Bob Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I find some of the remarks of my colleagues very interesting. To say this is a partisan attack against working people is so outrageous and so untrue that it barely deserves a response. People who don't belong to unions also have families. They also need to feed those families. Let's understand what is happening, if we can tone down the rhetoric a little bit. Nonunion workers who want to stand side by side with the volunteers, who perhaps are putting sandbags up to stop the floodwaters from coming into somebody's home, are asking to work at a lesser wage than the union worker to help these people out. And they can't do it under the Davis- Bacon provision. That is what we are talking about. There is no concern expressed on the other side about the nonunion worker's family; it is only the union worker's family. We have people who are volunteering for no money, no pay, to stand and help these victims of floods and other disasters, and then we have nonunion people who are saying, look, maybe I am off from school, or maybe I am taking off a few days from my own job to help my friends, and I am willing to work for $5, $6, or $7 an hour, something less than the prevailing union wage. They can't do it. That is what we are talking about. This is the issue. This is nothing more than a payback for the huge contributions that come in from the labor unions, pure and simple. That is all it is. There is no excuse for this. The provisions in the law are very clear. The President could easily waive Davis-Bacon under the law, if he wished, but he doesn't want to do that. That is what we are hearing from the other side--lack of concern for the working man, unless he is a union man. If he is a union man, we have to protect him. If he is a nonunion man, who cares, we don't care about his family. Mr. President, I will submit for the Record a September 30 letter to President Clinton, interestingly, signed by 20 Members of Congress, including 7 from flood-damaged North Carolina. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record, along with an editorial from the Washington Times.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I am going to reserve the remainder of my time. It is my understanding that each side has 15 minutes on this debate; is that correct?

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, it is interesting that in those 36 disasters that the Senator from Nevada spoke of, the President has not decided to waive Davis-Bacon. The history on it is remarkable. We have had bipartisan votes on this floor on Davis-Bacon in the past in terms of some disasters. Presidents Roosevelt and Nixon also suspended Davis-Bacon to alleviate administrative confusion and delay, and to control inflation. There is a long--as I mentioned earlier, President Bush--history of bipartisan waivers and relaxation of the Davis-Bacon provisions. There is also an interesting editorial in the Detroit News. I ask unanimous consent to have it printed in the Record after my remarks.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. A few days ago, on October 4, I indicated that there were 88 days until the Panama Canal would be turned over to the Chinese--to the Panamanians and ultimately into the hands of the Chinese Communists. That was October 4. Today is the 7th, so we have 87, 86, 85--we are down to 85 days before the canal is closed, will be turned over to the Chinese. I have a chart here on which I will put some stickers to cross those days off. The days go fast. I point out that we are going to see this canal in the hands of a nation that does not have positive feelings toward the United States--to put it as nicely as I can. So this is the flag of Communist China. So now 3 more days have gone by. I recently addressed this issue of Panama and the impending turnover on October 4, a few days ago. Again, 3 more days have passed. The countdown continues. On December 31, this canal leaves the control of the United States and will come into the hands of the Chinese Communists. In his book, ``The Path Between the Seas,'' David McCullough's history of the canal reminds us of its historic importance: The creation of the Panama Canal was far more than a vast, unprecedented feat of engineering. It was a profoundly important historic event and a sweeping human drama not unlike that of war. . . . Great reputations were made and destroyed. For numbers of men and women, it was the venture of a lifetime. . . . Because of it, one nation, France, was rocked to its foundations. Another, Colombia, lost its most prized possession, the Isthmus of Panama. . . .The Republic of Panama was born. The United States was embarked on a role of global involvement. So while the United States has no assurances it may remain in Panama after December 31, despite overwhelming public opinion in Panama in support of a continued U.S. presence-- we are going to be leaving--the Chinese firm of Hutchison Whampoa will be there in the ports of Cristobal and Balboa on both sides of the canal, having won, through what was widely regarded as a corrupt bidding practice, the right to lease the ports for 25 years and beyond. Both sides of the canal will now be in the control of the Chinese. After the United States withdraws from Panama, December 31, there is no doubt that a security vacuum will be created. Who is going to fill it? We have less than 3 months, 85 days, a very short window of time to try to work out a solution that is mutually acceptable to us and to the Panamanians. Let us look at the status of the transition. What bothers me is that this administration is doing nothing to try to renegotiate those leases or to somehow talk with the Panamanians to try to get us to remain there. To date, we have transferred to the Government of Panama 57,000 acres--remember, we spent $32 billion building that canal--57,000 acres and 3,000 buildings controlled by our military, including schools, hospitals, houses, airports, seaports, roads, and bridges. It represents about 62 percent of the total property. As of July 1 of this year, U.S. troop strength was down from 10,000 in February 1994 to a little over 1,200, so we are just about finished. All U.S. presence on the Atlantic side was terminated on 30 June with the transfer of Fort Sherman and Pina Range. The remaining 36,000 acres and 1,900 facilities will be transferred to the Government of Panama as follows: On the 28th of July, the Empire Range for the Army and the Balboa West Range for the Air Force will go. On the 13th of August, the U.S. Army mortuary--these are what has already happened--on the 17th of August, the Curundu Middle School; on the 1st of November, Fort Kobbe, Howard Air Force base, Farfan housing and radio site will go; Curundu Laundry; Fort Clayton, West and East Corozal; Building 1501, Balboa, and Ancon Hill communications site; and on December 31, the grand enchilada, the big prize, the Panama Canal itself, gone, without a whimper. It troubles me this issue has not even entered the Presidential debate in this country. There is no one at the State Department or in the Defense Department or in the White House talking to the Panamanians about reopening the bidding process or renegotiating leases to try to get in there ahead of the Chinese company. As if to rub it in, to rub salt in the wound even more, the actual turnover is going to take place on December 10. Perhaps they advanced the date so it wouldn't interfere with our Christmas or New Year's Eve parties or maybe they were afraid of Y2K. Maybe they were afraid we would get stuck there. The bottom line is, on December 10 we will turn it over, which is about 21 days earlier than we should. So I want to elaborate, again, on the significance of the canal to seapower, to our Navy, and to the importance of preserving both the spirit and the letter of the neutrality treaty. I will now discuss the background of a controversial law in Panama known as Law 5. President Teddy Roosevelt was a reader and admirer of Alfred Thayer Mahan, a gentleman regarded by many as the father of the modern American Navy. Mahan's book, ``The Influence of Sea Power,'' had a profound impact on Theodore Roosevelt. Mahan traced the rise and decline of past maritime powers and concluded that supremacy at sea translated into national greatness and commercial success. We are essentially an island or, more specifically, a peninsula nation. The Navy is very important to us. Roosevelt, whose first published work was ``The Naval War of 1812,'' had read Mahan's book and understood its importance. It prompted him to be a strong advocate of constructing the canal, to be sure the United States would have easy access through the isthmus of Panama and into the Pacific from the Atlantic and vice versa. In World War II, damage to the canal could have and would have delayed the buildup of our war efforts in the Pacific big time. I can't imagine what it would be like to not have been able to use the canal. It would have delayed the flow of supplies to Great Britain, the Soviet Union, the dispatch of essential war materials from South America to the United States, and on and on. I am concerned that some officials in Panama might be somewhat naive about the canal's security and about world history. In June, the then Panamanian Foreign Minister disagreed sharply with General Wilhelm, head of SOUTHCOM, who had testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that Panamanian security forces were undermanned and ill equipped to deal with growing threats from Colombian guerrilla incursions and drug traffickers. Panama's Foreign Minister at that time, Jorge Ritter, said the general's statements were inadmissible and argued that ``never have the U.S. military forces been here to guard our borders, and they have even less to do with the security of Panama, nor do they have anything to do with the security of the canal.'' Even more surprisingly, the Foreign Minister alleged that the growth of drugs in Panama did not begin with withdrawal of U.S. troops but, instead, grew while there were military bases in Panama. Perhaps this gentleman, with all due respect, has forgotten what happened in 1989. During questioning before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Adm. Thomas Moorer, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked if the 1977 treaty had been more helpful or more harmful to U.S. interests. Moorer's immediate response was that 26 soldiers had died in Operation Just Cause in 1989. Among the reasons for the military intervention--to thwart drug trafficking, to preserve democracy in Panama, and to defend the canal--26 Americans gave their lives. To have Mr. Ritter make those kinds of statements is outrageous. Part of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing testimony includes some interesting commentary on the background of Mr. Ritter. He was the president of the Panama Canal Authority. He was also the chief Panamanian negotiator who reportedly torpedoed the base talks in Panama. He was tied by the Panamanian press and outside press to the highest levels of drug cartels and served as Panama's ambassador to Colombia during the time that Manuel Noriega was doing business with the drug cartels in Colombia. He was Noriega's point man, bottom line. It was also reported to the press that Ritter had issued a Panamanian ID card for Jorge Escobar, which was found on him when he died in Colombia in a shoot-out with law enforcement. I am not surprised that Mr. Ritter downplayed the importance of the canal and U.S. military base rights. It doesn't surprise me at all. Hopefully, with the recent inauguration of President Moscoso, that attitude, as expressed by the former Foreign Minister, has changed. I hope it has. I am told that the new Panamanian President was planning to visit but, for whatever reason, I am not sure, canceled her trip. I had hoped to have the opportunity to meet with her. Hopefully, we will be able to do that at some point in the future. I have been informed that, unlike her predecessor, President Moscoso would like to do business with the United States and would like to be above board with the negotiations. I wish her much success. I hope she realizes how important her actions are. It would be nice if some in the State Department and the administration would talk with her and encourage her in the next few weeks and months. I also hope that it is not too late for her to weigh in on the decision about the leases at Cristobal and Balboa. I realize that would take a lot of political courage for her, but I hope she will give a thorough review of the bidding process, its known irregularities, and its compliance with both the spirit and the letter of the canal and neutrality treaty. In conclusion, this Law 5 reportedly does the following: It gives responsibility for hiring new pilots for the canal who control the ships passing through the canal. It gives Hutchison Whampoa, the Chinese company, the right to possess Rodman Naval Station when it reverts to Panama this year. It gives the authority to control the order of ships utilizing the entrance to the canal and to deny ships access to the ports and entrances of the canal, if they are deemed to be interfering with Hutchinson's business operations. Contrast this with the explicit grant of expeditious passage in the 1977 treaty, which the Panama Canal treaty gave to the U.S. Navy. Now we are seeing the Chinese Communists--and there are thousands of Chinese now in Panama. People say: Well, it is private business. There is no private business in China. It is all controlled by the government, whatever they do. So this is government business in China. It is Chinese Communist government in Panama by the Chinese. Law 5 gives the right to transfer unilaterally its rights to a third party to any company or any country they select. This ought to be troublesome, and yet it is not even on the radar screen in the political debates around our country today. Certain public roads could become private in a hurry, which could impact canal access. This Hutchison Whampoa deal includes U.S. Naval Station Rodman, as mentioned previously; U.S. Air Station Albrook; Diablo; Balboa, a Pacific U.S.-built port; Cristobal, an Atlantic U.S.-built port; the island of Telfers, strategically located adjacent to Galeto Island, a critical communications center. Telfers Island is said to be the future home of a Chinese work in progress, an export zone, called the ``Great Wall of China'' project. I cannot understand how we can ignore this presence into the Western Hemisphere. Monroe would turn over in his grave. The Monroe Doctrine said that foreign European nations, and other nations around the world, should stay out of the Western Hemisphere. Yet, here they are. Law 5 is subservient to the 1977 treaty. But if we fail to notice the discrepancies and fail to act upon those discrepancies, or to point out there are potential compliance problems, then we lose the opportunity to respond. As I said before, I don't have the easel here now, but it's 84 more days. We will come back next week, and I will come back with the chart and it will be 79 days, or whatever it happens to be. But as each day ticks off, another day goes by--another day we haven't talked to President Moscoso and we haven't tried to reopen the negotiations, and we are another day closer to turning the Panama Canal not over to the Panamanians, but to the Chinese Communists--and not a whimper from anybody in the State Department, or the President, the Defense Department, Presidential campaigns, or anywhere. So the days are getting short. I think that I have an obligation to tell the American people, on a day-to-day basis--remind them--about what is going on.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 198, submitted earlier by Senator Snowe.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, the foreign operations conference report includes a major concession to the Clinton administration--it strikes language which attempted to stop U.S. taxpayer dollars from being used to promote abortion abroad, imposing an imperialistic, left-wing, pro-death agenda on the nearly 100 countries who have, for deeply-held religious reasons, upheld the sanctity of human life and who believe that life, including lives of the innocent and unborn, are sacred in God's eyes. Regrettably, the House-passed language, the Smith-Barcia Foreign Families Protection amendment, while not cutting funding for the international population assistance, would have at least restored the prohibition on using these funds to support foreign organizations that lobby to repeal or undermine the laws of foreign governments against abortion. Since the Senate refused to negotiate with the House on a proposed compromise on the issue, as a result, the conference report on foreign operations has no pro-life safeguards. The Senate conferees did not accept the House's proposal to reinstate last year's ban on funding for the U.N. Population Fund in exchange for dropping the Foreign Families Protection Act Amendment. The UNFPA has cooperated with the Peoples Republic of China in implementing coercive population control including forced abortion and sterilization. There are examples of poor people around the world being coerced into sterilization and fertility experimentation, sometimes, as was reported in Peru, by the threat of withholding food aid. More recently, in Kosovo, Concerned Women for America reported that while refugees sought water, clothing and other basic necessities, the UNFPA and Planned Parenthood delivered what they considered ``life- saving supplies''--working with the UNHCR, whey dispatched ``emergency reproductive health kits'' for about 350,000 people for a period of 3 to 6 months. These kits included oral and indictable contraception kits, sexually transmitted disease kits, intrauterine device (IUDs) kits, complications of abortion kits, vacuum extraction equipment and, condoms (UNFPA press release, 4/8/99). The U.S. State Department estimates that of the 350,000 refugees, 10 percent are either pregnant, breastfeeding or caring for very young infants. Also, Kosovo has one of the two highest total fertility rates in Europe, making it a prime target for population controllers like UNFPA (Planned Parenthood press release, 4/13/99). UNFPA and Planned Paenthood are putting these women at risk. CWA found a doctor with 10 years experience with the UNHCR, as well as numerous non-governmental organizations (NGOs), who was willing to testify without attribution about the danger of providing birth control pills and emergency ``contraception'' to refugee women. This doctor worked extensively within the U.N. and externally to prevent distribution of emergency ``contraception'' which causes chemical abortion in the early stages of pregnancy and manual vacuum aspirators used to perform abortions. The doctor confirmed the fact that refugee women who use birth control pills are vulnerable in two specific ways. First, they do not receive information to make an informed decision, nor are they guaranteed a doctor's continuing care. Vacuum aspirators included in the UNFPA kit are particularly dangerous. These manual devices cannot be sterilized, risking fatal infections, and can puncture the uterus. Rather than life-saving, these devices can be life-threatening. The UNFPA and PPFA are exploiting these desperate, vulnerable refugee women. They are attempting to indoctrinate them with the U.N.'s radical notions about sexuality and abortion. Abortions may only intensify their physical and emotional distress. Post-abortion syndrome (PAS) is a type of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, once believed only to affect war veterans. This year, unsuccessfully, an effort was made in the House to transfer funds from ``international family planning'' programs to child survival programs--this is based on the pleas of many respected people in the children's health field, including health ministers in Africa, who have begged the West for basic medicines like penicillin and rehydration salts. They have said their shelves are overflowing with condoms, while they watch their infants and young children die from basic maladies that would never go untreated in the industrialized world. Their calls have gone unheeded. The Clinton Administration's foreign policy priority is to ensure that women can abort their babies, not to ensure that mothers who give birth can properly care for their children. The fight is not over--the issue of protecting women and their unborn children and of respecting the pro-life, pro-family laws of foreign nations will resurface this year.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I am opposed to the nominations of Raymond Fisher to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and Ronnie White to the Eastern District of Missouri. Our judicial system is supposed to protect the innocent and ensure justice, which is what it has done for the most part for over 200 years. However, there have been glaring exceptions: the Dred Scott decision, which ruled that blacks were not citizens and had no rights which anyone was bound to respect, and Roe versus Wade, which similarly ruled that an entire class of people, the unborn, are not human beings and therefore are undeserving of any legal protection. Both decisions, made by our Nation's highest court, violated two key constitutional provisions for huge segments of the population. Dred Scott, which legally legitimized slavery, deprived nearly the entire black population of the right to liberty, while Roe has taken away the right to life of 35 million unborn children since 1973. Both created rights, the right to own slaves and the right to an abortion, that were not in the Constitution. Of course, both are morally and legally wrong. Sadly, only Dred has been overturned, by the 13th and 14th amendments. Congress and the courts have yet to reverse Roe. The only requirement, the only standard that I have for any judicial nominees is that they not view ``justice'' as the majorities did in Dred Scott and Roe, and that they uphold the standards and timeless principles so clearly stated in our Constitution. Unfortunately, I do not believe that Mr. White and Mr. Fisher meet those critical standards. During the committee hearings, Mr. Fisher fully indicated to me that he would uphold the constitutional and moral travesties of Roe and Planned Parenthood versus Casey. Mr. White has also given answers which strongly suggest that he believes Roe was correctly decided by the Supreme Court. In addition, Mr. White's dubious actions as chairman of a Missouri House committee when a pro- life bill was before it further proves that he would enthusiastically enforce the pro-abortion judicial decree of Roe versus Wade. The Framers of our Constitution believed we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. Roe not only violates the 5th and 14th amendments, it violates the first and most fundamental right that we have as human beings and no court, liberal or conservative, can take away that right. As a U.S. Senator, I recognize the awesome responsibility that we have to confirm, or deny, judicial nominees. I recognize the solemn obligation that we have to make sure that our Federal courts are filled only with judges who uphold and abide by the transcendent ideals explicitly stated in our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The judges we confirm or deny will be among the greatest and far-reaching of our legacies, and I for one do not ever want my legacy to be that I confirmed pro-abortion judges to our Nation's courts. This is why I will not support the nominations of Mr. White and Mr. Fisher. I will not support any judges who deny the undeniable connection that must exist, in a free and just civilization, between humanity and personhood. Our judges should be the very embodiment of justice. How can we then approve of those who will deny justice to most defenseless and innocent of us all? But, further, I would add that these nominees propose a more general concern in that they are liberal activists. In the case of Justice White, who now serves on the Supreme Court in Missouri, he has demonstrated that he is an activist, and has a political slant to his opinions in favor of criminal defendants and against prosecutors. It is my belief that judges should interpret the law, and not impose their own political viewpoints. He is strongly opposed by the law enforcement community in Missouri, and was directly opposed by the Missouri Association of Police Chiefs due to his activist record. Senator Ashcroft spoke in more detail about Justice White's activist record. Coming from the same State, Senator Ashcroft is in an even better position to comment on Justice White's record. But, he laid out a very disturbing record of judicial activism in Justice White's career, particularly on law and order matters, and I simply do not think that this is the kind of person we need on the U.S. District Court. With regard to Mr. Fisher, this is a critical slot because of the nature of the Ninth Circuit. This circuit has gained such a bad reputation for its liberal opinions that it has been referred to as a ``rogue'' circuit. It is controlled by an extreme liberal element and it is important that our appointments to this circuit be people who can restore at least some level of constitutional scrutiny. In the case of Mr. Fisher, this clearly will not be the case. He is not a judge, and therefore, there is not the kind of judicial paper trail that we have with Justice White. However, he has a long record of liberal political activism for causes that run contrary to the Constitution. If he is willing to thwart the Constitution in his political activism, what makes us think he will uphold it in his judicial opinions. He took an active role in supporting the passage of proposition 15 in California regarding registration of handguns. This kind of hostility to the second amendment will not make matters any better on the Ninth Circuit. He very actively supported employment benefits for homosexual partners, and I found him to be very evasive in his responses to questions during the Committee hearings. Given the importance of this circuit and its demonstrated bias toward the left, this nominee, who himself is a liberal activist, is not the right person to help restore some constitutionality to this circuit. So, I would urge my colleagues to vote against these two judges. We have sworn duty to support and defend the Constitution. This is never more critical than when we exercise our advise and consent role for judicial nominees.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, there are a lot of things going on in the world. Sometimes there is so much going on that we forget some of the more important things. What I would like to do is to remind my colleagues and the American people that, as of today, there are 88 more days before the United States of America loses its right to the Panama Canal. It is also interesting to point out that these little flags on this chart--in case someone may not know what they are--are Communist Chinese flags. So I am going to place another one over October 4 and note that in 88 days the Chinese Communists are going to have control over both ends of the Panama Canal. It is amazing to me that in the Presidential debates--not formal debates but in the discussions of Presidential politics--we did not even hear anything about this. Yet here we are, the nation that is probably the largest threat to the United States of America is now going to control the Panama Canal and not a whimper comes from this administration. So I am going to be on the floor of the Senate almost every day I can--at least every day that is a business day--to remind the American people and the administration that we are now going to allow the Communist Chinese flag to be hoisted over that canal, which we once controlled, which we, unfortunately, gave away during the Carter administration. The Panama Canal Treaty requires the U.S., by the date of December 31, 1999, to relinquish its bases in Panama. The Panama Canal--a monument to American engineering, American construction, American ingenuity--is among the world's most strategic waterways and remains critical to U.S. trade and national security. In case anybody is interested, the United States has invested $32 billion of taxpayer dollars in that canal since its inception. It remains a critical artery for our Navy and Merchant Marine, with an estimated 200 Navy passages a year going through that canal. On December 31, the Communist Chinese flag will control both ends of that canal. Mr. President, 15 to 20 percent of total U.S. exports and imports transit the canal, including approximately 40 percent of all grain exports. Before the canal was constructed, the voyage around Cape Horn required 4 or 5 months. The Colombian Government was assessing differential duties which made transisthmian travel prohibitive, even under ordinary circumstances. Traveling the United States from coast to coast took 8 or 9 months and sometimes fighting Indians. That was how long ago. Today, that canal saves 8,000 miles and 2 weeks over the Cape Horn route. Public opinion in the United States towards construction of a canal was galvanized by the voyage of the battleship U.S.S. Oregon from the Pacific around Cape Horn, joining Admiral Sampson's fleet in battle against the Spanish fleet of Cuba in 1898. The Oregon arrived just in time to engage in the last naval battle of the Spanish-American War, the Battle of Santiago. In Teddy Roosevelt's first message to Congress, he described the canal as the path to a global destiny for the United States and said: No single great work which remains to be undertaken on this continent is of such consequence to the American people [as the Panama Canal]. In 1918, Teddy Roosevelt warned against internationalism of the canal: . . . we will protect it, and we will not permit our enemies to use it in war. In time of peace, all nations shall use it alike, but in time of war our interest at once becomes dominant. There has been lots of talk about the potential perils of Y2K, which is also going to take place on January 1 or at the end of this year. For me, the complete transfer of the Panama Canal by December 31 is the biggest Y2K challenge facing America, and the clock is ticking. There is the countdown--88 days until we lose not only the canal but the access, coming in and out of that canal. This August, President Clinton awarded former President Jimmy Carter the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Now the Carter foreign policy legacy, the giveaway of the Panama Canal and normalized relations with the Communist People's Republic of China, has come full circle with ominous consequences. Panama City's deputy mayor, Augusto Diaz, states: If Red China gets control of the canal, it will get control of the government. . . . The Panama Canal is essential to China . . . if they control the Panama Canal, they control at least one-third of world shipping. Already the PRC is the largest goods provider into Panama's free zone, at $2 billion a year. The People's Republic of China is the largest user of the canal, after the United States and Japan, with more than 200 COSCO ships alone transiting the waterway annually. The United States has already shut down its strategic Howard Air Force Base. Howard Air Force Base has also served as the hub of counternarcotics operations with 2,000 drug interdiction flights a year. By the approaching deadline, we will also have given up in Panama Rodman Naval Station, the Fort Sherman Jungle Operations Training Center, and other important facilities. The Clinton administration was supposed to be working towards negotiating an arrangement with Panama that would have allowed for a counterdrug center, but even that option has fallen apart. In September, the administration announced the collapse of 2 years of talks on a multinational counternarcotics center. More than 2 decades ago, then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Thomas Moorer warned the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the U.S. withdrawal from Panama would occasion a dangerous vacuum that could be filled by hostile interests. His comments were very prophetic. In 1996, while China was illegally secreting millions of dollars through conduits into the Clinton reelection coffers, it is alleged that it was simultaneously funneling cash to the Panamanian politicians to ensure that Chinese front companies would control the Panama Canal. When is America going to wake up? When are the American people going to wake up? Hutchison Whampoa, a Hong Kong company controlled by Chinese operatives, will lease the U.S.-built port facilities at Balboa, which handle ocean commerce on the Pacific side, and Cristobal, which handle commerce on the Atlantic side. A Hong Kong company will control-- remember, Hong Kong is now part of the PRC. Its chairman is Li Ka- shing, who has close ties to the Chinese Communist leaders and a de facto working relationship with the People's Liberation Army. Li is a board member of the Chinese Government's primary investment entity, CITIC, China International Trust & Investment Corporation, run by PLA arms trafficker and smuggler Wang Jun. That is the Hong Kong company that will control this canal in 88 days. Insight magazine published an article maintaining that Li serves as a middleman for PLA business operations, including financing some of the controversial Hughes and Loral deals which transferred weapons technology to the PRC. He has also been an ally of Indonesia's Riady family and the Lippo Group, so deeply implicated in the illegal Chinese/Clinton fundraising scandal. Hutchison Whampoa's subsidiary runs the Panama Ports Company which is 10-percent owned by Chinese Resources Enterprise. CRE was identified by the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee as a vehicle for espionage-- economic, political, and military--for China. Does anybody care? One of the favorite expressions among preachers is: Hello. Does anybody care? Is anybody listening? This is Communist China in the Panama Canal that we built, that we maintained, for $32 billion. Not a whimper. Nobody is talking about it, let alone doing anything about it. Nobody cares. Where is the administration? In addition to concerns about Chinese objectives in securing Balboa and Cristobal ports, Panama is in the front lines of the U.S. fight against narcoterrorism principally exported by the FARC, revolutionary armed forces of Colombia, in Colombia. A week after closure of Howard Air Force Base, heavily armed FARC members were interviewed in full combat regalia on Panamanian television, operating in Panamanian territory. U.S. Southern Command Chief, General Charles Wilhelm, testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in June, said Panamanian security forces were undermanned and ill equipped to deal with growing threats from Colombian guerrilla incursions and drug traffickers. Colombia is the source of an estimated 80 percent of the world's supply of cocaine and the source of 75 percent of heroin seized in the United States. The FARC is known to have ties to the Russian mafia. That canal will be a great opportunity for them. Public opinion polls in Panama indicate that between 70 and 80 percent of the Panamanian people support an ongoing U.S. security presence in their country. Alternative sites for counterdrug operations, the so-called FOLs, or forward operating locations, are expected to cost hundreds of millions of dollars for infrastructure building and fees. We have no assurance that even if we build the infrastructure, we can stay in the designated FOLs for any extended time. Another issue that must be raised is that of the corrupt and unfair bidding process surrounding the 25-year-plus leasing arrangement, with an option for another 25 years, with Hutchison Whampoa. The then-U.S. Ambassador to Panama, William Hughes, protested this corrupt bidding process, and American and Japanese firms lost out because of the stacked deck. No help from the administration. Ambassador Hughes came close to being declared persona non grata for protesting the rigged deal 3 years ago. It should be noted that Hughes is now parroting the administration's line on Panama and the PRC. President Clinton then appointed Robert Pastor, architect of the 1977 canal surrender. He appointed him, and Pastor's nomination was blocked by Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms. Six U.S. Senators, in May 1997, charged in a letter to the Federal Maritime Commission that there were irregularities in the bidding process, which denied U.S. firms an equal right to develop and operate terminals in Panama. The Commission acknowledged that the port award process was unorthodox and irregular by U.S. standards. In 1996, Panama asked a Seattle-based company to withdraw a successful bid for Cristobal--a successful bid-- on the grounds that it would give the U.S. firm a monopoly because of its existing business in Balboa. In 1997, Panama gave the leasing deal to Hutchison Whampoa for both ports. With the introduction of Hutchison Whampoa, there follows real concern that Chinese organized criminal organizations involved in drug trafficking, guns, and smuggling of illegal aliens will ensue. COSCO, mentioned earlier--another Chinese- run firm that tried to lease the Long Beach Naval Shipyard--owned the ship which entered Oakland containing smuggled AK-47s intended for the street gangs of Los Angeles. And we almost had that firm in control of the Long Beach Naval Shipyard. Two firms with ties to the PLA and the Chinese Government were under Federal investigation for the smuggling attempt. While the U.S. Government is equipped to deal with this type of threat, Panama, with no standing army, is not. The United States and Panama have security provisions in existing treaties under which we could negotiate joint security initiatives to address our common interests. Eighty-eight days, Mr. President. Eighty-eight days. That is what we have left to get it done. The major obstacle appears to be an unwillingness of this administration to preserve a presence in Panama and a tendency to downplay the significance of Chinese acquisition of the twin ports. The 1977 treaty gives the United States the right to defend the Panama Canal with military force. The United States attached a condition, known as the DeConcini condition, which stated that if the canal were closed, or its operations interfered with, the United States and Panama would have the right to take steps necessary, including use of military force, to reopen the canal or restore operations in the canal. This modification was never ratified in Panama and met with protest by the Torrijos regime. Panama's version of the treaty denies unilateral defense rights to the United States. Some believe that Panama and the United States cloaked the differences in order to avoid a Senate vote on the issue and a plebiscite in Panama. In fact, the Senate turned back a series of amendments that would have required the treaties to be renegotiated and resubmitted to the Panamanians for another referendum. The DeConcini condition, because it was attached to the Neutrality Treaty, remains in force permanently. But as former Admiral and Joint Chiefs Chairman Thomas Moorer noted, how does the ``right'' to go into the canal with force compare to the advantage of defensive bases that could prevent the takeover of the canal by an enemy? A new Panamanian law gives this company, Hutchison Whampoa, the ``first option'' to take over the U.S. Naval Station Rodman and other sites. Panamanian law also gives the Chinese company the right to pilot all vessels transiting the canal. Admiral Moorer warned the Senate last year that our Navy vessels could be put at risk since Hutchison Whampoa has the right to deny passage to any ship interfering with its business, including U.S. Navy ships. It is of interest to note a 25-percent leap in immigration to Panama from the PRC over the past few years--a 25-percent increase in immigration to Panama from the PRC. Beijing has used large-scale emigration as the basis for future intelligence recruits, with Panama a key target. Stanislav Lunev, a defector and former Soviet military intelligence colonel, claimed Chinese intelligence succeeded because of their ability to exploit the vast emigration of Chinese to communities across the world. Eighty-eight more days, Mr. President. Eighty-eight more days. The Congressional Research Service's August 1999 Issue Brief on China addresses a Chinese immigrant scandal. Panamanian visas were sold for as much as $15,000 to Chinese citizens who would fly from Hong Kong to Costa Rica, where smugglers would guide them through Central America and Mexico into the United States. Then President Balladares fired his head of intelligence as a result of the scandal--another issue which causes consternation among Americans with regard to Panama's ability to deal with its China problem. If I could put it bluntly, this administration has dropped the ball big time. The House Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere stated in March 1995 that over 80 percent of Panamanians favor some sort of U.S. military presence in their country. A September 1997 poll found that 70 percent believe that some U.S. bases should remain after the end of this year. Eighty-eight more days. More recently, a May 1998 poll showed that 65 percent of Panamanians support the concept of a multinational counterdrug center. Despite public support--as high as three-fourths of the people in Panama wishing for the United States to stay in some capacity--this administration appears wedded to an unconditional pullout, an unconditional surrender toward a ``cooling off'' period that could allow the PRC to consolidate a new strategic toehold in Panama. The Panama Canal Treaty was negotiated between President Carter and Panamanian dictator Omar Torrijos. It doesn't reflect public opinion in Panama. It did not, arguably, reflect public opinion in the United States. When Operation Just Cause was launched in 1989, following the deaths of American soldiers and civilians in Panama, the United States intervened to safeguard American lives, to defend democracy in Panama, to combat drug trafficking, and to protect the integrity of the Panama Canal Treaty. It would be a shame if, because we fail now to protect Panama and the common security interests of the United States, to risk military intervention in the future. Finally, a Pentagon spokesman has dismissed the notion that the United States should even worry about Chinese encroachment in Panama. Don't worry about it. According to an AP story, Admiral Craig Quigley said: We have nothing to indicate that the Chinese have the slightest desire to somehow control the Panama Canal. . . . And we don't consider this a security issue at all. It is a business issue. Hello. Is anybody listening out there in the administration? What are we saying? Eighty-eight more days and they will control both ends of it. But, according to Quigley: We have nothing to indicate that the Chinese have the slightest desire to somehow control the Panama Canal. . . . And we don't consider this a security issue at all. It is a business issue. That is what he says: ``It is a business issue.'' Yes, it is a business issue all right--between the Chinese Government and Panama, to our detriment. There isn't any private business in China. It is all done by the Government. That is business as usual in the Clinton White House. This is a serious mistake that will in the future cost us dearly in terms of our national security. This is the same Red China that has labeled us their ``No. 1 enemy;'' the same China that has sought to steal all of our nuclear weapons secrets from our DOE labs; the same China that sought to buy the 1996 Presidential election, and massacred students at Tiananmen Square; the same China which has committed genocide in Tibet and which is supplying state sponsors of terrorism in Iran, Libya, Syria, and North Korea; the same China that has provided missiles and other weapons of mass destruction and technology to be sent around the world; the same China that threatened a nuclear attack on California and which has implied it would use the neutron bomb against Taiwan. Here is the flag right here. Eighty-eight more days. In 88 more days, it will be hanging on a mast over that canal. That is the flag. That is also the flag of a country to which, right here in this Senate, a majority of my colleagues, I regret to say, said we should provide most-favored-nation status. In conclusion, the United States should re-engage the new government of Moscoso on the issue of a continued U.S. presence. General McCaffrey, the drug czar, has shown a renewed interest on what he now calls an emergency situation in Colombia, albeit several years after the State Department and the Clinton administration stalled, thwarted, and blocked congressional efforts to assist Colombia's antinarcotics police in its fight against the FARC. Despite these differences over tactics in the drug war, McCaffrey stands out in the Clinton administration as someone who cares about the drug problem. But this is bigger than drugs. This is drugs--there is no question about it--but it is also the national security of the United States. We could also urge the new Panamanian Government to conduct a referendum on maintaining a U.S. presence. No one is talking to them about that. We could urge reopening of the bidding process to be more fair and equitable, and to ensure that no hostile powers are permitted to bid. We are not doing that either. The canal was built at a tremendous expense--$32 billion--and at the sacrifice of thousands of American lives. What a pity, the good working relationship that has developed between Panama and the United States to be lost because of the ineptitude and indifference of people in the State Department and the Defense Department of this administration. If this administration remains blind to the threat facing Panama, it is incumbent upon this Congress to make the case to the American people, to the new government in Panama, and to the Panamanian people. That is exactly what I intend to do on this floor every day that I can get the time and the floor to do it between now and December 31. I am going to be posting another flag each day to remind the American people that we are getting closer and closer and closer to the People's Republic of China--Communist China--controlling both ends of the Panama Canal--the country that has trampled the rights of Tibetans, that threatened to run over its peaceful protesters with tanks, that has stolen our nuclear secrets, that funneled money into our Presidential campaigns, and purchased or stolen other targeting devices to target our cities, and, frankly, threatened the country of Taiwan, and even threatened California if we step in. What do we do on the Senate floor? Not only do we let them take the canal, but we also give them most- favored-nation status. At some point, the American people are going to have to wake up. I don't know when it is going to be. But I hope it is not too late. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for not to exceed 15 minutes.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

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

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I yield the floor, Mr. President, and I appreciate the cooperation of my colleagues.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, first, I thank my colleague, the manager, Senator Specter, and the Democratic side for agreeing to my amendment. It is my understanding there is no opposition. I will be very brief in my remarks. The amendment is very simple, as was read by the clerk. It says that unless the Brooklyn Museum of Art, about which we have been reading, cancels the exhibit Sensation, it will no longer receive Federal funds through the National Endowment of the Arts. An article in today's Washington Times describes this exhibit ``called art''--I use that term loosely--as including a picture of the Virgin Mary decorated with elephant feces and pornographic pictures. It also contains a picture, a photograph of the Last Supper with a naked woman presiding, presumably, as Christ. It also depicts a sculpture of a man's head filled with the artist's frozen blood. As I say, I use the term ``artist'' loosely. I am reading from the article. This is called ``art.'' Mr. President, we do live in troubled times. You would think with the constant barrage of violence and sex and death and blasphemy that maybe somehow everybody would get to the point where enough is enough. I think that is where I am with this particular piece of art, so-called. Yet this painting of the Virgin Mary covered in feces and surrounded by pornographic pictures is particularly shocking. It is irreverent; it is sacrilegious; and it is disgusting; but it is not art, for goodness' sake. People can do what they want to do. We do have the first amendment. They can draw what they want to draw. But I will say one thing: The taxpayers of the United States shouldn't fund this garbage. Everyone here knows how I feel about the funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. I had an amendment recently that lost overwhelmingly to defund the National Endowment for the Arts. At that time, we were told all of these things were in the past. There were no more Mapplethorpes. And as someone spoke to me on the way in, we went from Christ on the crucifix immersed in urine to the Virgin Mary now with animal feces. That is where we have gone with the National Endowment for the Arts. I think it is time we dismantled the National Endowment for the Arts because I am sick and tired of hearing about these so-called art projects. How many times do we have to hear the NEA has cleaned up its act, and how many times do we have to hear that it has not? That is the bottom line. This amendment doesn't defund the National Endowment for the Arts. It says, very simply and very clearly, it is the sense of the Senate that the conferees on the Department of the Interior, where NEA is funded, shall include language prohibiting funds from being used for the Brooklyn Museum of Art, unless the museum immediately cancels the exhibit Sensation, which contains obscene and pornographic pictures, a picture of the Virgin Mary desecrated with animal feces, and other examples of religious bigotry. Basically, Mayor Giuliani has said the same thing, that he doesn't want any of these funds going to the museum for it either. I think if we are going to fund the arts, we owe it to the taxpayers to exercise discretion. The Brooklyn Museum of Art is upset that Mayor Giuliani is threatening to withdraw the $7 million subsidy the museum gets from the city, but the mayor is right. The people of New York City shouldn't have to spend their hard-earned tax dollars to pay for this trash, nor should the people of New Hampshire, or California, or Iowa, or Idaho, or any place else. Defenders of the NEA always say this is creativity. According to the promotions for this exhibit in New York, they have a warning poster outside the display in the museum that says: This exhibit causes ``shock, vomiting, confusion, panic, and anxiety.'' The Brooklyn Museum of Art has received just over the last 3 years at least $500,000 worth of taxpayer dollars--at least. You could employ a lot of homeless veterans for $500,000. You could take a lot of them off the streets for $500,000. If we are going to give money to museums, we ought not to include those that are this irresponsible. Give me that $500,000, and I will find homeless veterans in San Francisco, in Los Angeles, and Washington. Every day when I come to work, I see homeless veterans on grates in this city. Let me have that money, and I will get them off the grates. But I will be doggone if I am going to give it to the Brooklyn Museum of Art or any other museum with this kind of trash called ``art.'' It is wrong. Every time I take the floor and talk about it--and others before me, and Senator Helms who is a leader on this--we always hear that they have cleaned up their act, it is not going to happen anymore, and we are not going to hear any more about these horror stories. But here we are with this money. We just passed it--$99 million worth for the National Endowment for the Arts. I lost my amendment, and here goes some of that money right smack into the Museum of Art in Brooklyn. If a student wants to say a prayer over his lunch or if a teacher holds a moment of silence, it is Government sponsorship of religion. Judge Roy Moore of Alabama could go to jail for putting the Ten Commandants on his wall because somehow we are afraid of the separation of church and state. But this kind of stuff can go on, and nobody stops it. The ACLU liberals are all too willing to persecute people for legitimate religious expression if it takes place in a public building. Then they defend the desecration of the Virgin Mary and Jesus Christ and call it art? What is happening to this world? Can somebody figure this out? We have a public museum, receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars of Federal taxpayer dollars, spending these dollars on religious bigotry. So the American taxpayer has to pay for art that degrades and blasphemes against their own religion. But if their child wants to say a prayer over lunch, we have to get the lawyers out. Welcome to America. It seems that anti-Catholic bigotry is coming back into vogue. Not only that, it is celebrated as art, and it gets Federal dollars to do it. This guy needs a psychiatrist for putting this thing together. He doesn't need Federal money. You get publicity-craving artists who go to any length to create controversy. And he has it. I am giving him plenty of publicity. He is probably very happy. I will give him the publicity, but let's not give him the money. I imagine those who created this monstrosity are watching right now on C-SPAN and are cheering away: ``There is Smith out there giving us all this attention.'' Give him the attention, but let's take the money away. It is not the so-called ``artists'' who are responsible. They are doing their job as they see fit. They should not do it at taxpayer expense. Those who run public museums ought to know better. We shouldn't have to hang parental warning signs on public art museums saying that children under 17 shouldn't come in. Mayor Giuliani gave the museum an opportunity to end this controversy by removing certain exhibits, and the museum rejected his offer. Let's reject the money. As far as I am concerned, this was a statement by the Brooklyn Museum that this is the kind of art they think is appropriate to fund with taxpayer dollars. Until they change their mind, I think the taxpayers' money would be better spent elsewhere. I would be happy to pick homeless veterans if somebody wants to give me the $500,000 to do it. Mr. President, I believe it is appropriate to ask for the yeas and nays. We have an agreement on the amendment. So we don't need the yeas and nays. Is that correct?

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I call the Senate's attention to a program that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has initiated that I believe is ill-conceived, wasteful and lacking of public input. The EPA, at the direction of Vice President Gore, has launched a ``voluntary'' initiative with the chemical industry to test some 2,800 high production volume (HPV) chemicals and substances. The chemicals included in this list are currently manufactured or imported in volumes in excess of one million pounds, many of which have already gone through substantial testing and known to be either hazardous or safe. As chairman of the subcommittee with jurisdiction over the testing and handling of toxic chemicals, I am particularly concerned about how this program will be administered and funded. This major initiative was launched in October 1998 during a press conference by EPA, the Chemical Manufacturers Association and the Environmental Defense Fund. This initiative calls on industry to voluntarily provide test plans for these 2,800 HPV chemicals by December 1999, after which EPA will mandate tests of the remaining chemicals. Although the first phase of this initiative is voluntary, I'm concerned that there was not adequate public and congressional involvement in the development of this massive undertaking. Only after much urging by concerned Members of Congress, including myself, and other affected interest groups, EPA decided to hold a number of ``stakeholder'' meetings to share views and information about the HPV program. The lack of public and congressional input is just one concern that I have with this initiative. There are several other important issues of which the Senate should be aware. A major concern deals with the large amount of unnecessary animal testing that could occur as a result of this program. While obtaining better data on hazardous chemicals is certainly a worthy goal, I am concerned about the extent to which animal testing would be used in lieu of alternative testing methods. I understand that there have been many advances in toxicology, risk assessment and alternative testing strategies that minimize the use of animals, that could be applied. As I stated earlier, the HPV program calls for testing of many substances that clearly need no further testing. These include chemicals well documented and regulated as dangerous, as well as substances recognized as safe by the Food and Drug Administration. Chemicals with existing data should be purged from the list by EPA. There have been numerous assertions by Administration officials that they have no intention of ordering duplicative testing and remain interested in pursuing alternative testing methods where appropriate. I hope this is true. However, I still have serious concerns about the expedited schedule of the program and how EPA is directing its resources. Therefore, as the subcommittee chairman with oversight responsibility over toxic substances and testing, I plan to closely monitor EPA's implementation of this program.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I thank the Senator from Missouri for his comments and hope we can continue to work together on the monitoring of this and other EPA programs. epa risk management program

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

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

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, the amendment I am proposing will increase funding for our veterans by transferring funds from the Corporation for National and Community Service, also known as AmeriCorps. So what we have here, in addition to the amendment that passed, the increase of $600 million and the other proposed by Senator Wellstone, is an additional sum of money beyond that to be taken from the AmeriCorps program and placed in veterans programs. I think, here again, it is a question of priorities. We will need to decide whether we are going to pay volunteers--a little interesting; pay volunteers--or whether we are going to pay our Nation's veterans. That is the crux of the matter. It is going to be a test of our priorities. It is going to enable Members of this body, who are concerned about our veterans, to basically put their money where their mouth is. That is the bottom line. This vote will be a test of our seriousness about whether we are going to provide our veterans with the care they need or not. It is a clear-cut choice. There is nothing complicated about this amendment. It is AmeriCorps and paid volunteers versus veterans. That is it, pure and simple. It is between a big Government program that is paying volunteers--I will talk about that in a minute, whether there is such a thing as a paid volunteer--and our sacred responsibility to care for those who have sacrificed so much for our Nation. My colleagues know we have debated the question of AmeriCorps funding before. They know I have always opposed this program. That is no secret. I opposed it in principle when it was proposed, and my concerns only grew when I saw how it worked or did not work in practice. I think the time has come to face the fact that this is money that could be better spent caring for those who fought for our liberty and in many cases were wounded for our liberty. The rhetoric of AmeriCorps supporters is certainly stirring. The goals they profess are goals with which no one would disagree. But the rationale for using Federal taxpayer dollars --hard-earned taxpayer dollars--to fund this program always breaks down when we come back to the fundamental oxymoron it is based on. And it is an oxymoron. Some say perhaps more ``moron" than ``oxy''--my view--but it is an oxymoron because it says ``paid volunteers.'' Where I grew up, if you volunteered, you did not get paid. So I do not know what a ``paid volunteer'' is. But in this city of Washington, now we have come up with this new definition of a paid volunteer--only in Washington. It is like here in Washington we also have floors below the basement in the elevators, here in the Senate. Those people who come and visit know what I am talking about. You can take an elevator to the basement, and then you can go to the subbasement if you want to, or G, one below the basement. It is just too complicated to have the basement be the bottom floor, I guess. Now we have come up with this paid volunteer, and it is being sold to the American people. I checked, before I came to the floor today, in my American Heritage College Dictionary. I must confess, I probably did not look at it enough when I was in college and do not look at it an awful lot now. But I was puzzled by this term, so I looked up the term ``volunteer.'' The American Heritage College Dictionary defines a ``volunteer'' as a person who performs or offers to perform a service of his or her own free will, or to do charitable or helpful work without pay. This is the definition I always grew up with. It is the definition I always understood. And I believe it is the definition that most Americans would also say is correct. But now the President of the United States is rewriting the definitions in the American Heritage College Dictionary. He is rewriting the rules for federalism with his executive orders. He has awesome powers. Now he is redefining the word ``volunteer.'' These are the volunteers whom Americans see in their communities every day. For the past few years, the AmeriCorps bureaucracy has sprinkled thousands of so-called volunteers across America's 50 States--so-called volunteers. But meanwhile, 90 million Americans truly volunteer in some capacity each year. These are the real volunteers. These are the Americans our speeches should be honoring. We do not need a Government program to honor volunteers because volunteers do not get paid. When true volunteers offer their time and energy, they expect and receive nothing but the satisfaction of serving their neighbors. What can AmeriCorps' so-called volunteers expect? Here is what they can expect. They can expect a salary supplemented by a grant for education expenses, and they can expect health and child care benefits. I might just ask anybody out there in America listening right now, if you went down and volunteered, perhaps somewhere in North Carolina where the hurricane hit, and you were throwing sandbags up there, most likely you did it because you wanted to help your neighbors; I do not think you would be asking whether or not you got health care benefits or child care or a salary. If you received a hot meal and a thank-you, I think you would be very appreciative of that and no more, and you would be glad to do it. That is what voluntarism is. Now we have changed the definition. We are now paying volunteers under this President. Work compensated by a salary and benefits isn't volunteer work; it is a job. Look up the word ``job'' in the dictionary. I think you will find that is what it says. There is a difference between being a volunteer and having a job. They are both worthwhile, but let us not try to blend together something that is quite different. In a past year's oversight hearing on this program, a very prominent and distinguished Member of this body claimed that the traditional notion of voluntarism has changed. Now voluntarism is no longer voluntarism; it is the notion of voluntarism. The implication is that volunteer work, the type performed by the 90 million Americans who are putting sandbags up and protecting their neighbors' homes in the midst of a hurricane, is obsolete. That it is gone. Now the wave of the future is the AmeriCorps volunteer, the paid volunteer, the person who gets health care, child care. That is what this President has said, and that is what this bill is sanctioning, about $225 million worth of sanctions, I might add, of paid volunteers. I hope it is not the case, after all the Executive orders this President has signed and all the things we have seen him do in redefining--he redefined NATO to be an offensive rather than a defensive organization; he redefined our military to be a 911 response team rather than a military; he has taken Executive orders and redefined federalism--that we are going to allow this President to continue moving us toward a society in which volunteer service can be offered only by professional volunteers and only with the assistance and permission of a Washington bureaucracy. My goodness, have we really come to that? Only in Washington, only in some government budget or in some government bill could we possibly ever come up with anything as stupid as this. But we have done it. Boy, are we good at it. I hope we are not going to send our children a message that anyone who volunteers should expect a salary and benefits in exchange for serving his or her community. Is that what we are saying? Honestly, that is what we are saying. I have to wonder if we are serious when we say the era of big government is over. I have heard our Vice President say that. Maybe he should take over Jay Leno's slot because that is about the funniest thing I have ever heard, to say that the era of big government is over and then talk about having $225 million placed in a bill to pay volunteers. The era of big government is over? Somebody needs to explain that to me. If we allow this program to become a permanent fixture of the Federal Government, we are going to send a message that the era of big government is just getting started, not over. For when we allow government to intrude on the voluntary sector, we guarantee the further erosion of civil society, the area of community life that falls outside the purview of government. Frankly, we insult the millions, the 90 million or so Americans who do volunteer in charity after charity after charity--cancer, Humane Society, helping friends in times of earthquakes and floods; they volunteer and do it willingly, and they don't get paid. There is no such thing as a paid volunteer. Very bluntly and very frankly, I don't care if you are a Republican or a Democrat or Independent or what you are, male or female. You should not sanction it by funding paid volunteers. It is wrong. We ought to eliminate it, and we ought to take this money out. We ought to take it out, period. But I am not even asking Members to do that. I am asking them to take it out of there and give it to our Nation's veterans. I know opponents of my amendment are going to claim they simply want to use big government to help the volunteer sector. We are going to help the volunteer sector. How many times do we have to go down this road? We let the Federal Government set up a program to help in an area of American life that has survived without government help, but we are going to put up a program now to help volunteers and pay them. The government program always starts small and always gets bigger. Remember the Department of Education. That started in the mid-1970s at about $3 billion. It is getting up there close to $60 billion now-- not bad in 20 or 25 years. Soon the government funding is supplemented with government mandates, and then we find that something that used to be a function of civil society is now a function of big government in everything but name. When we try to slow its growth, we are told that the loss of government funds will be fatal. You will destroy the arts. You will destroy the humanities. You will destroy the charities that serve the poor. These are areas that once functioned without government aid. Now we have set up government monies to help them. If we take it away, we are accused of not wanting to help the humanities or the arts or help with charities. Now the people who work in these areas will tell us government is indispensable. We have to keep it here. We have to have it. We can't have volunteers now unless we have them paid. The question is--and this is all my amendment is about--Do we want to have the volunteer sector dependent on Big Brother or not? I say we should not. Even in the short lifetime of the Corporation for National and Community Service, otherwise known as AmeriCorps, we have seen the influence of big government corroding the ethic of service that animates our voluntary sector. We have seen massive administrative costs. We have seen large numbers of AmeriCorps' so-called volunteers deployed in Federal agencies to staff big government, and in some cases, to lobby for its continued expansion. That is right, paid volunteers to lobby us for the continued expansion of what they are doing. We have seen the promise that private sector sources would match Federal funds fall by the wayside. Let me make one thing clear: Good work has been done under the auspices of this program. I don't doubt it. If you pay somebody, you hopefully can get work out of them, and maybe something beneficial will come of it. A lot of this has been done in my own State of New Hampshire. I have met with some people of AmeriCorps. I salute their desire to offer service to their communities. No one is disputing that. But I am concerned that by cultivating direct links between voluntary service organizations and big government, we risk sending some of our most selfless young people the message that public employment is the only avenue available for serving their communities. That is not true. The American people know it is not true, but that is what we are doing. We risk sending true volunteers a message that their efforts are no longer necessary. That is not going to be the case with people who have volunteered all their lives, but look at young people today. Do you want to go down and help Ms. Brown mow her lawn and not get paid? Do you want to go collect money for the charity of your choice, perhaps the Cancer Society, and not get paid? Or do you want to go work for the Federal Government as a paid volunteer and get paid and get benefits? What message are we sending to our young people? We have just redefined the word ``volunteer.'' We just redefined the whole word ``voluntarism.'' This amendment I am suggesting is far more than $225 million. It is far more than providing money from AmeriCorps to veterans. Both of those are admirable, in my view, but it is more important than that. We are sending a cultural, moral message to the young people in our country by supporting this amendment, and that is: You volunteer; you don't get paid. You volunteer because you want to. That is the message I want to send. Now, you cannot compare AmeriCorps and the veterans. There is no comparison. On the one hand, we have the health and well-being of brave men and women whose sacrifices have ensured our continued freedom. And you talk about volunteers. Many, if not most, of the people who have made those sacrifices did so as volunteers. They volunteered for their country to serve in time of war. Some were drafted, but many would have gone whether drafted or not. When we called upon these Americans to serve their country, we took on certain obligations. This is a sacred obligation, one that we can't shirk and should not shirk. On the other hand, with AmeriCorps we take on another new obligation. As I have made clear, the task of manning the voluntary sector will be performed whether or not we appropriate Federal taxpayer funds for the Corporation for National and Community Service. On the other hand, the job of addressing the pressing medical needs of America's heroic veterans is one that only we in the Federal Government can do. Now, Senator Bob Smith does not stand down here at any time and promote additional Government funds where it is not constitutional to do so. I don't support unconstitutional spending, and I have cited example after example on the floor of this Senate over a number of years. It is constitutional, it is right, it is just, and it is our obligation to support our Nation's veterans with whatever it is they need. This amendment says those needs are more important than paid volunteers. This amendment will add funding to critical resources in the VA budget. The funding would go toward three areas: long-term care, medical care, and combating homelessness. I propose increasing funding for State veterans nursing homes out of this $225 million to allow our veterans to age with dignity and with the care they deserve. We know how desperately the VA health care system needs additional funding just to stay afloat. I also propose increasing funding to the Homeless Providers Program and Per Diem Program. This would help to build programs that would get veterans off the grates, if they are homeless, and help get them back on their feet. Even the amounts I am proposing to be transferred here only scratch the surface of what we need. But we have to start somewhere, and this is where we need to draw the line. So let me summarize and conclude by saying this: It is a simple amendment; $225 million is in the bill for AmeriCorps, paid volunteers, young people who are good young people. We are telling them we are going to pay you and call you a ``volunteer'' to do X, Y, or Z. We can do that or we can send another message, which is that homeless veterans on grates and inadequate care facilities is wrong, and we are going to fund those entities. Maybe it would even be a more powerful message if we would ask those AmeriCorps volunteers--paid volunteers--to suspend the payments and say: No, thank you, Mr. President, I am not interested in your benefits or your salary. Just tell me where the nearest veterans home is or the nearest VA hospital, and I will go there and give my time to those veterans who did so much. Isn't that a better message to send to America? What is wrong with this country? What is happening to this country? That is what I want to know. Day after day, we fund this stuff, and half of the time we don't talk about it. It just slips in there and goes by--with good intentions, not always bad, but it is wrong. We are sending the wrong message to our people. I taught school. Once you are a schoolteacher, you are always a schoolteacher. You are never a former teacher. We are sending the wrong message to our kids. We have sent wrong messages for the last several years. Starting in February, we said right here on the floor that the President of the United States can commit crimes and not have to be held accountable for them. We said that. That is what we told our young people. We have told our young people that it is OK to do whatever you want. Do your thing. Shoot your friends and colleagues in school, and then blame somebody else. Blame innocent gun owners who have done nothing except exercise their constitutional right to own a firearm. But blame somebody else; don't blame ourselves. We abort our young children every day, and we say: Johnny, go off to school, and, Mary, go off to school, be a good little girl and boy, and we will abort your brother or sister while you are going to school being a good kid. That is the message we are sending. We do it every day. So, you see, that is what is wrong with America. It is the greatest country in the world, but we need to change it. The structure is there. We just need to change a few people and a few places, get reality back, and bring this country back to what it should be and what it can be and what it must be, what our Founders wanted. Do you think for one minute that Thomas Jefferson, if he could stand here today or James Madison or George Washington or Sam Adams or Patrick Henry--do you think for one minute they would stand up here and defend paid volunteers? These are the people who picked up the weapons, put on the militia uniform, and went to Concord Bridge in Lexington and fought the British, sometimes never getting paid, not knowing whether they were going to be paid, nor caring whether they would get paid. These are the people who brought us our liberty. We disgrace what they did for us by standing on the Senate floor and even proposing to pay somebody to be a volunteer. It is the wrong message, folks. It is the wrong message. I hope somebody out there might be listening. It doesn't happen often around here that we listen to each other's speeches, but I hope somebody listens because we need to change the culture of this country, the attitude. All we can do on the Senate floor is single out things which are wrong and point them out--not to attack anybody. I am not attacking the motives of anybody. But I am saying it is wrong. Let's accept that it is wrong and change it so that we don't tell America's young people that paid volunteers are more important than our Nation's veterans, more important than the people who sacrifice for their country, more important than those who are, today, barely able to move or speak -- some not able to move or speak--in veterans homes across America, who are being neglected. By the way, they are taken care of by nonpaid volunteers, in many cases, who come and visit. This is what is wrong with America. This is why America will perish, if we don't stop. I don't want to see that happen. I want my kids or grandkids someday to say: I read old grandpa's speeches when he had the time to serve on the Senate floor. He stood up and said paid volunteers were wrong, and I am glad he did because we changed it. We don't have paid volunteers anymore and we don't have veterans lying helpless on grates freezing to death. We don't have veterans who are no longer able to get the help they need and the care and the shelter they need. We don't have that anymore because old grandpa stood up on the Senate floor and said it was wrong, and we changed it. That is what I would like. ``Do you want to leave a legacy?'' People ask you that all the time. If they write that about me, I will be happy. Nothing else. That is all. This is Daniel Webster's desk right here, one of the greatest Senators of all time. This desk belongs to the senior Senator from New Hampshire, and I am not going to give it up. I think all the time about the fact that he stood here and that we are just temporary stewards. We are just here for a blip on the radar screen of history, trying to do our job. As great as Webster was, he is off the stage, as the founders are and as are so many great orators and Senators who have spoken in this great body. But you try to make a difference. You try to make a difference. You have to speak up and try to make a difference. I urge my colleagues, ask yourself, are volunteers whom you are paying more important than veterans who gave their limbs, and their lives in some cases, not to mention the suffering of the families--more important than those veterans? I don't think so. I am asking you to vote to take $225 million from paid volunteers and give it to our Nation's veterans. There is the offset. It is not adding any more money anywhere. It is not costing the taxpayers another dime. That is all I am asking you to do. Let me conclude on a couple of points about veterans because I think we need to personalize this a little bit so we understand it. I mentioned earlier in the debate with Senator Wellstone that driving to work in the morning, especially in the winter, and seeing those veterans on the grates--they are not all veterans. There are about 750,000 homeless people, they tell me, in America. But they say a third of them are probably veterans. What happened? How did that happen? Why are they there? It is pretty disgraceful, really, when you stop and think about it, because somewhere at some point they reached out and asked for help, and they didn't get it or they wouldn't be homeless. I can't help but think of something that Johnny Cash immortalized so very well with ``The Ballad of Ira Hayes,'' the Indian, one of the people who raised the flag at Iwo Jima Hill. He was an Indian who was discriminated against when he came back but hung out around the reservation and became an alcoholic and died in a ditch. He was one of the ones who held that flag up at Iwo Jima Hill. Why did that happen? Because something slipped through the cracks. There are thousands of Ira Hayeses out there in America right now, lying on those grates, looking for hope. This is one of the most affluent cities in the world. You can't go around the block without running into some function where they serve caviar, shrimp, steak, or something, day in and day out. And yet, homeless veterans have no place to live, nothing to eat, and are lying on grates, freezing to death. Let's take $220 million, help them, take it away from paid volunteers, and send the right message to America. Homeless veterans start showing up 10 years after they are discharged. Ten years after they have served this country, many times in combat, they start showing up. That is why, within the past 10 years, the veterans homeless problem has increased. They don't give the veterans a fair share of the money that is designated for the homeless because somehow when they move out of the service and back into society, they slip through the net. Who knows what it is? Posttraumatic stress? I don't know. But they are slipping through the net. This is not meant as a criticism of anybody or any agency or anybody else. But let's tighten the net. Let's rethread the net. We can do a lot of rethreading of the net with that $220 million. In my State, a veteran from northern New Hampshire who needs an MRI has to take at least two van trips to have this simple test done. That is why we need to change that. The median age of homeless veterans is 45. It is not a way to treat our heroes. This is just one small way to try to make a difference, one moral lesson to send to the people of America, and to the children of America, that we are not going to fund paid volunteers until we fund our Nation's veterans. Then if you want to talk about paid volunteers, fine. But at least be honest; let's just call them paid workers instead of paid volunteers. That is all I am asking for with this amendment. That is all I am asking. Mr. President, at this point for the sake of the Record, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

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

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

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Could I ask a question of the manager? Is it the manager's intention to have a vote on this amendment? I have one I would like to offer. I would be happy to offer it and have it set aside, or have this one set aside. I don't know what the intention of the manager is.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily lay aside the Wellstone amendment in order to offer another amendment on the bill.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I again renew my request for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I want to say that I support the efforts of the committee in increasing by some $600 million the money for the benefits to veterans that was not in the bill. I commend them for their leadership in doing it. I agree with my colleague from Minnesota that this is simply not enough. I think my colleague is correct. I want to say to my colleague from Minnesota that not only do I appreciate his efforts on the floor in behalf of our Nation's veterans, but I support those efforts. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this amendment because I believe we have heard horror story after horror story after horror story in all of our offices year after year after year. It seems as if we always have money for everything. Lord knows I have been down here many times opposing that ``money for everything.'' Indeed, I have an amendment that I will offer very shortly. My colleague from Minnesota might disagree with me, but it increases money for veterans but takes it out of the AmeriCorps Program, which he probably will oppose me on. But on this amendment, I want to say that we agree. The veterans of this country need more help. They shouldn't have to beg for it. They deserve it; they earned it. We have heard it time and time again-- whether it is the American Legion, the VFW, DAV--whomever you spoke to. In meeting after meeting in my office, we hear the same thing. I think my colleague from Minnesota will agree with me on this. We drive to work into Washington, especially in the winter, and nothing is more painful than seeing a veteran lying on a grate in this city. This happens all over America. I have seen this now for 15 years. I have fought for 15 years to try to correct it. I am just determined now that I am going to do whatever I have to do on this floor to see that it stops. There is no way this country, as great as it is and as rich as it is, should tolerate that. Enough is enough. It has happened in Democratic administrations. It has happened in Republican administrations. Enough is enough. Whatever we have to do to help these veterans get off those grates, whatever we have to do to help veterans get the health care and shelter and things they need, then I am prepared to do it. I am prepared to sacrifice somewhere else in the budget to do it--whatever it takes, whatever we have to do. I say to my colleague from Minnesota that I appreciate his leadership on this. I am proud to support him on it. I will continue to support any efforts that he should author, or perhaps he may support some that I may author, in terms of helping to get this mess straightened out so that we don't have to continually hear these horror stories of veterans being denied care. I know the Senator from Minnesota has, as I have, gone to veterans homes. You see some of the conditions they have to endure. It is outrageous. We give them the best. We try to give them the best when they go to serve, wherever that may be. We ask them to go all over the world--too much in my view. Then when they come back, they deserve the best, as well, in terms of care. I think with good intentions we try to do that, but we have failed. We have come up short in a lot of areas. I think the Senator's amendment will help to address that. I think everybody on the floor supports our Nation's veterans. I don't in any way insinuate that any of my colleagues who are offering another amendment of a lesser amount don't support veterans. But we clearly have not addressed this problem. The Senator from Minnesota pointed out that there was a 99-0 vote on exactly what the Senator is proposing. I see no reason why we can't step forward. It is a shame that we have to have another vote. I think it ought to be in the legislation. It ought to be in the bill. But I am going to stand here no matter how many times it takes, as often as possible, and as long as possible to make these points. I am more than happy to join my colleague in doing this to help our Nation's veterans. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry? Are we on the Wellstone amendment at this point?

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I will withhold. I see the manager on the floor. I am prepared to yield the floor or go to a quorum call.