Bob Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to honor my hometown high school--Kingswood Regional High School for being selected as the 1999 Top Secondary School of the Year by the Excellence in Education Committee. The ``Excellence in Education'' award is an annual program designed to identify one elementary, middle, and secondary school that is representative of the many outstanding schools in New Hampshire. Kingswood Regional High School was chosen for this honor because of the dedication and commitment to education by its teachers, parents, and students. Its exemplary community involvement in support curriculum has created an environment conducive to the development of young minds. I admire Kingswood's commitment to excellence. In recent years Kingswood Regional High School has taken on challenging initiatives with outstanding results. Its achievement of academic excellence based on New Hampshire's 10th grade and SAT testing results, and ensuing Writing Across The Curriculum Project, is to be commended. Technology education is integrated throughout Kingswood Regional's curriculum and it's newly established electronics course will lead to student certification in the electronics field. The teachers, parents, and students of this school hold a special place in my heart. My wife Mary Jo and I live in nearby Tuftonboro, and I taught history at Kingswood Regional High School. I have had the wonderful opportunity of meeting with both the students and faculty and have established strong and lasting friendships. This close relationship with the Kingswood has allowed me to witness the quality of education that is provided at this school. As a former Kingswood Regional High School teacher and school board member. I know first hand that this school is truly deserving of this honor. Kingswood Regional High School is a testament to the tradition of molding students into successful adults. I wish to offer my most sincere congratulations and best wishes to Kingswood Regional High School. The school's achievements are truly remarkable. I am honored to represent Kingswood in the United States Senate. Go Knights!

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President I rise today to honor Arthur Nelson, of Goshen, New Hampshire, for his dedicated service to his town and the nation. Arthur has been an important figure in the town of Goshen. His commitment to the community has not gone unnoticed. It is for this reason that he was chosen Honorary Parade Marshall in celebration of the founding of the Goshen Volunteer Fire Department. In 1939, Arthur helped establish the Goshen Volunteer Fire Department. This was the beginning of Arthur's long and fulfilling career as a public servant to the town of Goshen. Since then he has served as fire warden for fifty years. During those years he had been known to strap on a backpack pump and search reported puffs of smoke. This intense devotion led him to successfully find, and extinguish, many wildfires. In addition to service to the town of Goshen, Arthur has been an active participant in fire fighting in Sunapee, Croyden, Marlow and Grantham. His concern for the safety of his own community, and those of his neighbors, has brought Arthur a tremendous amount of respect from all who know him. All of these towns join Goshen in recognizing Arthur as a true hero. Arthur's presence in the Goshen Volunteer Fire Department is not his only contribution to his community. He has been elected and served as a selectman, been a part of the Historical Society and served on the Conservation Commission. Arthur has also been an active member of the Goshen Community Church. Among all of his commitments, Arthur was also able to write a book in his spare time. Foundations of Old Goshen, published in 1980, in a history of the town he loves. At age 91, Arthur can look back on a fulfilling life in the town of Goshen. His dedication to community service should be used as an example for others. I want to commend Arthur for his commitment to serving his town and country. 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 Gary Arruda of Hollis, NH for the critical assistance he provided with the aid of a wireless phone to save another individual's life. Gary, along with individuals from each state across America, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, received the ``VITA Wireless Samaritan Award.'' This award, which is awarded by the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA) is presented to honor the contributions heroic individuals make to their communities. Gary, who is an emergency medical technician (EMT), responded to a page to assist an injured mountain biker, who was too deep in the woods for an ambulance to reach. The biker, who had been stung by bees and was having a severe allergic reaction, was unable to make it out of the woods on her own, Gary went in the woods with his four-wheel drive vehicle, emergency medical equipment and his wireless phone. He and two other EMTs were able to stabilize the biker while maintaining contact with emergency dispatch and the ambulance that was waiting at the edge of the woods. Gary kept both dispatchers and ambulance attendants apprised of the victim's condition, enabling them to prepare to take over the rescue as soon as he got the woman out of the woods. I commend Gary for his excellent reaction in a situation that called for immediate attention. He is a true hero. I am proud to represent him in the Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Kate M. Riggs, of Hooksett, New Hampshire, for being selected as a 1999 Presidential Scholar by U.S. Secretary of Education. Of the over 2.5 million graduating seniors nationwide, Kate is one of only 141 seniors to receive this distinction for academics. This impressive young woman is well-deserving of the title of Presidential Scholar. I wish to commend Kate for her outstanding achievement. As a student at Manchester High School West in New Hampshire, Kate has served as a role model for her peers through her commitment to excellence. She will graduate as a co-valedictorian with a 3.9 grade point average. Kate's positive attitude has endeared her to both teachers and students. Kate's determination promises to guide her in the future. She will attend Harvard University in the fall and will be faced with many new challenges. Kate is sure to tackle them with the vigor that has brought her success in the past. It is certain that Kate will continue to excel in her future endeavors. I wish to offer my most sincere congratulations and best wishes to Kate. Her achievements are truly remarkable. It is an honor to represent her in the United States Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President I rise today to honor the Bedford Memorial School for being selected as the 1999 Top Elementary School of the Year by the Excellence in Education Committee. The ``Excellence in Education'' award is an annual program designed to identify one elementary, middle, and secondary school that is representative of the many outstanding schools in New Hampshire. The Bedford Memorial School was chosen for this honor because of the dedication and commitment to education by its teachers, parents, and students. Its exemplary partnership with home and community and outstanding mentoring program for all staff has created an environment conductive to the development of young minds. I admire this school's commitment to excellence. Over the last five years they have taken on challenging initiatives, participated in goals setting, created a community school council, and forged school-business partnerships. Student focus is also one of Bedford Memorial's strengths. The many co-curricular programs, an excellent special education department, and a gifted program are able to serve the students' individual needs. The school's success is epitomized in the school's motto ``The partnership of home, school, and community is essential to achieve our goal of academic excellence.'' The teahers, parents, and students of this school hold a special place in my heart. Over the years, Mary Jo and I have visited the Bedford Memorial School many times, had the chance to meet both students and faculty, and have had the honor of teaching several classes there. This close involvement with the school has allowed me to witness, first-hand, the quality of education that is provided at this school. The honor of being named Top Elementary School of the Year is a fitting end to an era for Bedford Memorial School. I am confident that as they take on additional grades and students, their school spirit will only continue to grow. As a former teacher and school board member, I understand the tremendous impact teachers have on a child's life. The Bedford Memorial School is a testament to the tradition of molding students into successful adults. I wish to offer my most sincere congratulations and best wishes to the Bedford Memorial School. The school's achievements are truly remarkable. I feel honored to have had such a close relationship with the Bedford Memorial School and represent them in the United States Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, the resolution that I am submitting today provides that immediately following the prayer such as we just heard this morning by Chaplain Ogilvie, at the beginning of each daily session of the Senate, the Presiding Officer of the Senate would lead the Senate in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States. I am pleased and honored that the chairman of the Rules Committee, Senator McConnell, as well as Senator Feinstein, Senator Helms, an Senator Lott, have joined me as original cosponsors of this resolution. The flag of the United States is our most revered and preeminent symbol, and the flag is recognized and respected throughout the world as a symbol of democracy, freedom, and human rights. As you know, the House of Representatives has such a flag salute in the morning at the beginning of each day. I think it is appropriate that the Senate follow suit. It is probably long overdue. The Chief Justice of the United States, William Rehnquist, has written that the flag of the United States of America ``in times of national crisis, inspires and motivates the average citizen to make personal sacrifices in order to achieve societal goals of overriding importance . . . and serves as a reminder of the paramount importance of pursuing the ideals that characterize our society.'' Many Americans, including my father, have given their lives to protect freedom and democracy as symbolized by this flag. Our family was presented with a flag at the burial, as so many other families of veterans have also experienced. It means a great deal, and I think it is appropriate that we salute the flag every morning to start our business. Since 1988, as I said, the House of Representatives has demonstrated its reverence and respect for the flag, and all of the ideals for which it stands, by opening its morning session with the Pledge of Allegiance. I wish to give credit to a constituent of mine. I would like to take credit for the idea--perhaps I should have thought of it--but it came from Rebecca Stewart of Enfield, NH, who recently contacted my office and suggested that the Senate should do what the House does--open each session with the Pledge of Allegiance. I thought that was a great idea and contacted several members of the Senate Rules Committee to get a sense of the level of support on that committee for the idea, and I was pleased and delighted by the response from Rules. The result then is the resolution I am submitting today. I might also in conclusion point out that Monday, June 14, is Flag Day. It would be a great tribute if we could get this resolution to the floor and pass it sometime on or before Monday, June 14. We do have time this week to do that. It is my hope we can move this legislation out of Rules quickly and bring it to the floor. I understand Senator McConnell will be in the Chamber to speak on this matter very shortly. Mr. President, I trust that the Senate will see fit to promptly adopt this resolution. I hope that it will receive the unanimous support of my colleagues in the Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, today the Senate will be in a period of morning business until the hour of 11 a.m. As a reminder, the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the Y2K legislation has been vitiated. By previous consent, debate on the Y2K bill will begin following morning business at 11 a.m. Amendments are anticipated throughout today's session, and therefore votes can be expected. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Loon Mountain Recreation Corporation of Lincoln, New Hampshire for their outstanding achievements in the environmental arena. This month. Loon Mountain will receive the Times Mirror Company's Silver Eagle Award for Environmental Excellence in Visual Impact. Loon Mountain will be receiving this award due to the recent installation of a new snowmaking pump station. The resort's two objectives in the design of this station were to reduce the visual impact of the pump station to the surrounding community and minimize the impact of the new water withdrawal system on the adjacent river. Through careful site planning and creative architectural design, the pump station blends in naturally with its surroundings. The techniques employed during construction were environmentally sound and the withdrawal system does not disturb the river environment. As a senior member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, I realize the impact that industrial design can have on the environment, and I am excited to see businesses such as Loon Mountain working hard to minimize these impacts. I commend the Loon Mountain Recreation Corporation for their environmental awareness, and I am proud to represent them in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise to introduce two resolutions concerning our trade relationships with the People's Republic of China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Last Thursday, June 3, 1999, the President of the United States formally recommended waivers of the application of the Trade Act of 1974 provisions with respect to China and Vietnam, thereby allowing U.S. taxdollars to subsidize business operations in these countries. In the case of China, the waiver also allows for continuation of most-favored-nation trade privileges, now known as normal trade relations. Mr. President, there's very little that is normal about our relationship with these communist countries. In short, I think the President's policy is seriously flawed and deeply troubling, especially in view of recent events. Mr. President, on November 26, 1974, in its report on the Trade Act, the Senate Committee on Finance stated: ``The Committee recognizes that segments of the private sector wish the U.S. Government to provide credits and investment guarantees, and other conditions before private capital investments are ventured. The Committee believes that it is equally reasonable to establish conditions on all basic human rights, including the right to emigrate, before extending broad concessions to communist countries.'' The resolutions I have introduced keep faith with the original Congressional intent of the Trade Act of 1974. One need only read the annual State Department Human Rights Reports on China and Vietnam to recognize that they have failed to meet any recognized standards with respect to human rights. Moreover, there are a myriad of other national security and foreign policy issues concerning our current relationship with Beijing and Hanoi--from wholesale espionage of our nuclear secrets to POW/MIA accounting--which warrant support for my resolutions. We should not be putting profit over principle. These waivers from the President should be overturned by the Congress, using the procedures provided for by law. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise to introduce two resolutions concerning our trade relationships with the People's Republic of China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Last Thursday, June 3, 1999, the President of the United States formally recommended waivers of the application of the Trade Act of 1974 provisions with respect to China and Vietnam, thereby allowing U.S. taxdollars to subsidize business operations in these countries. In the case of China, the waiver also allows for continuation of most-favored-nation trade privileges, now known as normal trade relations. Mr. President, there's very little that is normal about our relationship with these communist countries. In short, I think the President's policy is seriously flawed and deeply troubling, especially in view of recent events. Mr. President, on November 26, 1974, in its report on the Trade Act, the Senate Committee on Finance stated: ``The Committee recognizes that segments of the private sector wish the U.S. Government to provide credits and investment guarantees, and other conditions before private capital investments are ventured. The Committee believes that it is equally reasonable to establish conditions on all basic human rights, including the right to emigrate, before extending broad concessions to communist countries.'' The resolutions I have introduced keep faith with the original Congressional intent of the Trade Act of 1974. One need only read the annual State Department Human Rights Reports on China and Vietnam to recognize that they have failed to meet any recognized standards with respect to human rights. Moreover, there are a myriad of other national security and foreign policy issues concerning our current relationship with Beijing and Hanoi--from wholesale espionage of our nuclear secrets to POW/MIA accounting--which warrant support for my resolutions. We should not be putting profit over principle. These waivers from the President should be overturned by the Congress, using the procedures provided for by law. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I want to thank the managers of this bill for accepting this amendment, and I thank all of my colleagues for their support. Let me say this is a very simple amendment, but one that becomes profoundly relevant as we approach Memorial Day next Monday, especially for the families of unaccounted for servicemen from World War II. The amendment instructs the Secretary of the Army to make every reasonable effort to search for, recover, and identify the remains of U.S. servicemen from World War II crashsites in the South Pacific. As many of my colleagues know, the Army is DoD's executive agent for this kind of recovery work. Mr. President, earlier this month I attended a military funeral for a World War II Army Air Corps pilot from Worcester, Massachusetts. I can't begin to tell you how moved I was to attend this funeral and listen to the eulogy about this young pilot, who joined the Army the day after Pearl Harbor, went on to get his wings in the Army Air Corps, married his sweetheart, only to have to leave her two days later. He was never to come home. He was lost over the jungles of New Guinea flying his P-47 Thunderbolt in 1943. Fifty-three years later, in 1996, his remains inside his crashed plane were accidently located by a private American citizen, Mr. Fred Hagen, who was searching for his great uncle's B-25 bomber. Only then, did the emotional rollercoaster ride for the surviving elderly family members really begin because it took almost 3 additional years, and my continuous intervention along the way, for the remains to be formally recovered and identified by the Army. There was political instability in New Guinea at one point, and that delayed things, and there were also competing priorities that the Army was trying to balance. That case is now behind us, but I am aware that there are other World War II crashsites in New Guinea where the remains of American servicemen are presently located, yet they have not been formally recovered by the Army. Indeed, Mr. President, I would like to enclose for the record a letter I received yesterday from one American who has located several crash sites in New Guinea. All this amendment does, Mr. President, is ensure that the Army works hard at locating, excavating, and identifying remains from these crash sites. By passing this amendment, we increase the likelihood that some of these families of missing World War II aviators will finally have a grave at which to lay flowers during a future Memorial Day. It's the least we can do, Mr. President, to honor those who made the ultimate sacrifice, and their aging family members. Accounting for missing servicemen from World War II is just as important as accounting for missing servicemen from the Vietnam or Korean Wars. Each of these brave men made the ultimate sacrifice for their country. This amendment makes sure every effort is made to account for these missing servicemen. I ask unanimous consent to have the letter printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for S. 1059, the National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2000. As Chairman of the Strategic Subcommittee, I want to briefly summarize the Strategic Subcommittee portion of the Armed Services Committee markup and the philosophy that it is based on. As in the past, the Strategic Subcommittee has reviewed the adequacy of programs and policies in five key areas: (1) ballistic and cruise missile defense; (2) national security space programs; (3) strategic nuclear delivery systems; (4) military intelligence; and (5) Department of Energy activities regarding the nuclear weapons stockpile, nuclear waste cleanup, and other defense activities. This year, the subcommittee's review included two field hearings--one at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory on DOE weapons programs, and one at U.S. Space Command in Colorado Springs on U.S. national security space programs. In addition, the subcommittee visited the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command in Huntsville Alabama, Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana, the Capistrano High Energy Laser Test facility in California, Beale Air Force Base in California, and a variety of military facilities in the Denver and Colorado Springs area. These visits greatly enhanced my understanding of the issues under the subcommittee's jurisdiction and significantly influenced the bill before us today. The Strategic Subcommittee recommended funding increases for critical programs under the subcommittee's jurisdiction by approximately $850 million, including an increase of $500 million for Ballistic Missile Defense programs, $220 million for national security space programs, $110 million for strategic forces, and $50 million for military intelligence. The Strategic Subcommittee also supported the full amount requested by the Department of Energy with the exception of the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program. Let me highlight the key funding and legislative issues. In the area of missile defense the Strategic Subcommittee included the following funding: An increase of $120 million to accelerate the Navy Upper Tier program and provide for continued development of advanced radar concepts. An increase of $212 million to fix the Patriot PAC-3 funding shortfall so the program can begin production during fiscal year 2000. An increase of $60 million to begin production of the Patriot Anti-Cruise missile program, which will provide an upgraded seeker for older Patriot missiles. In the area of space programs and technologies, the Strategic Subcommittee included the following funding: An increase of $92 million, which the Administration requested, to fully fund the revised Space Based Infrared System (High) program. An increase of $111 million for advanced space technology development, including funds for space control technology, micro-satellite technology, and space maneuver vehicle development. In the area of strategic nuclear delivery systems, the Strategic Subcommittee included the following funding: An increase of $40 million for the Minuteman III Guidance Replacement Program to put the program on a more efficient production schedule. An increase of $52.4 million for bomber upgrades based on the Air Force's unfunded priorities list, including funding for the B-2 Link-16 program and B-52 radar upgrades. In the area of military intelligence programs the Strategic Subcommittee included a number of funding increases, including an increase of $25 million for U-2 cockpit and defensive system upgrades. I would note that the Strategic Subcommittee toured the U-2 base at Beale Air Force base and witnessed first hand the serious deficiencies associated with the U-2. In the area of DOD legislative provisions, the Strategic Subcommittee included the following: A provision addressing DOD's proposed TMD Upper Tier strategy, which reverses DOD's decision to compete Navy Upper Tier and THAAD. A provision establishing a commission to assess U.S. national security space organization and management, which is modeled after the Rumsfeld Commission. A provision limiting the Retirement of strategic nuclear delivery systems, which extends last year's law on this matter, but also allows the Navy to retire 4 older Trident submarines while modernizing the remaining fleet to carry the D-5 missile. A provision regarding the Airborne Laser program, which requires a number of tests, certifications, and acquisition strategy modifications before the program can move into successive phases of its development. A provision regarding the Space Based Laser program, which requires near-term focus on an Integrated Flight Experiment. In the Department of Energy section of the markup, the Strategic Subcommittee provided the full amount of the Administration's request with the exception of the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program. I took great pains to examine the budget request and eliminate those funding items that do not support organizational mission requirements. In the weapons program, my goal was to ensure DOE has a well planned and funded stockpile life extension program that is capable to remanufacturing and certifying every warhead in the enduring U.S. nuclear stockpile. My goal in the cleanup program was to maintain the pace of clean-up at DOE facilities and continue to press for earlier deployment of innovative technologies to lower out-year costs. The Strategic Subcommittee included the following recommendations regarding DOE funding: An increase of $55 million for the four traditional weapons production plants. An increase of $15 million for the tritium production program. A reduction of $30.0 million to the Advanced Strategic Computing Initiative. An increase of $35 million to support security and counter-intelligence activities. An increase of $17 million to increase security investigations in support of security clearances at DOE. In the area of DOE legislative provisions, the Strategic Subcommittee included the following: A substantial package of legislation dealing with security and counter-intelligence at DOE. A provision regarding tritium production, which would require DOE to implement the Secretary's tritium production decision. Mr. President, in closing let me reiterate my strong support for S. 1059. This is a good bill that deserves strong bipartisan support. property conveyance at nike batter base 80 in east hanover, new jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment of the Senator from Mississippi. This amendment deserves the support of every Senator because it is the right thing to do. During World War II more than 10,000 Americans served their country on LCS ships, and these ships were heavily involved in combat in the Pacific. There is only one LCS left in the world, and a group of World War II sailors wants to bring that ship back to the United States and make it a floating museum. Three years ago, I sponsored an amendment to the Defense authorization bill urging the Secretary of Defense to seek the expeditious return of the LCS 102 from Thailand. That amendment passed the Congress and became part of Public Law 104-201. For three years not much has happened because the Thai Navy still needed the LCS 102, even though it is now more than 55 years old. Thai officials have indicated that they would be prepared to return the LCS 102 to the United States if we could provide a suitable ship to take its place. The U.S. Navy is planning to retire just such a ship this year, and that is what this amendment is about. The ranks of those World War II sailors is thinning each year, and there is a need to move expeditiously. We need to bring this historic ship home before all of our World War II veterans are gone. Let me list briefly some facts about LCS ships and their service to our country. These ships were born out of desperate need. In the early years of World War II, our Navy and Marine Corps discovered that they needed more close-in gunfire support to protect our troops as they went ashore in amphibious landings. With typical American ingenuity, a new small gunboat was designed and quickly moved into production. The result was the LCS(L) which stood for Landing Craft Support Ship (Large). This newly designed ship had more firepower per ton than a battleship, and it was capable of going all the way in to the beach and providing close-in fire support for our troops going ashore. One hundred and thirty of these ships were built and rushed into service in 1944 and 1945. These ships and their brave crews helped save the lives of countless soldiers and Marines by providing heavy close-in firepower to support amphibious landings at Okinawa, Iwo Jima, and many other Pacific Islands. Twenty-six of these ships were sunk or badly damaged in the Pacific campaign. These ships were nicknamed the ``Mighty Midgets'' because of their firepower and their service in World War II. These ships, like so many others, received little notice when the history books were written because Carriers, Battleships, and Cruisers took most of the glory. However, the sailors aboard LCSs served bravely and well, and their part of World War II needs to be preserved as a part of our Navy's history. LCS sailors received many decorations for their service during World War II. A young Lieutenant by the name of Richard McCool from Washington State received the Congressional Medal of Honor from President Truman for his service at Okinawa. A young Lieutenant by the name of John F. Lehman received a bronze star for his service at Okinawa, as well. His son, John, Jr. served as a naval officer many years later and became Secretary of the Navy under President Reagan. Since the mid-1990s, several books have been published covering the history of the LCS ships. Former Secretary of the Navy John F. Lehman, Jr. wrote the foreword to one of those books. This foreword provides eloquent summary of the service to our Nation provided by LCSs and their brave sailors. Finally, Mr. President, a distinguished former Senator who served as Chairman of the Armed Services Committee in this body served ably as a Boatswain's Mate on an LCS during World War II. John Tower served his nation in World War II on an LCS. This body needs to honor his service and that of all the LCS sailors by helping to save the LCS 102--the only one left in the world. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to do what they can to help in the task of bringing this ship home to the United States to serve as a museum and a memorial to the valiant service of thousands of LCS sailors.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Davis-Bacon Repeal Act of 1999. This legislation would repeal the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931, which guarantees high wages for workers on Federal construction projects, and the Copeland Act, which imposes weekly payroll reporting requirements. Davis-Bacon requires contractors on Federal construction projects costing over $2,000 to pay their workers no less than the ``prevailing wage'' for comparable work in their local area. The U.S. Department of Labor has the final say on what the term ``prevailing wage'' means, but the prevailing wage usually is based on union-negotiated wages. My bill would allow free market forces, rather than bureaucrats at the Labor Department in Washington, DC., to determine the amount of construction wages. There is simply no need to have the Labor Department dictating wage rates for workers on Federal construction projects in every locality in the United States. The Department of Labor's Office of the Inspector General recently issues a devastating report showing that inaccurate information had been used in Davis-Bacon wage determinations in several states. The errors caused wages or fringe benefits to be overstated by as much as $1.00 per hour, in some cases. If Davis-Bacon were repealed, American taxpayers would save more than $3 billion over a 5-year period, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Davis-Bacon also stifles competition in Federal bidding for construction projects, especially with respect to small businesses. Small construction companies are not knowledgeable about Federal contracting procedures; and they simply cannot afford to hire the staff needed to comply with Davis-Bacon's complex work rules and reporting requirements. Congress passed Davis-Bacon during the Great Depression, a period in which work was scarce. In those days, construction workers were willing to take what jobs they could find, regardless of the wage rate; most construction was publicly financed; and there were no other Federal worker protections on the books. Conditions in the construction industry have changed a lot since then, however. Today, unemployment rates are low, and public works construction makes up only about 20 percent of the construction industry's activity. Also, we now have many Federal laws on the books to protect workers. Such laws include the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which imposes a general minimum wage, the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, the Miller Act of 1935, the Contract Work House and Safety Standards Act of 1962, and the Social Security Act. Yet the construction industry still has to operate under Davis- Bacon's inflexible 1930s work requirements and play by its payroll reporting rules. Under the law's craft-by-craft requirements, for example, contractors must pay Davis-Bacon wages for individuals who perform a given craft's work. In many cases, that means a contractor either must pay a high wage to an unskilled worker for performing menial tasks, or he must pay a high wage to an experienced worker for these menial tasks. These requirements reduce productivity. A related problem with Davis-Bacon is that it reduces entry-level jobs and training opportunities for the disadvantaged. Because the law makes it costly for contractors to hire lower-skilled workers on construction projects, the statute creates a disincentive to hire entry-level workers and provide on-the-job training. The Congressional Budget Office raised this issue in its analysis, ``Modifying the Davis-Bacon Act: Implications for the Labor Market and the Federal Budget.'' As stated in that 1983 study: Although the effect of Davis-Bacon on wages receives the most attention, the Act's largest potential cost impact may derive from its effect on the use of labor. For one thing, DOL wage determinations require that, if an employee does the work of a particular craft, the wage paid should be for the craft. For example, carpentry work must be paid for at carpenters' wages, even if performed by a general laborer, helper or member of another craft. Moreover, the General Accounting Office has maintained that the Davis-Bacon Act is no longer needed. GAO began to openly question Davis-Bacon in the 1960s; and in 1979, it issued a report calling for the Act's repeal. Titled ``The Davis-Bacon Act Should Be Repealed,'' the report states: ``[o]ther wage legislation and changes in economic conditions and in the construction industry since the law was passed make the law obsolete; and the law is inflationary.'' To those who remain unconvinced that Davis-Bacon is bad public policy, I urge a review of the Act's legislative history. Some early supporters of Davis-Bacon advocated its passage as a means to discriminate against minorities. For instance, Clayton Allgood, a member of the 71st Congress, argued on the House floor that Davis-Bacon would keep contractors from employing ``cheap colored labor'' on construction projects. As stated by Congressman Allgood on February 28, 1931, ``it is labor of that sort that is in competition with white labor throughout the country.'' Unfortunately, Davis-Bacon still has the effect of keeping minority-owned construction firms from competing for Federal construction contract, because many such firms are small businesses. Early supporters of Davis-Bacon also believed that the law would prevent outside contractors from undermining local firms in the Federal bidding process. In practice, however, Davis-Bacon wages hurt local businesses and make it more likely that outside contractors will win bids for Federal projects. Mr. President, for all of the above reasons, I believe that the Davis-Bacon Act should be repealed. I urge my colleagues to support the Davis-Bacon Repeal Act of 1999. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Davis-Bacon Repeal Act of 1999. This legislation would repeal the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931, which guarantees high wages for workers on Federal construction projects, and the Copeland Act, which imposes weekly payroll reporting requirements. Davis-Bacon requires contractors on Federal construction projects costing over $2,000 to pay their workers no less than the ``prevailing wage'' for comparable work in their local area. The U.S. Department of Labor has the final say on what the term ``prevailing wage'' means, but the prevailing wage usually is based on union-negotiated wages. My bill would allow free market forces, rather than bureaucrats at the Labor Department in Washington, DC., to determine the amount of construction wages. There is simply no need to have the Labor Department dictating wage rates for workers on Federal construction projects in every locality in the United States. The Department of Labor's Office of the Inspector General recently issues a devastating report showing that inaccurate information had been used in Davis-Bacon wage determinations in several states. The errors caused wages or fringe benefits to be overstated by as much as $1.00 per hour, in some cases. If Davis-Bacon were repealed, American taxpayers would save more than $3 billion over a 5-year period, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Davis-Bacon also stifles competition in Federal bidding for construction projects, especially with respect to small businesses. Small construction companies are not knowledgeable about Federal contracting procedures; and they simply cannot afford to hire the staff needed to comply with Davis-Bacon's complex work rules and reporting requirements. Congress passed Davis-Bacon during the Great Depression, a period in which work was scarce. In those days, construction workers were willing to take what jobs they could find, regardless of the wage rate; most construction was publicly financed; and there were no other Federal worker protections on the books. Conditions in the construction industry have changed a lot since then, however. Today, unemployment rates are low, and public works construction makes up only about 20 percent of the construction industry's activity. Also, we now have many Federal laws on the books to protect workers. Such laws include the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which imposes a general minimum wage, the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, the Miller Act of 1935, the Contract Work House and Safety Standards Act of 1962, and the Social Security Act. Yet the construction industry still has to operate under Davis- Bacon's inflexible 1930s work requirements and play by its payroll reporting rules. Under the law's craft-by-craft requirements, for example, contractors must pay Davis-Bacon wages for individuals who perform a given craft's work. In many cases, that means a contractor either must pay a high wage to an unskilled worker for performing menial tasks, or he must pay a high wage to an experienced worker for these menial tasks. These requirements reduce productivity. A related problem with Davis-Bacon is that it reduces entry-level jobs and training opportunities for the disadvantaged. Because the law makes it costly for contractors to hire lower-skilled workers on construction projects, the statute creates a disincentive to hire entry-level workers and provide on-the-job training. The Congressional Budget Office raised this issue in its analysis, ``Modifying the Davis-Bacon Act: Implications for the Labor Market and the Federal Budget.'' As stated in that 1983 study: Although the effect of Davis-Bacon on wages receives the most attention, the Act's largest potential cost impact may derive from its effect on the use of labor. For one thing, DOL wage determinations require that, if an employee does the work of a particular craft, the wage paid should be for the craft. For example, carpentry work must be paid for at carpenters' wages, even if performed by a general laborer, helper or member of another craft. Moreover, the General Accounting Office has maintained that the Davis-Bacon Act is no longer needed. GAO began to openly question Davis-Bacon in the 1960s; and in 1979, it issued a report calling for the Act's repeal. Titled ``The Davis-Bacon Act Should Be Repealed,'' the report states: ``[o]ther wage legislation and changes in economic conditions and in the construction industry since the law was passed make the law obsolete; and the law is inflationary.'' To those who remain unconvinced that Davis-Bacon is bad public policy, I urge a review of the Act's legislative history. Some early supporters of Davis-Bacon advocated its passage as a means to discriminate against minorities. For instance, Clayton Allgood, a member of the 71st Congress, argued on the House floor that Davis-Bacon would keep contractors from employing ``cheap colored labor'' on construction projects. As stated by Congressman Allgood on February 28, 1931, ``it is labor of that sort that is in competition with white labor throughout the country.'' Unfortunately, Davis-Bacon still has the effect of keeping minority-owned construction firms from competing for Federal construction contract, because many such firms are small businesses. Early supporters of Davis-Bacon also believed that the law would prevent outside contractors from undermining local firms in the Federal bidding process. In practice, however, Davis-Bacon wages hurt local businesses and make it more likely that outside contractors will win bids for Federal projects. Mr. President, for all of the above reasons, I believe that the Davis-Bacon Act should be repealed. I urge my colleagues to support the Davis-Bacon Repeal Act of 1999. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. I indicated I am more than happy to have the Senator from Nebraska finish his remarks, but if he chooses to have me proceed now, I will be happy to do that. Section 1041 of this bill, which is in question here in the amendment of Senator Kerrey, does prohibit the retirement of certain strategic delivery systems unless START II enters into force. The amendment by the Senator from Nebraska just strikes that entire section, section 1041. For the last several years, the Defense Authorization Act has included a provision limiting the retirement of strategic delivery systems. Recently, it has specifically prohibited reductions below 18 Trident submarines, 500 Minuteman III ICBMs, 50 Peacekeeper ICBMs, and 71 B-52s. This year the provision has been modified to allow the Navy to reduce the number of Trident submarines from 18 to 14. This change was made after close consultation with U.S. Strategic Command, the Navy, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense. On April 14, 1999, the Strategic Subcommittee conducted a hearing on this matter. We did agree to reduce the number of Tridents from 18 to 14, with my support. The overall intent of the provision is to send a signal to Russia, that if they want the benefits of START II, then they ought to ratify the treaty. I think this is where I part ways, respectfully, with my colleague. This really is a unilateral implementation of START II--or to make even deeper reductions that would fundamentally undermine the arms control process and our national security. I believe I am correct, the Senator supported START II. If he is going to make unilateral reductions as part of our policy, I do not think it leaves much incentive for the Russian side to do what they have to do to get to START II. But section 1041 is a very flexible provision. Since it must be renewed each year, there is ample opportunity to take into consideration proposals by the administration and to make our force structure adjustments as necessary. This was demonstrated this year in the way the Armed Services Committee responded to the Navy's proposal, which was to retire four of the oldest Trident submarines. With all due respect, the adoption of the Senator's amendment I believe could be interpreted as a sign that Congress no longer supports the policy of remaining at START I levels until START II enters into force. It seems to me the Senator is advocating that explicitly, but I could be wrong. I note that the administration does not support such a change in policy and, indeed, the administration's budget request fully funds the forces at the levels specified in the section in question that the Senator wishes to strike, section 1041. The provision does not preclude the administration from making any changes in U.S. force structure that it is currently planning to make. Section 1041 does not require the administration to retain any strategic delivery system that it otherwise would retire. It is clear that the principal objective of this amendment is to encourage unilateral arms reductions outside the framework of existing arms control agreements. My concern is this is a very dramatic departure from existing U.S. policy. Essentially, this approach would amount to an abandonment of, or certainly a significant deviation from, the formal arms control process. I may support a change in U.S. policy that would base our strategic force posture on a unilateral definition of U.S. military requirements rather than on the arms control framework, but I believe that as long as formal arms control agreements govern our force posture, we ought to adhere to a policy of not unilaterally implementing such agreements. Also, just as a bit of a side discussion here, the issue of what has happened now with China may also sound an alarm bell that these agreements with the Russians--were the Soviets, now the Russians--may not be the major issue before us if things keep going. One has to remember that an agreement, START I, START II agreements with the then Soviets, now Russians, for arms control reductions between two countries in a bilateral world, could very well now expand to something beyond just the bilateral agreements with the Russians to the Chinese and perhaps to Syria and Libya and even Iran, or some other nice countries out there that are now, thanks to the Chinese, going to be receiving a lot of our secrets, if you will, nuclear weapons. That furthers the case for not unilaterally reducing these systems without the Russians agreeing first. I therefore urge my colleagues to oppose the Kerrey amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, during the markup of the defense authorization bill in committee, we twice rejected base closure amendments. So it does seem anticlimatic to be out here on the floor again for the very same proposal. But such is the way of the Senate sometimes. Senators McCain and Levin did offer an amendment to have two rounds of base closures in 2001 and 2003. The process was adjusted to ensure that the next incoming President would appoint the commissioners. Everything else was identical to the amendment now being offered, and the amendment was defeated by a vote of 12-8, with members on both sides of the aisle voting one way or the other. Then Senators Levin and McCain offered another amendment that called for only one round of base closures in 2001. The House version of the Fiscal Year 2000 Defense Authorization bill is silent on base closures. Opposition to base closure in the House is much stronger than it is in the Senate, and the Membership has let it be known that they will oppose any base closure legislation in conference, even though the administration proposes these two rounds in 2001 and 2005. We are in a debate on the floor taking a lot of the Senate's time on a proposal that probably lacks the support in both the House and the Senate to get this to the President's desk. There have been a lot of arguments made on both sides. Let me offer a few of my own. During previous rounds, the Department had the opportunity to reduce the infrastructure to the extent that it believed necessary. That was the purpose of the previous rounds. The bottom line is that the Department failed to do that. When first announced, the 1995 BRAC round was proclaimed to be ``the mother of all BRACs.'' But the outcome was just a whimper; it was a little daughter rather than a mother. Any purported savings of another round of these closures would not be available in the near-to-medium term for the procurement of equipment and weapons modernization or any other purpose. That is really what we care about. We want money for new equipment. We want money for readiness and modernization. The bottom line, as most of my colleagues know, is that it is going to cost us in the immediate future money that we desperately need right now for readiness. No one disputes that if you close down infrastructure, in the long run it is going to save money. That is obvious. But it is going to cost us somewhere in the vicinity of $3.2 billion right up front to begin the closing, with the environmental issues and all the changes that have to be made: the upfront cost transfer of units and equipment, new facilities at receiving installations, buyouts of civilian employees and environmental cleanup. If we do not have the dollars now to do what we need to modernize our troops, to get the equipment they need, to get them up to the readiness level at which they should be--how will we be able to pay these initial costs? Arguments that have been made, rightfully so, by Senator Inhofe and others, concerning the politicization of the last BRAC process. We all know that the administration seriously damaged the base closure process by its handling of the Commission's 1995 recommendations concerning McClellan Air Force Base in California and Kelly Air Force Base in Texas. We need to let these issues settled. There are a lot of hard feelings left over from that. We need to fully resolve these issues before we attempt another round. BRAC should be focused on excess capacity, but it should not be an excessively broad approach. We ought to target any future BRAC legislation--we do not want every single installation in America to be in BRAC purgatory. I believe the Senator from Kansas, who is in the Chair now, has used that term. And that is what happens. Everybody gets put in this purgatory and everybody has to hire all these consultants and experts to try to get out of purgatory and hopefully not go to Hell, but hopefully wind up in Heaven, with their base preserved. As the number of worldwide commitments increases for the Armed Forces, we should be considering increasing the size of the Armed Forces. We can make a very compelling case for that. I am willing to make it. Further base closures could preclude that eventuality. What we lose, we never get back. For example, if we close a shipyard, imagine how much time and effort and money we would have to expend, and how many environmental hoops we would have to jump through to open another shipyard after it has been developed into condominiums along the harbor somewhere. We will never be able to do it. Once it is gone, it is gone. We need to understand that. I think we have to look at it and ask ourselves this basic question: Is it now the time to reduce further our infrastructure for the purpose of some long-term savings that are going to cost us in the short term when there is all this uncertainty out there? The Senator from Michigan very eloquently, in his statement, talked about the percentage argument--that force structure has gone down 36 percent, personnel has gone down 40 percent, and base closings are only down 18 percent. That sounds like a fair argument, and it sounds like you ought to be able to put it all together, and there ought to be an even 36 or 40 percent cut in all areas. But that is not the case. If you use an analogy of a football team, your team may be half the size it used to be, but you still have to have a stadium to play in. So you can reduce helmets and you can reduce personnel and you can reduce support, bandages, or whatever you need for the players, but you still have to have a stadium. So I do not think you can break it down that simply. It does not matter whether you have a good team or a bad team, or whether you have 75 players as backup or 12 players as backup, you still need a stadium, you still need to have a certain amount of infrastructure to run the team. So I say this is very ill-advised. We do not know where we are going. I personally believe that right now, the way things are going in the world, we are going to have to increase, not decrease, our personnel, increase, not decrease, our forces, and if we are going to do all that, we are going to have to have the infrastructure to support it. So I hope this amendment will be defeated for those reasons alone, not to mention the anguish the communities would have to go through. I think it is important to understand that the President of the United States is calling up reserves right now, in great numbers, to be deployed, Lord knows where--perhaps Bosnia, perhaps Kosovo; we do not know just where. We do not know what other crisis may break out. I just think it is a terrible time to think about taking down infrastructure. What message does that send to the troops out there and to the people who support those troops all across the country in the bases and the infrastructure around those bases? What message does it send to those people if we say, in spite of all of this increase in activity around the world, we are now still going to eliminate more infrastructure, not knowing what we need for the next crisis? We can eliminate it at some point, if it is necessary. We are not saving that much now to do it. As a matter of fact, even in the short term it is costing us. So there is no rush here. I think we ought to just settle down, take a careful look at what we are doing, reevaluate our entire military structure--and in my view, increase the size of our forces--and not rush to judgment here with some additional base closings. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. How much time does the Senator need?

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. How much time does the Senator require?

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Is there a UC on the time?

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I yield the Senator 1 additional minute.