Bob Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I want to make a point on the legislation before the cloture vote we are going to have shortly because, according to the rules, I am not going to be able to debate this until after the vote, which is really not the best process in the world. But I want my colleagues to know what we will be voting cloture on in a very few moments is the Senate substitute for the underlying House bill. So when we go to cloture on that, what we are doing is substituting gun control for the House bill. I want all of my colleagues to understand that H.R. 1501 is a return to traditional values. This bill brings morals back into the school. It brings values back into the school. It focuses on the cultural problems that are facing us. It allows a display of the Ten Commandments. It allows individual religious expression. It allows prayer at school memorial services. It allows faith-based groups to compete for Government juvenile justice grants. That is the underlying provision. That is what I wanted to vote on, and that is what I did not have the opportunity to vote on. What is being substituted is gun control. It imposes strict limits on gun shows. It requires the sale of trigger locks with guns, and it puts new limits on juvenile gun possession, even juveniles who are law- abiding citizens who might like to have hunting licenses. The bottom line is, the bill passed by the Senate is a good cultural bill. Gun control is being substituted. If my colleagues vote for cloture, they are voting to substitute gun control for a very good bill that focuses on the cultural and moral problems in our schools. I will close on this point. There is a fictitious story being circulated on the Internet where a Columbine High School student writes a letter to God and says: Dear God: I'm very angry with you. I don't understand why you allowed 13 of my fellow students to be killed by two of my fellow students. Please answer me as soon as possible. Columbine High School student. A letter comes back from God: Dear student: Let me remind you, I'm not allowed in your high school. We need to think seriously because this is a major decision we are making. If my colleagues vote for cloture, they are substituting gun control for values, prayer in school, the Ten Commandments, religious expression, and prayers at memorial services. That is what they are substituting, one for the other. Let's make it clear: If you are for gun control, vote for cloture. If you are for values and prayer and the Ten Commandments in school, vote against cloture. I yield back the remainder of my time. I thank the minority leader for his courtesy.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Nackey Scripps Loeb, a remarkable person who has retired as president and publisher of the Union Leader and New Hampshire Sunday News newspapers. I have been blessed with Mrs. Loeb's friendship since I began my career in politics more than 15 years ago. She, and her late husband Bill, were an inspiration to me in the late 1970's and early 1980's, as well as helped fight in the conservative revolution. After Bill's death, Nackey took over the Union Leader Corporation in 1981. She had some big shoes to fill--Bill was an outspoken and controversial leader in both the newspaper industry and the world of politics. But Mrs. Loeb took over with dedication, drive, determination and distinction. She proved that the knack for hard-hitting journalism does run in the family! Her editorials have been the cause of many political aspirants' success or failure in their bid for public office. Mr. President, I owe Mrs. Loeb a great deal of thanks for her guidance and continuous support during the years that I have held public office. She supported my philosophy in times when many turned their backs. I respect and commend her commitment to doing what is right, even during the days when being a conservative was not ``in.'' Her husband once told me, ``stand for something or you stand for nothing.'' Nackey Loeb has always fought for the principles on which the Union Leader, and the State of New Hampshire, were founded. Nackey Loeb has guided the Union Leader into the twenty first century in several ways. She oversaw the move of production into a larger building and the purchasing of more advanced press equipment. She has also driven the Union Leader's involvement on the Internet. ``The Paper,'' as it is known, is nationally recognized and respected largely because of the efforts of Nackey Loeb. Mrs. Loeb has been a powerful force in New Hampshire during her 18 years as president and publisher of the Union Leader. Her vision, forthrightness and principled views are admired by all who know her and will be sorely missed. I would like to extend my best wishes to Nackey as she enjoys a peaceful time with her family. People like Mrs. Loeb help to maintain the quality of life we enjoy in New Hampshire and make it a special and unique place to live. It is an honor to represent Nackey Loeb in the United States Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, notice of my intention to do these discharge motions was made to both the majority and minority leaders, the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee, and several other Senators on July 7, so there would be ample time for the leaders to adjust the time so we could have a vote prior to the House voting on this matter. Mr. President, I yield myself 15 minutes out of my allotted time. Despite President Clinton's 1992 campaign promise to link MFN certification to China's human rights record, the administration has chosen annually to grant Beijing what had been known as most-favored- nation status and is now called normal trading relations. It is amazing to me that that certification could be granted, given the dismal record of China in so many ways that we have talked about on this floor for so many weeks, especially in the area of human rights. By offering this motion, I am asking the Senate to discharge S.J. Res. 27 from the Finance Committee. This legislation would disapprove the President's recommendation of normal trade relations status for China. Because of the rules of the Senate, it is in the Finance Committee. If I don't discharge it out, then it doesn't come out, and we don't get the opportunity to debate this issue. This is a very important issue. Let me say, again, as I said earlier this morning on the Vietnam issue, whether my colleagues agree or disagree with me is not the issue. The issue is whether or not they will let us debate this on the floor. That is the issue. If they vote against my discharge motion, then they have said they do not want the Senate to debate this issue at all. They don't want to hear about the human rights violations in China or Vietnam. I would find that regrettable if the Senate made that decision. If they feel strongly that they are right and there are not any problems in China which would justify holding up the NTR, normal trading relations, then they ought to come down on the floor and defend that. I have a few things I could share with Senators that I think will give them the opposite impression. I would want the opportunity to do that on behalf of so many Americans who are fed up with the fact that we keep giving MFN, or most-favored-nation trading status, to a country who has been so abysmal on human rights violations, not to mention stealing our nuclear secrets. I have come to expect the President to ignore China's total disregard for human rights, its proliferation of nuclear weapons, and its piracy of U.S. technology by continuing Beijing's trading relationship with our country, but what I don't understand is why. Why are we doing this? Why are we afraid to debate this? Are we afraid we are going to find out how much technology has been pirated? Are we going to find out how much proliferation of nuclear weapons has actually occurred, how many human rights violations have occurred in China? The answer is, yes, of course, we are going to find out, because I am going to present this on the floor if I get the opportunity to do it. Regrettably, the opposition is going to try to deny me that opportunity and probably will win. They win; the American people lose. I will point out a few facts--I only have 30 minutes; I don't get the 10 hours I would have under the law, if, in fact, my discharge petition motion is approved. Unfortunately, I have to assume I am not going to get it and make the point as fast as I can in 30 minutes. Since 1949, Communist China has operated one of the most brutal and repressive regimes the world has ever known. Indeed, the Beijing government has committed large-scale genocide in Tibet. It has killed millions of its own citizens, outlawed religion, obliterated freedom of the press, and fought against the United States in Korea and Indochina. In 1989, the Chinese Government authorized a crackdown on thousands of students who had the courage to stand up for human rights and democracy, and crack down they did. We all know the sad stories that came out of that period of time in China's history. The actions of the Beijing government have also served to undermine international stability and U.S. national security interests. China continues to violate the missile technology control regime, exporting to rogue states like Iran, North Korea, and other nations. They export our most sensitive technology, which in some cases they stole and in other cases they bought, believe it or not, from the United States. Moreover, China has failed to assist the United States in fully accounting for American POWs held by the Chinese forces during the Korean war. Certainly, the theft of our nuclear secrets by Chinese agents has been on our minds in the past several months. The Cox report provides extensive evidence on the damage done to our national security by Chinese espionage. But I am also very concerned about China's notorious and seemingly blatant disregard for U.S. intellectual property laws. Over the last decade, Chinese exports to the United States have increased seven times in comparison to American exports to China, creating a significant trade imbalance. During this time, some of the most rapidly growing and most competitive U.S. industries have been adversely affected by China's failure to enforce intellectual property rights. These include computer software, pharmaceuticals, agricultural and chemical products, and trademarks. American businesses are losing billions because of this persistent problem. Yet the President marches forward saying normal trade relations is perfectly acceptable. I don't understand it. How can the administration justify their decision to reward the Communist Chinese Government NTR status when that government has such a deplorable record of protecting just one issue--U.S. intellectual property rights--not to mention many others which I will be getting into. Peace and economic stability in Asia are in America's interest and require Chinese-American cooperation. Unfortunately, the President's decision to reextend NTR status to Communist China effectively rewards Beijing for rejecting reasonable American demands for protection from this intellectual property rights piracy, for cooperation on international nonproliferation efforts, and for a greater respect for basic human rights. Now we are hearing the ominous signs of the saber rattling around Taiwan. These threats of military acts of violence threaten the stability of the entire region in the Pacific rim. How can you justify giving a nation that has done this, and is doing this, most-favored- nation trading status? Perhaps the most egregious are the human rights violations which we appear to condone by granting this NTR status to China. It has a terrible human rights record. I have heard so many times from my colleagues, some of whom are going to be denying me by a vote the access to be able to debate this, how terrible the human rights violations are in China. Their policies on the political dissidents, religious freedom, and population control are abhorrent. The State Department report on China's human rights practices illustrates an appalling picture. It provides example after example of torture, forced confessions, suppression of basic human rights, denial of due process, and, worse of all, forced abortion and sterilization. Is this a government to which the United States of America should give most- favored-nation status? I don't think so. All I am asking for is the opportunity to go into these matters in detail and debate this on the floor of the Senate. This is not a vote on whether you agree or disagree. It is very interesting. I was thinking as I walked down to the floor from my office a few moments ago that the President of the United States took the U.S. military, put them in harm's way and bombed the sovereign nation of Yugoslavia to protect the human rights of the Albanian Kosovars. I can't even get the Senate to give me the opportunity to debate human rights violations in Vietnam and China. That is the bottom line. That is what we are talking about today. The President--I will repeat this--went to war in Yugoslavia to protect the human rights of the Albanians in Kosovo, and I am going to be denied on this floor, by a vote, the opportunity to debate--just to debate--human rights violations in China and Vietnam. They don't want to hear it. That is the bottom line. If you can live with that in your conscience, fine. It is a sad, sad situation. All I am asking for is what is required under the law. Give me 10 hours and I will agree to reduce the 10 to 2. I will say to my colleagues, wherever you are out there, it is 10 hours by requirement; but I will agree to 2 hours on my side if you will support my motion. Give me the opportunity to show you on this floor what China and Vietnam are doing by voting for both of these motions. Mr. President, at this time, I yield the floor to give some time to the other side. Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, pursuant to the Trade Act of 1974 and the rules of the Senate, I do make a privileged motion that the Senate Committee on Finance be discharged from further consideration of S.J. Res. 27, a resolution disapproving the President's June 3, 1999 extension of normal trade relations with China. It is my understanding that based on the parliamentary decisions made earlier, the 1 hour will be equally divided, a half hour under my control and a half hour under the control of the other side, not by majority/minority, but by the two sides, pro and con.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. It is also my understanding, for the benefit of my colleagues, that there will be two consecutive rollcall votes, the first one being on the China discharge and the second one on the Vietnam discharge.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on both resolutions: the China resolution and the Vietnam resolution.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to ask for the yeas and nays on both resolutions.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I cannot let go unchallenged on the floor the accusation that I am circumventing the legislative process. I think my colleagues know that is not true. This is the act, the Trade Act of 1974. I have it in my hand. I would encourage my colleague to read it before making accusations that are simply false. In the committee of either House to which a resolution has been referred, that has not been reported at the end of 30 days after its introduction, and counting any day which is excluded under section 154(b) it is in order to move either to discharge the committee from further consideration of the resolution or to discharge the committee from further consideration of any other resolution associated with this. The bottom line is, this went to the committee on June 3. It has remained there to this day. More than 30 days have passed. The bottom line is, which is perfectly legitimate under the rule, the Finance Committee does not have to discharge it. If they do not discharge it, what happens is China gets its NTR status, and Jackson-Vanik is waived. So I am exercising my right in doing what I am doing. And for colleagues to come down here and say I am circumventing the legislative process simply is not true. I would like to go back and see how some of my colleagues voted on some of these matters. I have heard on the floor that it is inappropriate to debate this issue; it is inappropriate to talk about it. ``Take morning business and come down here,'' or ``speak at midnight when nobody is watching.'' There is a process here. It is written in the law that the Senate has an hour on the motion to determine whether or not to discharge, and then if we pass these motions I am offering on China and Vietnam, we have the opportunity to debate this. So I am hearing that it is inappropriate for the Senate to debate something provided under the law. Why in the world is it inappropriate to debate anything on the floor? If you want to know what is wrong with this place, this is a pretty good example. ``It is inappropriate to debate what's going on in China and Vietnam on the Senate floor.'' Let me tell you what is inappropriate. With all due respect, what is inappropriate is the fact that the Communist Chinese are threatening Taiwan with missiles. What is inappropriate is what the Chinese Communist Government did to the people of Tibet. What is inappropriate is the fact that the Chinese Government put hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of dollars into U.S. elections. What is inappropriate is that they have tried to take over the Long Beach shipyard. What is inappropriate is that the Chinese have gobbled up the port leases on both sides of the Panama Canal. What is inappropriate is population control. What is inappropriate is forced sterilization. What is inappropriate is killing unborn children, female children. That is what is inappropriate. What is also inappropriate is trying to run over peaceful protesters with tanks in Tiananmen Square. So do not tell me it is inappropriate to debate something on the floor. It is an outrage that this Senate will not approve this motion and allow the opportunity to do that. Let me come to the floor and debate these issues. They do not want me to come to the floor, I say to the American people. That is why my resolutions are going to go down, because they do not want to hear about it, because the administration has made a decision to grant most- favored-nation status, normal trade relations--a decision to look the other way while China does these appalling things. I say, with all due respect--I said it earlier, and I will say it again--this President went to war and put American forces in harm's way to protect the human rights of the Albanians in Kosovo. And I can't get a resolution passed to debate human rights violations in China or Vietnam. What does that tell you? Is this America? Do you want to know what is wrong with politics? This is what is wrong with politics. In China, they can do what they want. China is a sovereign nation. I guess, under the Clinton policy, we may be bombing them tomorrow. I do not know if it is human rights violations. Apparently, we cannot talk about them in the Senate. However, let me read you a little bit about what goes on in China from the 1998 State Department Human Rights Report. Disciplinary measures against those who violate policies can include fines (sometimes a ``fee for an unplanned birth'' or a ``social compensation fee''), withholding of social services, demotion, and other administrative punishments . . . intense pressure to meet family planning targets set by the Government has resulted in documented instances where family planning officials have used coercion, including forced abortion and sterilization, to meet government goals. During an unauthorized pregnancy, a woman often is paid multiple visits by family planning workers and pressured to terminate the pregnancy. It goes on and on and on. Are we going to give most-favored-nation status to this country? This is the issue. We are going to give it to them without giving me and other Senators in this body the opportunity to debate it on the floor? Welcome to America, for goodness sakes. I thought the Senate was the greatest deliberative body in the world where all of the great debates took place. I am standing at Daniel Webster's desk. He would probably turn over in his grave if he heard that we would refuse to debate something as important as this. Daniel Webster stood on this floor, the strong advocate, year after year, against the outrage of slavery--and we cannot talk about China and Vietnam because my colleagues will not allow me to bring these resolutions out. It is outrageous. I just do not understand it. It is exactly everything that is bad and wrong and outrageous about politics and about the process around here. I am sick of it. It is wrong. Yes, bringing these motions is within the rules. Somebody put it in there. But for goodness sakes, what is fair is fair. It is not a question of me coming to the floor and saying: Well, nothing is happening in China; I'm just going to come down on the floor and create some problems here and tell you about things I made up, or I'm going to say nothing is going on in Vietnam. I am not making this up. Right today, in the Washington Times: Chinese companies transferred missile components to North Korea last month in a sign Beijing is stepping up arms sales in response to the NATO bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. ``We are concerned about Chinese entities providing material for North Korea's missile program,'' a senior administration official told the Times. ``In our judgment, the Chinese government has no interest in seeing North Korea develop its missile technology.'' The Pentagon believes that some of the missile technology contains material of U.S.- origin, and that the transfers violate Chinese promises not to ignore international missile export controls barring such sales to rogue states, said U.S. intelligence officials. Apparently we are not upset enough, are we? We are going to give them normal trade relations and look the other way. You steal our secrets; you abort your children; you forcibly abort female children; you saber rattle in Taiwan; you threaten to run over peaceful demonstrators with tanks. A priest was murdered a couple of months ago on the streets of Beijing. You give contributions to one of the major political parties in America, and we are going to look the other way. We are not even going to debate it. I say to the people out there in America: Watch the vote. You will see it. One right after another, they will come down here and Smith will lose on Vietnam and Smith will lose on China. And the American people will lose the opportunity to debate it. I cannot do this in 30 minutes. I would like to go into some of these matters in detail, but I do not have the time. That is the rule. I have 30 minutes, an hour equally divided. That is it. So I just say to my colleagues, give me the opportunity to debate these matters on the floor so I can point out to you the human rights abuses and the flagrant violations of both of these countries. Vietnam does not deserve the Jackson-Vanik waiver and China does not deserve to be given normal trade relations. Mr. President, I see my time has expired. I yield back the last minute.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. How much time remains?

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I thank the Chair. Let me say up front that I am a Vietnam veteran who feels very strongly about this issue. Some of my colleagues neglect to mention that when they are talking about Vietnam veterans. But I am one in the Senate. However, there are others, such as the junior Senator from Massachusetts, who is here today, and the senior Senator from Arizona, who disagree with me. That is fine. I asked them, and the four other Vietnam vets in the Senate--indeed, every Member in the Senate--not to duck the debate, to come down and debate me, to have a good debate, and then let the Senate decide based on what they hear. But let's not bottle this up in the Senate Finance Committee. Vote to let this debate take place. Come down and participate. I look forward to debating you. It is going to take a little bit of the Senate's time. It is worth it. It is the taxpayers' money that is being used. People's lives are being affected. Good American citizens, who have family members in Vietnam, have a right to have this heard on the Senate floor. I am not asking people to vote with me on the underlying resolution. I am just asking people to give me a chance to debate it and make a decision. It might take an afternoon. It might take an evening. I am certainly not going to use 10 hours, but I am prepared to do this in detail at whatever time the majority leader says so. I think we owe the American people that. I think it is wrong to prevent this debate. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I thank Senator Helms for his support of both the motion to discharge on the Vietnam issue, as well as the China issue. Mr. President, I yield myself 15 minutes. In response to my colleague from Delaware regarding what has happened in the past on the differences between the House and the Senate on such resolutions, I state for the record that the Trade Act of 1974, which is the item in question, on procedures in the Senate regarding discharges, says: If the Senate passes a resolution before receiving from the House of Representatives a joint resolution that contains the identical matter, the joint resolution shall be held at the desk pending receipt of the joint resolution from the House. So there is absolutely no problem whatsoever in having the Senate deal with this. In the past, the Senate has deferred action on the Jackson-Vanik waivers, according to Senator Roth, and the House has acted first. But we don't have to wait for the House to pass anything to act on it. It is clearly within the act of 1974. And so, with all due respect, I am not trying to assume any powers that aren't in the act itself. I also want to respond to the point that Chairman Roth made in which he said: Until the House acts, there is no need to defer action on the critical matters currently before the Senate. Indeed, House action may moot the need to take up these resolutions at all. Let me also point out that should the discharge motion prevail, there is no attempt by me to bring this up immediately and get into the Senate's time. If the majority leader and minority leader determine they want to take this up at another time other than today or tomorrow or even this week, that is perfectly all right with me. I am not in any way trying to interrupt the Senate schedule. There is simply an hour equally divided on these motions. So it will take 2 hours of the Senate's time and that is it, as far as I am concerned today. Unless the leaders decide they want to take it up now, that would be OK. Also, regarding critical matters before the Senate, China has been in the news a lot lately, to say the least, and if the situation in China in terms of the human rights violations, the spy scandal, and all the other things that have gone on--if that is not a critical matter to bring before the Senate, I guess I am not sure what critical is. I believe it is critical, and I think it should be discussed. In spite of that, should the leaders determine this should not be discussed today, tomorrow, or next week, I am amenable to whatever schedule the majority leader would like to work out to bring this matter to the floor for the 20 hours of debate, which would follow if the discharge resolution prevails. For the information of my colleagues, the discharge motion I have made as a sponsor of S.J. Res. 28 is a privileged matter and in accordance with the Trade Act of 1974. I am very pleased to have the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Helms, as a cosponsor of this resolution. The discharge motion now before the Senate is in order under the 1974 Trade Act simply because more than 30 days have expired since I introduced it on June 7, 1999. And to date, the resolution has not been reported by the Finance Committee. I am sure it is not being reported because, respectfully, the chairman disagrees with me on this. He has every right to not report it, and I respect that. But I also have the right to discharge it. What is S.J. Res. 128 in layman's terms, and why do I want my colleagues on both sides to allow this bill to be discharged and placed on the Senate calendar? It is a fair question and I want to answer directly. Under section 402 of the Trade Act of 1974, Communist countries--in this case the Socialist Republic of Vietnam--are not eligible to participate, either directly or indirectly, in U.S. Government programs that extend credit or investment guarantees if the country denies its citizens the right or opportunity to emigrate, if it denies its citizens the right to emigrate, if it imposes more than a nominal tax on emigration and visa papers, and more than a nominal tax, levies a fine, fee, or other charge on any citizen as a consequence of that citizen's desire to emigrate or leave their country. In other words, if a citizen is taxed to leave, or denied the right to leave, then this is what the Trade Act is all about. Simply put--and this would not surprise many colleagues, I hope-- Vietnam severely restricts the rights of its citizens to have the opportunity to emigrate. It has done so since the fall of Saigon, and it continues to do so. Corruption and bribery by Vietnamese officials is rampant with respect to those desperately trying to get out through the application process. Many of these people bring their life savings, some of them borrowing money to get out, and then after the money is confiscated they are still denied. That is why Vietnam has historically not been eligible to take advantage of American taxpayer-funded programs which subsidize business deals between American companies and the Communist Government agencies in Hanoi; that is, until last year. It is very important. When President Clinton decided to use the section of this same Trade Act of 1974 which allows him to grant a waiver of Jackson-Vanik, the freedom of immigration requirement, if he determines that such a waiver will ``substantially promote the objections of this section,'' which, as I said, is to ensure that countries do not impose more than a nominal tax fee or fee to immigrate and they don't hinder the human rights--if the President determines that there are no human rights violations, or no fees beyond nominal fees to get out processing, then we grant this waiver. But the question is: Is that true? I don't think it is. I would like to have the opportunity--which is all I am asking for in this discharge motion--to prove that on the floor of the Senate. I know there are 20 hours equally divided. I don't need 10 hours, but I would like to have a little time to prove it. I hope my colleagues will respect me on that. The President cannot use the waiver unless he has received assurances that the immigration practices of that country will henceforth lead substantially to the achievement of the objectives I just outlined before, such as stopping bribery and corruption by Communist officials. But the President's use of this waiver authority with regard to Vietnam has been in effect now for a little over a year. My colleagues should understand that we now have the opportunity to go back and look over the past several months and make an informed judgment about whether the President's waiver of the freedom of immigration requirement during this period has actually resulted in ``substantial promotion'' in Vietnam's human rights records on immigration matters. If you believe it has, then you should not be afraid to come to the floor and debate me on it whenever the leader decides to bring it here. You will have the opportunity to vote against a disapproval resolution I have introduced with Senator Helms to nullify the President's waiver. But why would you? Why would you be afraid to stand up and defend it? If you think that everything is fine and that all of these policies have not been violated, then come to the Senate floor and debate me, and we will see who wins on that point. If you think President Clinton should not abuse this waiver based on Vietnam's performance, if you think President Clinton should have instead insisted that Vietnam actually comply with the freedom of immigration standards, then you would vote for this discharge. You would vote for S.J. Res. 28, and ultimately you would vote against granting the waiver. However--this is important--in order to have the debate on the resolution, in order to carry out our constitutional duty under article I, section 8, to regulate trade matters with foreign nations, we need to discharge the bill and bring it to the floor. I want to point out, because sometimes we forget we took an oath to the Constitution of the United States, it says in article I, section 8, that ``Congress shall have Power to . . . regulate Commerce with Foreign Nations . . . '' It is pretty clear. If there is some difference of opinion as to a particular law regarding commerce with foreign nations, then we ought to have the opportunity to debate it on the floor. That is all I am asking in this resolution. It is that simple. As I said in my ``Dear Colleague,'' whether you support or whether you oppose the actual underlying resolution, you should at least be willing to support having a debate on the measure. That is all I am asking: Could we have a debate on it, instead of leaving the bill bottled up in the Finance Committee where it automatically becomes effective. Come down, make your arguments, and allow me to make mine. That is what the American people expect us to do. Then we will have a vote after a few hours of debate. I have studied it. People say there are so many other important things. I am not too sure about that. In the case of Vietnam, we still have MIA matters unresolved. We have foreign businesses that are going to make huge profits if we allow all of these things to go on. We have Vietnamese citizens in this country who escaped and who have had a lot of their earnings confiscated. They sent them over there to try to get their families out. What happened? The Vietnamese Government confiscated the money, and then they did not let the family members out. I have been going over this a lot over the past several months. I have heard from countless Vietnamese Americans all across this country in all 50 of our States. They have family members and friends in Vietnam, many of whom fought alongside the United States during the Vietnam war. I want to tell you their stories. I want to share the stories of these people who have tried so hard to get their loved ones out after they themselves have been able to escape. But I can't do it in half an hour. I can't do it in 30 minutes. I need the time to do it so we can make an intelligent decision on this waiver that the President has granted. Every Member of the Senate needs to hear these accounts of persecution and corruption that many Vietnamese continue to experience at the hands of Communist Government officials throughout that nation. Some of them have been forced to pay bribes into the thousands of dollars, and even after they paid the bribes, they have been denied the right to emigrate. I want to tell you those stories. I have also heard from our staff who are assisting refugees in Southeast Asia who are trying to help these Vietnamese. I want to share with you all of what they have been telling me. But I am not going to be able to get into any serious level of detail on these matters if 51 of my colleagues prevent me from debating this on the Senate floor. Mr. President, how much time have I used?

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I yield the floor, Mr. President. Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, pursuant to the Trade Act of 1974, and the rules of the Senate, I make a privileged motion that the Senate Committee on Finance be discharged from further consideration of Senate Joint Resolution 28, a resolution disapproving the President's June 3, 1999, waiver of freedom of emigration requirements for Vietnam as a condition for expanded U.S. trade benefits. Before going into that, Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that the time accorded to the majority leader on the two motions--the one on China and the one on Vietnam--be allocated to the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Smith.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. It is my understanding I have 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the vote with respect to trade with Vietnam be postponed to occur in a stacked sequence following the vote with respect to trade with China.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Montana, I know he understands, but he doesn't understand enough to let me have the opportunity to debate it. Under the rule of Jackson-Vanik, I have the right to have the 20 hours equally divided on the Senate floor. That is the time to do it so that it is not misdirected in morning business somewhere. In response to Senator McCain, yes, there are six out of seven Vietnam veterans in the Senate who support not debating this, who say the Jackson-Vanik waiver should be granted, but there are 3 million or so in the American Legion, at least represented by a letter from the American Legion, who think otherwise. I am not sure what the point is on that one. We have to feel very confident the waiver has reduced bribery and corruption. Here is the law. It says to assure continued dedication to fundamental human rights, if these things happen, you should not grant the waiver. No. 1, does Vietnam deny its citizens the right to emigrate? Yes. I can prove it, but nobody wants to hear it. No. 2, does it impose more than a nominal tax on emigration and the other visas? Yes, and I have a stack of names of people, Vietnamese nationals, who have said yes. The bottom line is, if the Senate won't give me the chance to debate it, then as far as I am concerned my colleagues do not want to hear the facts. I can't give them, as I said before, in 30 minutes. I urge support of my resolution so that we have the opportunity to debate this on the Senate floor.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. In the same report: Citizens' access to exit permits frequently was constrained by factors outside the law such as bribery and corruption. Refugee and immigrant visa applicants to the Orderly Departure Program sometimes encountered local officials who arbitrarily delayed or denied exit permits. . .There are some concerns that some members of the minority ethnic groups, particularly nonethnic Vietnamese, such as the Montagnards, may not have ready access to these programs. The Government denied exit permits for emigration to certain Montagnard applicants. And on and on: Vietnam's Politburo has issued its first-ever directive on religion, in an apparent bid to tighten Communist Party control over the clergy and over the places of worship. Although no religions are mentioned by name, the directive, published in the official Nhan Dan daily, targets the unofficial Buddhist Church and the Catholic Church. Unofficial. Interesting. Banned practices include organizing meetings, printing and circulating bibles, constructing and renovating places of worship. . .The Communist Party strictly controls all religious matters in Vietnam and many members of the Buddhist Church and the Catholic Church are presently in detention or under house arrest. French Press Agency of Hanoi, July 8, 1998. I say to my colleagues, we need to expose this. Why would you deny me the opportunity to bring this matter to the floor? I urge you, please give me the opportunity to get into these matters in the time allocated under the rules. Yes, it is 20 hours equally divided, 10 hours each. Will I use 10 hours? Absolutely not; a couple hours probably would do it. If my colleagues are not familiar with these issues, it will open their eyes. I have very specific details about what is happening to these people. If Senators oppose me and they do not believe it, then come down here and present the alternative information for my colleagues and let our colleagues make the choice. But give me the opportunity by supporting me on this discharge. Do not let it stay bottled up. That is the rule, and I respect the rule. The rule is, it stays there. If the Finance Committee does not discharge it, it goes away. I know that. That is why I am trying to discharge it. It goes away in the sense that the Jackson-Vanik waiver is granted because the burden is on us to prove otherwise. I want that opportunity, but I cannot get it if you leave it buried in the Finance Committee and do not discharge it. That is not a full debate. Help me look at the issue. The bill needs to be put on the Senate calendar so we can have debate. I repeat, if my colleagues missed it, I am not trying to take the Senate's time. If there is something else the leaders want out here, that is fine. I will work out something with the leaders where we can do 20 hours equally divided at any time the leader thinks it is appropriate. Also, when we delegate waiver powers to the President--let me go back to the Constitution of the United States, article I, section 8--we lose our constitutional prerogative. We have the right to debate this. Do not give up our constitutional prerogative to debate it. Do not be afraid to come out on the floor and challenge me on what I have to offer. I welcome it. I look forward to it. I hope no one will come down here and say: Let's have the House kill this first so we do not have to be accountable to the voters. That is basically the pitch being made by my friend, the chairman of the Finance Committee: Let's have the House kill the bill first, and then there will not be any need for us to debate it at all. Vote for the discharge motion. Let's get on with the debate, under the time agreement we will be bound by, and then the Senate can make an informed judgment and go on record in favor or in opposition as to whether President Clinton's waiver of freedom of emigration requirements, in the context of our trading with Vietnam, is appropriate or not. That is all I am asking. I pray this body will not put the concerns about business profits or most favored nation over principle. Support the discharge motion. Give me the opportunity to make these cases. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from John Sommer of The American Legion written to Congressman Philip Crane, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade, Committee on Ways and Means, in support of discharge.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Nebraska, with respect, if there is information and evidence which indicates that Vietnam or China--but, in this case, Vietnam--was not following the spirit and intent of Jackson-Vanik, why does my colleague oppose the opportunity to have me present that information to the Senate? We may respectfully disagree after looking at all the information, but it seems to me a reasonable request on my part to discharge this. To not discharge it, I say to my colleagues, bottles it up, does not give us the opportunity to debate it, does not give me the opportunity to present to my colleagues information I have that will show dramatically that that is not the case. I only have, at the most, 15 minutes, so let me do it as quickly as I can with the facts at my disposal. I regret very much I am not going to get the opportunity, unless my colleagues support me on this. This is a memorandum from the Joint Voluntary Agency that runs the Orderly Departure Program in Bangkok, July 14, 1999: request for refugee statistics and assessment of odp cases Corruption and Bribery by the Vietnamese Government: Although ODP has no formal statistics . . . over the years we have received and continue to receive communications from ODP applicants that point to consistent and continuing cases of bribery, extortion and other kinds of malpractice. . . . Re-education Camp Detainee Caseload: At the present rate of granting interview permission, we do not expect Re-education Camp Detainee Caseload to be completed by the end of [the] Fiscal Year. . . . Contact With the Montagnards: Prior to March, 1998, people from this ethnic group experienced tremendous difficulties communicating with ODP . . . Since March, 1998, contact with the Montagnards has continued to be limited. The Socialist Republic of Vietnam has made it clear they do not want ODP to contact applicants directly. . . . I do not have the time to get into this. I want to take the time. Please give me that opportunity. This is the Joint Voluntary Agency that runs the Orderly Departure Program in Bangkok. They do not have an ax to grind with anybody. They are trying to do their job. My colleagues are not going to give me the time, if you defeat my motion to discharge, to bring this information to the forefront. Let's look at another one. This is a memorandum from the Joint Voluntary Agency, Orderly Departure Program, American Embassy, Bangkok, July 14, 1999: request for refugee statistics and assessment of odp cases The Socialist Republic of Vietnam has frequently determined applicants did not meet ODP criteria, despite our confirmation that they did; many applicants are still awaiting interview authorization . . . As of July 9th, there are 3,432 ODP refugee applicants and 747 ROVR applicants awaiting Vietnamese Government authorization for interview . . . ODP has continually received requests from applicants for assistance in dealing with local officials; many applicants originally applied to ODP as long ago as 1988 but have yet to be given authorization by the Vietnamese Government to attend an interview. Impact of Jackson-Vanik Waiver: It would not appear that Jackson-Vanik had a telling impact on ODP activities . . . Staff [of the Joint Voluntary Agency] are of the opinion that there has been little, if any, indication of improvement in the Vietnamese Government's efforts to deal with remaining ODP cases. If given the opportunity, I will present to you that evidence. I do not have time in another 5 or 6 minutes. This is from the State Department, Dewey Pendergrass, most recent Orderly Departure director and current director of Consular Services in Saigon, November 24, 1998. Listen to what the State Department is saying. Because they support MFN with China, because they are not paying any attention to ODP, they do not care about these people who are trying to desperately get their loved ones out and paying exorbitant fines and fees and still cannot get them out. Listen to what he says and then tell me you do not want to give me opportunity to debate this: Generally speaking, I would discourage any dialogue with the U.S. Catholic Conference or the International Catholic Migration Commission, or any of the other refugee advocacy organizations, on Vietnamese refugee processing . . . You are dealing here with true believers. My God, true believers. They want to get these people out. They are trying to get them out of Vietnam. They are trying to stop the persecution so they are labeled ``true believers.'' What is wrong with that? This is a State Department official. This is a memo we are not supposed to have: I would not try to explain why we are doing what we are doing. From long and unhappy experience, I can assure you that you do not want to get mired in a ``dialogue'' with these guys . . . Of course not; if you get mired in a dialog, you will find out the truth. God forbid we find out the truth. Let's sweep it all under the rug. Let's make sure we get most-favored-nation treatment for this communist dictator group that tramples on the human rights of its own people, refuses to give us answers still on our missing service personnel, and we are going to sweep this under the rug. Dewey Pendergrass from the State Department says this. Let's finish it: As I said, these are true believers, and they are fighting at this very moment to expand refugee processing as we near the completion of the residual caseload . . . I'm sounding paranoid here, right? Believe me, I know whereof I speak . . . I really am not exaggerating. Again, I recommend that you do not meet with them, not explain, not apologize, regardless of any professional courtesy you may think is due. Just send the polite acknowledgment. The State Department, which is there to help these people, is making those kinds of comments. It is an absolute insult, and the man should be fired on the spot. To: Joint Voluntary Agency. From: Orderly Departure Program, Bangkok. Subject: JVA Failure to Destroy Denied Ameriasian Files Over Two Years Old as Instructed by Department of State. So now we are going to destroy files to make darn sure that if they have any opportunity to get out, they will not be able to get out. Ameriasians are children of American servicemen and Vietnamese women: The Department has asked me to determine the reason for JVA's failure to destroy the old files on Ameriasian cases denied over two years ago as instructed. I note that JVA has been instructed in writing to perform this task several times-- To destroy these files. I am hoping that you will be able to provide me with a satisfactory reason why these specific directions have not been carried out. He is chewing somebody out because they did not destroy these files on people who are desperately trying to make contact with their fathers, their loved ones. The goal of these reports is simple: to tell the truth about human rights conditions . . . These reports form the heart of United States human rights policy, for they provide the official human rights information based upon which policy judgments are made. They are designed to provide all three branches of the Federal Government with an authoritative factual basis for making decisions . . . Testimony before Congress. The 1998 country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Vietnam. Released February 26, 1999, by the U.S. State Department: The Socialist Republic of Vietnam is a one-party state rule and controlled by the Vietnamese Communist Party. The Government's human rights record remains poor. Poor, yet it is supposed to be good--it is not excellent --to have a waiver. There were credible reports that security officials beat detainees. Prison conditions remain harsh. The Government arbitrarily arrested and detained citizens. . . . I say to my colleagues, give me the opportunity to get into the details on this before we vote. All I am asking is to discharge this so I can get on the floor and get into the details of these kinds of abuses. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to honor John McLaughlin, Chairman of McLaughlin Transportation Systems, Inc. for being named the 1999 Greater Nashua Chamber of Commerce Citizen of the Year. The Citizen of the Year Award is an effort to recognize a local individual for their contributions to the betterment of life in the Greater Nashua Area. The award recipient has sustained a lifelong commitment to the best interests of Nashua and the state of New Hampshire. John has definitely exceeded these requirements. A longtime resident of Nashua, New Hampshire, John started with his father's business as a teenager sweeping floors. After graduating from high school and serving in the armed forces, he went to work for the company upon his father's death in 1949. From the company's initial size of 3-4 trucks and a hand full of employees, McLaughlin Transportation has grown into a company that includes approximately 120 trucks, five facilities, and approximately 150 employees. The company's core focus is the moving and storing business, however, they have now expanded to include a limousine service and fuel-oil delivery business. Although he has been extremely successful in business, John is equally recognized for his community stewardship. He has been involved with the Nashua Chamber for over 50 years, served for two decades as the Nashua fire commissioner and served four terms as the District 13 State Senator. In addition, he has held many leadership positions within the community, including the Nashua Parks and Recreation Commission, Rivier College Advisory Board, N.H. Council on Aging, and many more. As a former small business owner, I admire John for his hard work, determination and dedication to the community. He is a role model for us all and I commend him for his efforts. It is an honor to represent him in the United States Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President I rise today to pay tribute to Hitchiner Manufacturing Co., Inc. for receiving Business NH Magazine's 1999 Business of the Year Award. Since the company moved to Milford, New Hampshire in 1951, Hitchiner has been extremely active within the community. Hitchiner supports the community through contributions to the arts, education, and community welfare. Specifically, they offer much-needed dollars to local and state nonprofits and they make time available for their employees to participate in community affairs. Hitchiner President/CEO, John Morison III, believes when employees work in the community their experiences will translate into a positive experience for the company as a whole. In addition to being involved in community affairs, Hitchiner Manufacturing is a leader in technology. The company is an international player for investment castings for customers such as General Motors, BMW and General Electric. Hitchiner will soon acquire their tenth patent, thereby establishing themselves as the leader in metallurgical advances. Hitchiner's profit sharing philosophy has helped create a spirit of team work among its employees. President Morison believes that by sharing the profits and risks, of working as a team, the company will be better equipped to stay on the cutting edge of technology--this is the key to future success. Mr. President, I salute Hitchiner Manufacturing Company, Inc. and commend their president, John Morison, for his innovative ideas and spirit of community. It is an honor to represent them in the United States Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Christopher R. Rovzar, of Exeter, New Hampshire, for being selected as a 1999 Presidential Scholar by the U.S. Secretary of Education. Of the over 2.5 million graduating seniors nationwide, Christopher is one of only 141 seniors to receive this distinction for academics. This impressive young man is well-deserving of the title of Presidential Scholar. I wish to commend Christopher for his outstanding achievement. As a student at Phillips Exeter Academy in New Hampshire, Christopher has served as a role model for his peers through his commitment to excellence. Christopher's determination promises to guide him in the future. It is certain that Christopher will continue to excel in his future endeavors. I wish to offer my most sincere congratulations and best wishes to Christopher. His achievements are truly remarkable. It is an honor to represent him in the United States Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. In the spirit of what Washington is saying, I think we need to rid ourselves of the nastiness and the partisanship that has destroyed the comity of this great body and has become a barrier to a full and spirited discussion of the issues in America generally. You may say: That is pretty good coming from Smith; he is as partisan as they come. There is a time and place for partisanship. Harry Reid knows when I put the partisanship at the door. He knows, as cochair of the Ethics Committee with me. Americans deserve an honest debate, an honest exchange of ideas. They want us to put these partisan interests aside. It is not partisan if somebody is against abortion or is for abortion; it is issue generated. Americans want people who will lead, not follow polls. The American people are losing the faith in their ability to effect change, and rightfully so. Since I came to Washington, I have seen Senators and Congressmen come and go. Do you know what. I will tell you what doesn't go. I refer to the entrenched political industry that is here to stay. Oh, it changes a little bit at the top when somebody else becomes the chairman. But the entrenchment is still there. The pollsters, the spin doctors, and the campaign consultants are all there. They all have their hands in your pockets, and they are doing pretty well. They run the show, for the most part. They don't directly choose candidates in the sense of a smoke-filled backroom, but they do influence it because they are the ones who tried to talk me out of running in 1980--the same ones. Some of the pollsters in the party have been around since I first came to town. Every time there is a Republican retreat--and I assume it is the same for the other party--and often at Republican conferences here in the Senate, we hear from the professional consultants and pollsters. They tell us what the message should be. They tell us how to make ourselves look good and how to make the other guys look bad. We need to get out the fumigation equipment. We need to clean out the pollsters, the consultants, the spin doctors, and the bloated staffs who tell us what to say, how to say it, when to say it, and how long to say it. The American people elected us. Isn't it time we start thinking for ourselves and leading? This well-paid political industry, let me tell you, colleagues, is not interested in whether or not you believe in the issues of your party. Don't kid yourselves. This is about power, access, and jobs. I can have tea and crumpets with the President of the United States if I help him win it. As long as you look like a winner, it doesn't matter what you believe. Don't kid yourselves. They seek out the candidates who have the package they want--name ID, money, slickness. But, most importantly, they want candidates who won't make waves, or say anything controversial about an issue that might cost us a seat. They package you, wrap you up, put a little bow on it, tell you what to say, and then they sell you to the American voters. The political professionals tell us all the time, ``Don't be controversial; it can cause you to lose your election.'' Why are we afraid of controversy? Was Lincoln afraid of it? Was FDR? Was Calhoun? Was Washington? With controversy comes change--positive change sometimes. Imagine Patrick Henry, striding up to the podium in 1773 before the Virginia Assembly, prepared to give his great speech: ``Give me liberty or give me . . .'' and then he turns to his pollster and says: I wonder whether they want liberty or death. I better take a poll and find out. Let's not declare our independence; that is pretty controversial. They could have said that in 1776. Let's not abolish slavery; that is controversial. In the 1850s, the great Whig Party said: Let's not talk about slavery, it's too controversial. Let's put the issue aside and focus on electing more Whigs. But a loyal Whig Congressman named Abraham Lincoln thought otherwise. The pollsters come into the hallowed Halls in meetings of Senators to tell us how we can talk to people, to all the men who are 35 and over, what to say to them; and women 25 and under, what to say to them; to Social Security people; to black people; and what we should say to Hispanics; or white people; what do we say to pro-choice or to pro- life. Pollsters, pollsters, pollsters. We are looking at polls to decide whether or not to go to Kosovo. We take a poll to decide whether or not we should send our kids to die in a foreign country. Did Roosevelt do a poll on whether or not to retaliate against the Japanese? Partisanship is poisoning this town. The pollsters are poisoning this town. Help members of your own party and destroy the other guy. My proudest moment in the Senate in the 9 years I have been here-- other than some of the meetings Harry Reid and I have had together where we have to discuss the futures of some of you quietly--was when we went into the Old Senate Chamber and talked during the impeachment trial. You know it, all of you; it was the best moment we have had since we have been here. We took the hats off and we sat down and talked about things, and we did it the right way. I wanted to have every caucus that we had on the impeachment trial bipartisan; I didn't want any separation. But we didn't get that. Boy, what a delight it would have been had we done that. I am not saying it would have made the difference; maybe it would not have. But that is not the purpose of bringing it up. It is my belief that if we had come together and looked at the evidence--you never know. I am proudest of my service on the Senate Ethics Committee where six Senators, including my good friend, Senator Reid, and I, discuss issues without one iota of partisanship. When we investigated Bob Packwood, a fellow Republican came up to me after that vote in which we voted to expel a colleague, and he was angry. He was a powerful Republican, and this was not an easy conversation. He scolded me, saying, ``I can't believe that you would vote to expel a fellow Republican. It's outrageous. How can you do that?'' I said, ``You will have the opportunity to sustain or overrule that vote on the floor of the Senate very shortly.'' He came back later and said: Thank you for saving me a difficult vote. We on the committee ignored the partisan mud balls. We did what was right. I am not ashamed of being a member of a political party. The question is, Does party take precedence over principle? I want the 21st century to be remembered for debating important and controversial issues in public: Abortion, taxes, size of government, restoring our sovereignty, gun control, moral decadence, freedom. Don't avoid these issues simply to help our own political fortunes or to destroy our opponents. Lt. William Hobby, Jr., wrote a poem called ``The Navigator'' during the Second World War. I think it captures the vision and spirit of what I believe America should be. The Morning Watch is mustered, and the middle watch withdrawn Now Ghostlike glides the vessel in the hush before the dawn. Friendly gleams polaris on the gently rolling sea, He set the course for sailors and tonight he shines for me. We have the opportunity to take America into the 21st century of freedom, morality, support for the Constitution, respect for life, respect for the sacrifices made for us by our founders and the millions of veterans who have given so much of their precious blood. Politics should be about each one of us joining together to rediscover our moral compass, to reignite the torch of freedom, to return to our navigational chart: The Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Bible. In conclusion, in the movie ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,'' Jimmy Stewart portrayed a U.S. Senator who believed that America was good, that politics was good, and that the American people deserve good, honest leaders. I agree. Chaplain Ogilvie said to me a few weeks ago: Our time in History is God's gift to us. What we do with it is our gift to him. Let's not squander it with petty partisan politics. Exhibit 1 Excerpts from Washington's Farewell Address To the people of the United States Friends and Fellow Citizens: The period for a new election of a Citizen, to administer the Executive Government of the United States, being not far distant, and the time actually arrived, when your thoughts must be employed in designating the person, who is to be clothed with that important trust, it appears to me proper, especially as it may conduce to a more distinct expression of the public voice, that I should now apprise you of the resolution I have formed, to decline being considered among the number of those, out of whom a choice is to be made. I beg you, at the same time to do me the justice to be assured, that this resolution has not been taken, without a strict regard to all the considerations appertaining to the relation, which binds a dutiful citizen to his country--and that, in withdrawing the tender of service which silence in my situation might imply, I am influenced by no diminution of zeal for your future interest, no deficiency of grateful respect for your past kindness; but am supported by a full conviction that the step is compatible with both. The acceptance of, and continuance hitherto in, the office to which your suffrages have twice called me, have been a uniform sacrifice of inclination to the opinion of duty, and to a deference for what appeared to be your desire.--I constantly hoped, that it would have been much earlier in my power, consistently with motives, which I was not at liberty to disregard, to return to that retirement, from which I had been reluctantly drawn.--The strength of my inclination to do this, previous to the last election, had even led to the preparation of an address to declare it to you; but mature reflection on the then perplexed and critical posture of our affairs with foreign Nations, and the unanimous advice of persons entitled to my confidence, impelled me to abandon the idea.-- * * * * * I have already intimated to you the danger of Parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on Geographical discriminations.--Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the Spirit of Party, generally. This Spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind.--It exists under different shapes in all Governments, more or less stifled, controuled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.-- The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.--But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism.--The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an Individual: and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty. Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of Party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise People to discourage and restrain it.-- It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public administration.--It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally by riot and insurrection.--It opens the doors to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the Government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country, are subjected to the policy and will of another. There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the Administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the Spirit of Liberty.--This within certain limits is probably true--and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favour, upon the spirit of party.--But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged.--From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose,--and there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it.--A fire not to be quenched; it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.-- It is important likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres; avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another.--The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism.--A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position.--The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the Guardian of the Public Weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes.--To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates.--But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.--The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.-- Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports.--In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens.--The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them.--A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity.--Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion.--Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure--reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.-- 'T is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government.--The rule indeed extends with more or less force to every species of Free Government.--Who that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?-- Promote, then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge.--In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that the public opinion should be enlightened.-- * * * * * Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and Morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it?--It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a People always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence.--Who can doubt that in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages, which might be lost by a steady adherence to it? Can it be, that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a Nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature.-- Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices? In the execution of such a plan nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachment, for others should be excluded; and that in place of them just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated.-- The Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest.--Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur.--Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed and bloody contests.--The Nation prompted by ill-will and resentment sometimes impels to War the Government, contrary to the best calculations of policy.--The Government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject;--at other times, it makes the animosity of the Nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives.--The peace often, sometimes perhaps the Liberty, of Nations has been the victim.-- So likewise a passionate attachment of one Nation for another produces a variety of evils.--Sympathy for the favourite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification: It leads also to concessions to the favourite Nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the Nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealously, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld; and it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens, (who devote themselves to the favourite Nation) facility to betray, or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity:--gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation. As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent Patriot.--How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practise the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils! Such an attachment of a small or weak, towards a great and powerful nation, dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter. * * * * * Relying on its kindness in this as in other things, and actuated by that fervent love towards it, which is so natural to a man, who views in it the native soil of himself and his progenitors for several generations;--I anticipate with pleasing expectation that retreat, in which I promise myself to realize, without alloy, the sweet enjoyment of partaking, in the midst of my fellow-citizens, the benign influence of good Laws under a free Government,--the ever favourite object of my heart, and the happy reward, as I trust, of our mutual cares, labours and dangers.