton and then to General Franks. I wrote a second letter to Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz many weeks after our first letter went unanswered. Eventually, we discovered the reason we never received a reply. Frankly, it was too hard for anyone to defend the policy. Everyone was so surprised when they got the letter. They could not understand where this policy came from, why it would be implemented to the effect that a military officer, on duty, would be forced to cover her uniform, the uniform of the United States of America, when on official duty. How in the world could anyone justify that, as if they were ashamed of the uniform and had to cover it up? So we could not get an answer. That is the bottom line. I received a letter from a man who lived in Saudi Arabia for 19 years who agreed with my position regarding the abaya. So I asked Paul Wolfowitz essentially what this man asked me: Can we not instruct our officers in avoiding harassment and help preserve our hard-fought freedoms and not make them subject to police state tactics? Isn't that possible? On September 11, as we all know, the United States was attacked. Shortly thereafter, our Armed Forces began their operations in Afghanistan. After the Taliban and al-Qaida forces were in retreat, Afghan women joyfully--you can remember the press reports--began shedding their burqas, the head-to-toe gowns women were made to wear by the brutal Taliban regime. I think we can all remember those vivid pictures that began to crop up in the papers and in the magazines, showing women peeking out through these burqas and finally beginning to have the freedom of expression they so deserved. It was a very warm moment to see that, and a very touching moment. U.S. reporters began to question, now, the Department of Defense, about how we could justify celebrating the victory over the repressive Taliban which the burqa symbolized, yet at the same time require our own American women in uniform to wear the Saudi equivalent of the burqa, which is the abaya. We just liberated the women in Afghanistan so they could remove the burqa if they so wished. Now, by the same token, at the same time, we are implementing--holding onto a policy which forces American women officers, officers of the U.S. military, to cover their uniform while on official duty. I must say, when I first heard this, I did not believe it. I was told this by an individual I will talk about later, and I said I didn't believe it. I said: I will have to check into this because I don't believe this is happening. But I found out it was true. The Department had a hard time answering this glaring contradiction, and in fact they did not offer any reasonable explanation. White House counselor Karen Hughes was presented with an Afghan burqa when Bush administration aides came back from the trip to Afghanistan. Apparently--I wasn't there, but based on reports--she put it on. Everyone was amused when Karen put the burqa on and began to ask about it, wondering how the Secret Service would react if she walked into the Oval Office with one on. But Karen Hughes is one of the administration representatives in favor of the rights of Afghan women. The First Lady herself spoke out against this appalling mistreatment of women by the Taliban. So undoubtedly Karen Hughes's burqa episode may have seemed somewhat amusing. But it certainly was not a laughing matter to Karen Hughes, who spoke out very strongly in favor of the rights of Afghan women. It is not a laughing matter that hundreds of United States female soldiers are subjected to wearing the Saudi variant of the burqa, the abaya. In a State Department publication, ``The Taliban's War Against Women,'' there is this quotation about the burqa. Here is the quote about the burqa: The fate of women in Afghanistan is infamous and intolerable. The burqa that imprisons them is a cloth prison, but it is above all a moral prison. The torture imposed upon little girls who dared to show their ankles or their polished nails is appalling. It is unacceptable and unsupportable. That is the State Department. That is not my quote, that is a quote issued by the State Department. In the quotation from King Mohamed VI of Morocco, just substitute the word ``burqa'' for ``abaya'' and consider we are doing this to our women. After we cheered the liberation of Afghan women, after the fall of the Taliban, we are now doing this to our women in Saudi Arabia. With all due respect, if you cannot defend a policy, you probably ought to change it. This really doesn't require a lot of thought. If you can't defend it, it probably should be changed. The Secretary of Defense, I am very pleased to say, did eventually repeal the abaya mandate. However, that is the good news. Regrettably, that repeal, which I believe was meant in good faith, was then circumvented at lower levels. In other words, the Secretary said let's repeal it, but when it went down to the command level, nothing happened, and women were still being forced to wear the abaya. So basically the decision to repeal it was ignored. I can't think of a nicer way to say it. Female soldiers in Saudi Arabia are now essentially coerced into wearing Muslim garb by being warned they will endanger their fellow comrades if they do not wear it. They are now strongly encouraged to wear this Muslim robe. That is the exact language that is used in the command directive: Women are ``strongly encouraged'' to wear this Muslim robe. To a young soldier--those of you who have been in the military, as I have, understand this--when you are strongly encouraged to do something by your superiors, and you are in uniform, you do it. It is no different from a direct order. It is essentially the same thing. So the mandate is gone, but women are still being forced to wear abayas. It is incredible to think that a woman in a military uniform has to cover that uniform up with an abaya, and that is a directive at the command level of the U.S. military. It really is incredible to me that we have to be here on the Senate floor to correct this into law because, frankly, it is a stupid rule. It ought to be eliminated. It should not have to be done here on the Senate floor. I tried every way for months not to be here on the Senate floor to do this. I tried, but I could not get it done because it is still there. I have yet to meet a man or a woman who has served in Saudi Arabia in the military who agrees with this policy. I have yet to meet anybody who agrees with the policy, whether they served or not. So repeal of the mandate may have helped the Department of Defense in terms of public relations, and legally because of the lawsuit brought--reluctantly, I might add--by Air Force COL Martha McSally, who fought for 6 years within the system to overturn this policy and first publicized the injustice of this policy last year. Here is an exemplary officer who fought for 6 years quietly to try to remove this, to say it was wrong. The essence of her message is this: I am a Christian. I don't want to wear an abaya. I want to wear my uniform. I want to do what everybody else does, on duty and off. If I want to wear my uniform, I wear it. If I want to wear civilian clothes, I wear civilian clothes. I don't want to wear an abaya. Yet she was forced to do it. She tried for several years to get it corrected, but to no avail. She was basically ignored. Whoever brings this type of issue up, the so-called whistleblower, right away people say there must be something wrong with her; she is not a good officer; she has some agenda; she is a women's rights advocate, or whatever--things like that are spread around. Let me tell you about her. She is an Air Force Academy graduate. She was selected twice before her time to get an increase in rank. She was an A-10 pilot with 100 hours in the no-fly zone over Iraq and a devout Christian. She said in her interview she believes strongly that wearing the abaya violates her faith. Since when are we in the business of telling a military officer that she has to wear something that violates her faith and covers up her own uniform? McSally's research on the issue showed that the policy was originally justified--here is the justification for the policy: ``Host nation sensitivities.'' Worries about offending the Saudis--offending the Saudis whom we saved from Saddam Hussein. They would all be buying oil from Saddam, while they sat in England someplace unless we had defended them. Now we are worried about their sensitivities, telling a military officer of the U.S. Army or Air Force or whatever that they can't wear their uniform proudly and show it off. They have to cover it up. That just doesn't cut it. The issue showed that the policy was originally justified as ``host nation sensitivities.'' Then it was later changed to ``force protection'' after the Khobar Towers were bombed. Neither action makes sense. Let me say that again. First, it was ``host nation sensitivities.'' When that didn't work, it became obvious that there was no justification for that. After the Khobar Towers were attacked, then we changed it to ``force protection.'' In other words, we have to protect our troops. And because McSally, or anybody else, may not wear the abaya and show off her uniform, it would infuriate some Saudi citizen. And, therefore, because our military are walking around in Saudi Arabia somewhere on duty or off duty, some Saudi citizen might be offended and take some action to harm other military people as well. McSally eloquently and courageously exposed the absurdity of the justifications of this abaya edict. In doing so, she may--the word ``may'' is the action word here--have harmed her stellar military career. In these fitness reports of officers, there are certain little action phrases that have to be put in there for you to get promoted. If they are not there, you get the message. Those of us in the military know all of that. If her career is ruined, it would be a stain on the U.S. Air Force that will never go away. If Colonel McSally is somehow getting any type of retribution--implied, indirect, or direct of not getting a promotion, or not getting a command--if that happens--I am not saying it is going to happen. I am not accusing anybody of it happening. But I am saying, if it does, I would say to the Air Force, it is a stain on the Air Force that is going to take a long, long time to clean. Women in Saudi Arabia have to have male escorts. American women wearing abayas are in the company of American males. Typically, they are military males with crewcuts and collared shirts. If an officer junior to McSally--a male--is walking down the streets of Saudi Arabia in a crewcut with an open-collared shirt and a pair of khakis, the officer who is superior to the man has to cover her entire uniform with an abaya, and can't wear civvies at that. I am going to tell you, that is not right. You do not have to be very smart to figure out that it isn't right. American men are prohibited from wearing Muslim garb. These women in abayas are Americans. It is obvious they are Americans. Why would a guy in a crewcut, who is obviously a marine, or an Air Force officer, be walking down the street with a woman in an abaya? There is no secret here. That doesn't constitute ``force protection.'' The whole argument is ridiculous. It is certainly not going to fool any terrorist, if that is the rationale. Remember this: People do not want to wear these. They are willing to take any risk, if there is such risk, not to have to wear the abaya. Let me consider for a moment what ``host sensitivity'' means. It was the original justification for the abaya policy. Does it mean we are going to subject our women to the same conditions that the Saudis set for theirs? Will we eventually be making any American female servicemember who deploys to Afghanistan wear a burqa? I visited Afghanistan. We landed in a snowstorm and reviewed the American military who were there. Men and women were standing in a snowstorm waiting for our plane to land. Senator Daschle was there. Several of my colleagues were there. They were wearing their uniforms. Frankly, they looked pretty doggone good in them. Not one of those women had to wear a burqa or an abaya because they happened to be in Afghanistan. It is so ridiculous it is not even worth the breath it takes to talk about it. Yet we have to talk about it right here on the floor of the Senate because some bullheaded person down there in the command wouldn't change it. That is the reason we are here. It is the only reason we are here. I have heard some justify this practice as, well, when you are in Rome, do as the Romans do. They are mistaking minor cultural norms, such as not showing the bottoms of one's feet, or removing your shoes at the door, for example, which is customary in Japan before entering a home, with something entirely different and far more important. This is the U.S. military officer's uniform. It is not about harmless customs. Rather, it is about our fundamental values--religious freedom based on the first amendment. And it is about gender discrimination. That is what this is. It is gender discrimination. And it is a violation of the first amendment. It goes against every rule we have in the military about showing off our uniforms and being proud to wear them. The Saudis certainly don't believe in ``When in Rome, do as the Romans do.'' Let me give you an example. The Dallas Morning News reported that Crown Prince Abdullah asked women to be barred from air traffic control duties when he traveled to Texas to meet with President Bush. So much for reciprocal ``host nation sensitivities.'' Can you imagine that? Crown Prince Abdullah asked that women in our air traffic control towers be barred from those towers when he traveled to Texas to meet the President of the United States. Don't tell me about reciprocal ``host nation sensitivities.'' I have also heard some say the burqa is just plain clothing; it just represents culture; that it is like the Indian sari. That is not true. A Washington Times article on Saudi authorities seizing women's robes points out this fallacy. The Washington Times' story said the Saudi Ministry of Commerce confiscated 82,000 gowns from stores and factories after inspection showed they were not in conformance with Islamic law. I repeat, in conformance with Islamic law. The abayas were not plain and opaque, but rather were determined to be ``provocatively clinging,'' or too highly decorated, or too revealing. Are our DOD officials going to be asking the Saudi Ministry of Commerce to determine whether our issued abayas are in conformance with Islamic law? Do we consult with the Saudi Committee for Preservation of Morality and Prevention of Vice--the morality police--on the appropriateness of our abaya purchases for our female soldiers? We are paying for them. We are buying these abayas with U.S. taxpayer dollars. Let me provide a short history of this mandate. It surfaced somewhere in 1992, 1994, or 1995. There was never an abaya mandate during Desert Storm--never an abaya mandate during Desert Storm when we had 500,000 troops in the gulf. General Schwarzkopf never ordered our women to wear abayas during the gulf crisis, nor were they ordered not to drive cars, which is another order given to American military women. Let us consider the contradictions. Women in the military in Saudi Arabia are forced to wear the abaya by a local U.S. command decision. State Department women are not under any abaya mandate. If you are working for the State Department, or if you are the wife of an Ambassador, whatever, there is no abaya mandate for you. Wives of military attaches, there is no abaya mandate. Even the Saudi Government never mandated the wearing of an abaya for non-Muslim women. I can't find it anywhere. If somebody can find it, show me, because I can't find it. No such mandate. We are choosing to say that American military officers--outstanding U.S. military officers--have to wear an abaya to cover the uniform that they wear with pride. You and I--or anyone who knows anything about the military--know that the two things military officers like to show off are their fitness, because they work hard at being in shape, and their uniforms. Yet they are forced to cover up. Colonel McSally explained that this is an indignity and an outrage we have perpetrated upon ourselves. We did this. The Saudis did not do this. The U.S. command did this. We are eventually making our women more vulnerable to harassment by making them wear an abaya. Imagine the ridicule and the jokes that must occur back on the base and the insults these women have to take from colleagues over this. When a woman puts one on, she immediately places herself under the jurisdiction of the dreaded mutawa. You know who they are. In Saudi Arabia, they are the religious police. The U.S. Embassy in Saudi Arabia points this out when it states that with regard to ``force protection,'' that ``even with the abaya and scarf, harassment still occurs.'' The Embassy's policy is sound and reasonable compared to DOD's. It says, ``The Embassy will support a women in whatever personal choice she makes on the issue of not wearing an abaya or head scarf.'' That is the Embassy policy. The State Department, unlike DOD, trusts women to make these decisions of their own accord and judgment. So the State Department says: You make the choice. If you want to wear an abaya, wear it. But the DOD says you have to wear it. Let me tell you a little bit about the mutawa. One press report I found was of a female soldier harassed in Saudi Arabia because she was wearing an abaya. The religious police ordered her to cover her head, rapping a cane against the wall beside her head. This, again, proves the point that an abaya puts you at risk of harassment from the mutawa. They knew she was an officer so they harassed her. They knew she was a soldier, because she was walking with some guy wearing Bermuda shorts who had a crewcut. They knew he was an officer in the military, and they knew she was, too. So they chose to harass her. DOD women are instructed to carry the veil. Imagine, this is DOD women instructed to carry the veil, and told to put it on immediately if they are confronted by a ``local.'' This, again, makes my case that women are subject to harassment for wearing an abaya and more likely to be left alone if they are dressed in other garb, tourist clothing, or their uniform. Tourists are not required to wear abayas. The Saudis only encourage tourists to wear conservative western dress. Forcing a female soldier to wear an abaya actually identifies her as an American. If she were wearing conservative attire, she would blend in with other tourists, and there would be nothing said about it. One other story about the mutawa. My colleagues should be aware of this story. The mutawa are the religious police in Saudi Arabia. They recently caused the death of 15 school girls in Saudi Arabia. These were Saudi girls. These school girls--here is what they did wrong--they were trying to flee their burning school. They were trying to flee their burning school, but because they were not suitably attired--they did not have their full abaya garb on--they were forced back into the flames by the religious police. Do you know what? Not one major news organization in our country carried the story front page, that I know of. I will stand corrected if somebody can produce one. It is a shocking incident. They forced the deaths of 15 girls because they were trying to run out of a burning building, their school, and did not have their abayas on. That is the mutawa. Those are the people who are harassing our military personnel when they are forced to wear these abayas. Yet consider the fact that our policy in Saudi Arabia towards our female soldiers seems to be done in deference to these religious zealots, not the ordinary Saudi or the Saudi Government. They are the same ones who recently caused the senseless deaths of these 15 young women in their own country for lack of a head scarf. Think about that. And we are going to kowtow? We are going to tell a U.S. Air Force officer--who is a decorated officer and has been promoted ahead of schedule twice, an Air Force Academy graduate, who flies over Iraq in the no-fly zone--we are going to say to her, you have to cover up your U.S. uniform because you might be harassed by somebody who did something such as this, allowing 15 school children to die because they did not have a head scarf on when trying to run out of a burning building? They ought to be thankful, the Saudis, that they are still a country. If it had not been for us, they would be living under Saddam right now. Our military personnel--our men and women--should not have to put up with this kind of stupidity. Again, I am here on the Senate floor, taking my colleagues' time, to offer this amendment because we could not get the local commander to pull back from this rule, this order. These are the same people, these self-anointed religious police, whom we seek to accommodate under the rationale of ``host nation sensitivities.'' I will not use profanity on the Senate floor, but ``host nation sensitivities'' can go straight to that place way down below as far as I am concerned. Maybe we need to have some sensitivity training for the host nation. Maybe that is the idea. Maybe that is what we should do. I do not need to repeat that this Nation is a superpower. We ought to act like one. Our military is the envy of the world. Our men and women in uniform are proud of those uniforms, as I said before, and proud of what those uniforms stand for. We should not treat any of them--men or women--as second-class citizens, regardless of the sensitivities of the host nation. They do not want to be treated that way. They are willing to take any risk of somebody harassing them, or whatever it is, to wear their uniform. And they have that right. They should never be asked to cover their uniform in some disgraceful attempt to hide the military uniform of the U.S. Air Force or any other branch of our military. We deployed a half million troops in the gulf against Iraq only a little over a decade ago and suffered nearly 300 casualties to defend the sovereignty of Kuwait and to protect the Saudi Kingdom, which was directly threatened by the invasion of Kuwait by Iraqi forces. And because the mutawa wants these women to wear burqas or abayas, we are going to kowtow to that? And we can't get this repealed without coming to the Senate floor? Give me a break. Our deployment in the gulf was pretty important. I supported going to the gulf. But it was not more important than the esprit de corps and the unity of our servicepeople in the region, nor more important than abiding by the principles fundamental to the creation of the United States of America: Religious freedom of expression, and to wear proudly the uniform of the United States of America, which millions have done. How can you ask a military officer--an exemplary military officer--to cover up her uniform, to be ashamed of her uniform? In 1981, an Air Force officer sued the Air Force because he wanted to wear a yarmulke, a symbol of the Jewish faith. The case went to the Supreme Court, and the officer lost. The Air Force's argument then--and I juxtapose it now to show the contradictory rationale for the abaya today--is the importance of the military uniform and uniformity itself in terms of discipline and hierarchical unity. The Air Force's argument in the yarmulke case can be summed up thus: The considered professional judgment of the Air Force is that the traditional outfitting of personnel in standardized uniforms encourages the subordination of personal preferences and identities in favor of the overall group mission. That is exactly right. That is the point. Uniforms encourage a sense of hierarchical unity by tending to eliminate outward individual distinctions except for those of rank. The Air Force considers them as vital during peacetime as during war because its personnel must be ready to provide an effective defense on a moment's notice; the necessary habits of discipline and unity must be developed in advance of trouble. Let me use, for a moment, an anecdote, a fictitious anecdote, but one that likely happened. A person like Colonel McSally decides to drive off base on duty, in a jeep, with three other officers. First of all, according to this rule, she has to sit in the back because she is not allowed to drive the car. And the other three officers, in this fictitious example, which probably happened, are junior to her. She is the senior officer. She is forced to sit in the back. On top of that, she has to wear an abaya to cover herself up from head to foot so nobody knows she has the uniform on. How humiliating is that? Give me one good reason anybody would support a policy like that? There is not a person in that jeep who would ever say that she should have to do that. They would be willing to take any risk that might come their way, if there were some, so that she would not have to do it. And she tried to change this for years, to no avail. How far we have come. Martha McSally is not asking to wear publicly a cross as the symbol of her faith. She is asking not to wear a religious garment not of her faith. She is arguing the Air Force's case when it argued against the yarmulke. She is arguing not to be wearing a badge of religious and ethnic identity. That is all she is asking. Interestingly, the Senate disagreed with the decision by the Supreme Court that disallowed the wearing of a yarmulke. The Senate voted 55-42 for a Lautenberg amendment that would have allowed first amendment expression by permitting ``neat and conservative'' religious attire, but letting the DOD decide when wearing such apparel interfered with members' duties. Many Senators still serving today voted in favor of that Lautenberg amendment. The Reagan administration supported the Air Force, and the Senate amendment was never enacted into law. The Senate vote was a defense of religious expression. Fifteen years later, we are facing a grievous situation where our servicewomen in Saudi Arabia are coerced into wearing religious garb in conflict with their faith and which subverts the discipline and uniformity of the U.S. military uniform. This is intolerable, humiliating, deplorable, and it is unjustifiable. I would be happy to provide for the record the numbers of letters and phone calls I have made in the last year or so, to try to avoid coming here on the Senate floor to have this put into the legislative process--to no avail. I see it primarily as a first amendment issue in that we should not be conforming by dress to a foreign state religion. It is also an issue of gender discrimination. Support for lifting this mandate comes from all directions--the left and the right of the political spectrum, from the Rutherford Institute, which sued the Air Force over this policy and on behalf of Lt. Col. McSally, to the National Council of Women's Organizations, an umbrella organization.

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

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

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I do not need 5 minutes. I yield my 5 minutes to the Senator from Washington.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I rise to urge my colleagues to support the First Responder Terrorism Preparedness Act of 2002 that I introduced along with the committee chairman, Senator Jeffords. This legislation is a huge step forward in providing the necessary tools for local and state first responders to prepare to respond to any act of terrorism. We recognize that it is the local emergency responders who are on the scene first to rescue and help those who have been caught in a disaster. I visited the Pentagon and Ground Zero less than a week after the attacks and can tell you that these first responders are true patriots, and they live and serve us in every town and city across this great Nation. These local heros, the type of first responders who made the ultimate sacrifice on September 11, are the embodiment of the American spirit--brave, selfless, and caring. They save lives and we should focus our resources to help them with their mission. Prior to his confirmation to be the head of FEMA, nearly 9 months before the terrorists attacks on this Nation, I met with Joe Allbaugh to discuss FEMA priorities. Chief among the priorities we discussed was that of terrorism preparedness of our Nation's first responders. Little did we know what this Nation would be facing less than 9 months down the road. Since September 11, I have met with Director Allbaugh and his staff on several occasions, and the Environment and Public Works Committee, of which I am the ranking member, has held a number of hearings on this issue. In January, I enthusiastically endorsed President Bush's announcement of his first responder plan to be run by FEMA. This bill, the First Responder Terrorism Preparedness Act, mirrors the President's proposal and represents months of work by the Environment and Public Works Committee flushing the President's proposal with the aid of the administration. In brief, this bill will authorize a first responder grant program for 4 years at $3.5 billion per year. Each State will receive a minimum of $15 million with the remaining being distributed to States based on criteria set by FEMA but will include population, vital infrastructure, military installations and proximity to international borders. The money will be used for preparedness efforts including to purchase equipment, train, develop response plans, conduct exercises and provide for communication needs. We ensure that the money does not get tied up in bureaucracy and gets to the first responders. The bill also requires that all the efforts at the State and local level be part of a broader national preparedness strategy as determined by the Office of National Preparedness (ONP). The ONP was put in place by the President over a year ago, a move I have been advocating for some time, and the President deserves a great deal of credit for that action. This bill takes the additional step of establishing the ONP in statute. The ONP will help to coordinate preparedness efforts at the Federal level and be the point Federal office for the State and local responders. It is vital that we do not have thousands of independent preparedness plans and efforts--we need a local, state, regional and national strategy. The bill will also enhance the capabilities of FEMA designated Urban Search and Rescue teams. Many of those teams were activated on September 11, but have had serious financial difficulties in maintaining adequate levels of preparedness. That certainly should not be the case and we address those needs. We all entered a new world and a new reality on September 11, and we must be prepared for whatever may come our way. The President has done a tremendous job to dramatically reduce the vulnerabilities of this Nation and I, once again, applaud his effort to establish a new Department of Homeland Security. However, regardless of how much we work to prevent further attacks, we must be prepared if the unthinkable were to happen again. This will be an ongoing effort and this bill takes a very large step in providing the resources and direction to ensure that the effort is productive. I thank the chairman of the EPW Committee for his leadership and for working closely with me on this important and bipartisan issue. It is my hope that our bill will make it to the President's desk in short order.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I begin by thanking my ranking member, Senator Warner, and Chairman Levin for their outstanding work on this bill and achieving a compromise which would allow us to bring to the floor this legislation that would provide compensation for all veterans, not just a small number of them. It was a difficult situation to deal with, and they handled it beautifully. I also thank my friend and colleague from Nevada, Senator Reid, for being the lead sponsor, the originator, of S. 170, which provides full compensation for all veterans, no matter what the percentage of disability. I am pleased and proud to have been a cosponsor of that legislation. I also thank Senator Hutchinson of Arkansas for his leadership as well on this issue. There are many Senators who have been involved in this legislation and who have worked tirelessly on behalf of veterans over the years, but it has been a long and difficult road. Every time I talk to veterans, veterans will tell me they have been waiting and waiting for this and they do not understand why the high numbers of cosponsorships on the bills to provide this full compensation do not yield in the end, after all the conference committees are finished, the passing of the legislation. I think now we are going to see that happen finally. My support for this legislation goes back to being a freshman Congressman in 1985, when a Congressman by the name of Mike Bilirakis of Florida had this legislation in the hopper. Concurrent receipt has the support of just about every veterans organization in the country. I have several letters from the American Legion, the VFW, the Disabled American Veterans, the Military Coalition, the Retired Enlisted Association, the Retired Officers Association, and even a letter from the New Hampshire House of Representatives. I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. This concurrent receipt issue centers around the ability of a military retiree to receive both military retired pay and their VA disability. The American Legion and VFW point out that the concept of concurrent receipts goes all the way back to when Congress passed a law prohibiting active-duty or retired personnel from also receiving these disability pensions. So military retirees are the only Federal employees prohibited from receiving both retirement pay and VA disability. This is an inequity. I give a brief quote from a constituent by the name of Thomas Taylor who wrote to me, and he said: Dear Senator Smith: As a cosponsor of H.R. 303, or S. 170, your help is now needed to stop making disabled military retirees fund their own Department of Veterans Affairs disability compensation from their military retired pay. Retired pay is hard-earned compensation for the extraordinary demands and sacrifices of a career in uniform. VA disability compensation is for pain, suffering and lost future earnings due to service-connected disability. The current retired pay offset is so unfair it has been highlighted on national network news. That is so true. I am glad to support my constituent and millions of constituents in this regard. I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Taylor's letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Retired pay and disability are separate. That is a fact. Our veterans should not be penalized further merely for choosing a career in the military, which is exactly what has happened. Nondisabled military retirees pursue second careers after service to supplement their own income, thereby justly enjoying the full reward for the completion of the military career retirement, and then going to work and earning extra money if they are able to do so. In contrast, military retirees with a service-connected disability do not enjoy the same full earning potential. Their earnings are reduced based on the degree of service-connected disability. Some of the injuries may be modest by some standards, and others have lost limbs or been paralyzed or suffered other injuries which severely limit their ability to make a living. This debate has gone on for a number of years. I will not go into all the details as to the reasons these military retirees deserve this. They have earned this. No veteran should ever be left behind. This compromise assumes sufficient funding to accommodate an increase in the military retiree pay that a veteran can collect. The compromise reached before we came back with this legislation was that only 60 percent would be compensated, not everyone. That is not fair. We had all of the Senators and Congressmen in both the House and Senate supporting the full compensation for everyone: Whether you had a 10-percent disability or 100-percent disability, you got the dollars. That was the underlying bill by Senator Reid. Why does it appear suddenly we have come forth with an amendment or proposal that gives it to only a portion of the veterans? That is wrong. If we go with the compromise which was proposed, 80,000 veterans will get the award, the disability compensation, but 450,000 to 600,000 will be cut out. Veterans were writing to me, and I am sure to many other Members, with great justification, saying if all of the Senators--almost 80, maybe 83 percent--support providing this for everyone and an overwhelming majority of the House Members support it, why in the House bill did we have a compromise that cut out 450,000 veterans? Why is it on the same track in the Senate, cutting out 450,000 veterans? The truth is, that is wrong; we should not do that. I was exasperated, as was a constituent, Raymond Snow, who wrote this letter to me: This mirrors provisions in the house FY03 Budget Resolutions to authorize higher payments for disabled retirees who are more than 60 percent disabled. This is just nickel and diming the military retiree and not all Federal employees. This is not a benefit. It is an entitlement and should be treated as it is with all Federal employees. That is the issue--to offer up a compromise, although it saves money. But this is about being fair to veterans and being fair to those who serve. That compromise was unfair because it cut out 450,000 veterans. I ask, if you have a 50-percent disability or a 60-percent disability, why should the person with the 50-percent disability be cut out and get no compensation for his or her disability, and a person with 60 percent get it? The truth is, it should not be that. It is unfair to offer a compromise that is different from what most Members of the Senate and the House agree to. That is wrong, and that is why we are correcting it. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of all the cosponsors in the Senate of the Reid bill, S. 170.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Another letter from a man from my home State, a Mr. Lutz, who said: Eight out of ten members of the Senate have cosponsored S. 170 . . . which would permit retired members of the Armed Forces who have service-connected disability to receive both military longevity retired pay and disability compensation. Last year, provisions from S. 170 were included in the National Defense Authorization Act to authorize concurrent receipt, but with the conditions that keep concurrent receipt provisions from taking effect unless the President included funding in his budget and Congress enacted other legislation to offset the costs. Our members are deeply frustrated that such a large majority of the Senate has cosponsored S. 170, but still the injustice continues. That is the point. What the Senate is doing now--and I congratulate Senator Warner and Senator Reid, Senator Hutchison, and Senator Levin for their cooperation--we now have said this legislation, which provides full compensation to 450,000 to 500,000 veterans who have a disability and are retired, they get it both; whether the disability is 10 percent, 20 percent, 30 percent or 60 percent, they get the compensation. We are not drawing lines, saying one injury was more or less important than another. We have taken the underlying legislation we have supported overwhelmingly and said, we will put it in the Armed Services Committee bill and support this legislation. If there is a point of order raised, we intend to be supportive. I congratulate all Members in the committee who supported me. The vote was 24 to 1 in committee in support of Senator Reid's legislation to provide the full compensation. It is a committee amendment. I am aware of that. However, there are other Senators who have asked to be associated with the legislation. Today Senators Bingaman and Snowe asked to be associated with the amendment. I know many other Senators who are not on the committee also feel the same. In conclusion, we cannot allow Government to make mathematical assessments of battle wounds. Frankly, when the House Budget Committee did what they did, that was exactly what they did. I also venture a guess that not too many on that committee fully understand what it means to be in the military, as I have been in the military, and many other Members in the Senate, to understand being counted does not cut it when it comes to battle wounds received by veterans. You cannot draw a distinction, saying one person gets so many dollars because they have 60 percent disability and this person gets no compensation because they have 50 percent disability. That is outrageous and not well thought out by those who prepared it and then insisted on the language, although a majority of the House Members supported the underlying bill that supported all. This is what causes people to get turned off on the political process. To Senator Levin and Senator Warner and Senator Reid's credit, they have seen through that and offered this up as a committee amendment on behalf of all members of the Armed Services Committee, except one, and all of those in the Senate who have supported this legislation. I am pleased and proud, as one who lost his father in World War II, as one who served his country in Vietnam, along with my brother who also served in Vietnam. We are a military family. I am pleased, honored, and proud to support this legislation and to support this committee amendment and, hopefully, see this move through the conference where we will stand up to the House of Representatives and pass this legislation so all military retirees who receive disability will get both disability and retirement. Whatever the cost, we need to bear that cost. They bore the cost for us when they served.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Vice Admiral George Peter Nanos, Jr., United States Navy. Vice Admiral Nanos will retire on Monday, 1 July 2002, after 35 years of faithful service to our nation. Hailing from Bedford, New Hampshire, Vice Admiral Nanos is a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy. At the Academy, he was awarded the 1967 Harry E. Ward Trident Scholar's Prize. Following graduation, he spent two years at sea as Antisubmarine Warfare and Gunnery Officer on USS Glennon (DD 840) before entering Princeton University, where he earned a Ph.D. in physics in 1974. Returning to sea, Vice Admiral Nanos served as Engineer Officer aboard USS Forrest Sherman (DD 931) and as Materiel Officer on the staff of Destroyer Squadron Ten. From 1978 to 1982, he was the manager for Technical Development in the Navy's High Energy Laser Program Office (NAVSEA PMS 405). He then served as the Combat Systems Officer in Norfolk Naval Shipyard while also training to become an Engineering Duty Officer. He returned to sea yet again as Chief Engineer for the aircraft carrier USS America (CV 66). While on America, he participated in Operation Eldorado Canyon and helped to ensure the successful launch of naval airstrikes against Libya after that country was linked to a terrorist bombing of a West Berlin discotheque, which killed 1 American and injured 78 people. Following this tour, he was assigned as the Deputy Director, Warfare Systems Engineering in the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command. In 1988, Vice Admiral Nanos reported to Strategic Systems Programs, serving consecutively as Head of the Navigation Branch, head of the Missile Branch, and Director of the Technical Division. In June 1994, he assumed duties as Director, Strategic Systems Programs, responsible for all aspects of the Navy's Fleet Ballistic Missile Weapon Systems. In May 1998, Vice Admiral Nanos assumed his rank and duties as Commander, Naval Sea Systems Command, the Navy's largest acquisition organization. Throughout the past four years, he has been responsible for the design, engineering, procurement, integration, construction, in-service support, and maintenance of the Navy's ships, shipboard weapons, and combat systems. Vice Admiral Nanos' service education includes U.S. Naval Destroyer School at Newport, Rhode Island; Engineering Duty Officer basic and mid-career courses; the Senior Officer Ship Materiel Readiness Course at Idaho Falls, Idaho; and the Program Management Course at the Defense Systems Management College, Fort Belvoir, Virginia. His specialty as an Engineering Duty Officer is ordnance and weapons systems acquisition. Vice Admiral Nanos successfully led the Command through a brilliant transformation of NAVSEA'S business practices in executing complex acquisition and Fleet maintenance and modernization responsibilities. He expertly managed the resizing, recapitalizing, and realignment of the personnel and technical resources devoted to designing, building, repairing, and modernizing ships and their weapons systems. Displaying bold vision, innovation, and superb leadership, he instituted far- reaching quality initiatives that forged a highly focused, reenergized workforce. These have transformed the Command into a unified corporation that provides world-class technical, acquisition, and life- cycle support leadership to America's Navy. His contributions have had a direct and lasting impact on the overall readiness, effectiveness, and survivability of the United States Armed Forces. Vice Admiral Nanos' superb leadership, exceptional integrity, engineering expertise, and tireless devotion to duty reflect great credit upon him and are in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service. He has done a superb job in leading the Naval Sea Systems Command to fulfill its mission: Keeping America's Navy #1 in the World. Although Vice Admiral Nanos has worked diligently to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of naval and marine shipbuilding capabilities throughout the United States, he has often shown his dedication to and respect for the men and women of the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard team. He recently visited the Shipyard to personally congratulate and thank the Shipyard team for their record-setting work on two submarines: A record-setting depot maintenance period on USS Miami, followed by a record-setting engineering refueling overhaul on USS City of Corpus Christi. Thanks in part to his vision, the Shipyard retains its important military-industrial capabilities and continues to provide critical jobs for the region. Vice Admiral Nanos' innovation has ensured the success of the Naval Sea Systems Command and the United States Navy's ships well into the 21st Century. He is an individual of uncommon character and his professionalism will be sincerely missed. I am proud, Mr. President, to thank him for his honorable service in the United States Navy, and to wish him fair winds and following seas as he closes his distinguished military career. I suspect Vice Admiral Nanos will continue his adventures, and will bring much credit to his name, as well as our government and our country. He is a true American hero, and his direct contributions to our military will long be remembered with heartfelt gratitude.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to support Senator Allen's amendment to provide justice to American victims of international terrorism. It is appropriate that today we are debating legislation to provide a Federal backstop to existing and future insurance policies covering terrorist acts. That legislation provides economic protection for the U.S. economy for acts of terrorism. I believe that this legislation should be amended to address the issue of Americans held hostage and tortured by terrorists to specifically hold liable nations that provide financial and other support for terrorist that target the symbols and citizens of America. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the The Terrorism Victim's Access to Compensation Act of 2002 that Senator George Allen and Senator Tom Harkin have introduced. That bill provides redress for victims of terrorism to receive compensation from nations that sponsor terrorism. I appeared with Senators Harkin and Allen at a press conference with Americans who have experienced first hand the despicable and evil use of terrorism that every American can understand as a result of the tragic events of September 11 2001. What right does a citizen have to fight back against a terrorist nation? The only power that individual has is to sue that terrorist nation in court to gain access to seized assets from terrorist nations. Our Nation is in a war against terrorism and this amendment provides another tool in the war against nations that sponsor terrorism. This amendment requires that compensation be paid from the blocked assets of terrorist nations provided that the American victims of terrorism secure a final judgment in our Federal courts. Victims of terrorism have many sad stories, and I want to bring to you attention the sad plight of a man who had a residence in New Hampshire during the toughest time of his life. In November of 1989, William Van Dorp was sent by his employer from his home in Kingston, NH to Kuwait City to teach the Kuwaiti Air Force English. On August 2, 1990, Kuwait was invaded by the forces of Saddam Hussein. Let me use William Van Dorp's own words to describe what happened: On August 4, I heard loud rumblings coming from the road and, when I looked out my window, I saw seventeen trucks, filled with Iraqi troops, and three tanks driving toward the beach. It became apparent to me that I was still in the middle of a combat zone and in immediate danger of encountering enemy fire. William Van Dorp attempted to escape the Iraqis who were rounding up American hostages. Mr. Van Dorp was attempting to leave the Intercontinental Hotel in Kuwait City. Mr. Van Dorp describes the event as follows: When I reached the lobby, I saw a U.S. Embassy official yelling at an Iraqi colonel and trying to convince him not to take the Westerners away. I was being taken into custody by heavily armed Iraqi soldiers. Later that evening I was packed into a military truck with roughly 23 American citizens and transported to an army camp about an hour from Kuwait City. William Van Dorp was held hostage by the Iraqi government for months. During the Persian Gulf war Iraqi used American hostages to be imprisoned at sites where the Iraqis thought the United States would target during the Persian Gulf war. The nations of Iran and Iraq have committed unspeakable acts against American and against citizens of my state of New Hampshire. Those nations deserve to be punished. Recently, Iraqi President Saddam Hussien pledged increased Iraq's payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers from $10,000 to $25,000. The press has reported in the past that Iran may be harboring terrorists from the Al-Qaida network and Taliban. I don't know that to be true, but it has been reported by the press that Iran and Iraq have not been allies in the war against terrorism. Our diplomatic efforts to change these countries has fallen on deaf ears and these countries are supporting terrorism throughout the globe. Iran, Iraq, and North Korea are the ``Axis of Evil.'' I am sure that every Member of this body remembers the Iran hostage crisis. Americans who worked in the U.S. Embassy of Iran were held hostage by the Iranian government more than 20 years ago. Those hostages sued the government of Iran. The Iranian Government did not make an appearance in the U.S. court to defend themselves, but as iron would have it, lawyers, not from Iran, were in the U.S. courtroom to defend the interests of government of Iran. Does anybody in this Chamber know what lawyers were in court defending the interests of the Iranian government? It was our own Justice Department and the U.S. State Department. How do you think the U.S. hostage felt about the U.S. Government, using tax dollars from these same U.S. hostages, defending the interests of the Iran government. The Washington Post, on October 16, 2001 reported that: U.S. Government lawyers went to Federal court yesterday seeking to vacate a judgment against Iran in a lawsuit filed by 52 Americans have were held captive in that country more than 20 years ago. The timing of the government motion, nearly a year after the lawsuit was filed and two months after the judgment was entered, drew sharp criticism from some of the former hostages, who accused the Bush administration of trying to mute their claims because of the current conflict in Afghanistan. ``The State Department and the Justice Department are doing this only to curry favor with Iran at this juncture of history,'' said Barry M. Rosen, a former hostage who is now director of public affairs at Columbia University's Teachers College. ``I was outraged.'' Another former hostage retired Army Col. Charles W. Scott who had three teeth knocked out during brutal interrogations, said, ``In combat, you have a weapon and can fight back. Here, we were defenseless and brutalized. For the first time I understood what the people of the Holocaust went through.'' Americans who are the victims of terrorist acts sponsored by nations that are deemed by the State Department to be state sponsors of terrorism should be punished. I urge the Senate to support the Allen amendment.