Bob Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Alfred Testa on his departure as the Director of Manchester Airport. Fred has been the Director of Manchester Airport since 1991. He has brought about tremendous and exciting change to the airport during his tenure and I am proud to have worked with him during his distinguished career. Fred came to Manchester after serving as Deputy Director of T.F. Green Airport in Warwick, Rhode Island. He is a graduate of the University of Rhode Island with a B.A. in Political Science and earned his J.D. at Suffolk University Law School. He is an Accredited Airport Executive with the American Association of Airport Executives and is a regular lecturer on airport development, management and marketing. Fred has been the driving force behind the substantial growth at Manchester Airport. When Fred began as Manchester Airport's Director, the airport handled approximately 700,000 passengers a year and there were six commercial airlines that serviced the airport. Today, there are eleven commercial airlines based there, and last year, the airport served almost 2 million travelers. Fred's efforts have played a key role in the City of Manchester's nationally recognized renaissance. Fred has worked closely with each member of the New Hampshire Congressional Delegation - educating, advising, and encouraging us to undertake a number of vital federal initiatives at the airport. He has vigorously pursued support for the Residential Sound Insulation Program; the New Passenger Terminal; the New Armed Forces Reserve Center; the Manchester Airport Access Road; and the Runway, Taxiway, Parking, Roadway and Terminal Improvements and U.S. Customs Service's at the renovated Ammon Terminal. It has been my great privilege to work with Fred on these and other important airport projects which have fundamentally changed for the better air transportation services for New Hampshire. Fred deserves the highest admiration and praise for these significant accomplishments. Fred leaves Manchester Airport to become the Director of Philadelphia International Airport. Aldermen and the Mayor of Manchester have expressed high praise for the work Fred did for the City of Manchester, and I strongly agree. His leadership and effective advocacy for safe and efficient airline transportation will be fondly remembered by all New Hampshire citizens. Once again, I would like to commend Fred Testa on his service to Manchester Airport and the State of New Hampshire. His work was greatly beneficial to the City and the State, and I wish him well. It has been a pleasure to represent Fred Testa in the United States Senate, and I am proud to call him my friend.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a member of my staff, Clint Crosier, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of this debate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to express my wholehearted, overwhelming, passionate, and unwavering support of the National Missile Defense Act of 1999. Finally, after years of fighting to get this legislation to a point where we can pass it, we appear to have succeeded. I sincerely hope it is not too late. The President had promised to veto this bill if we passed it. I was glad to hear last night that he has now dropped his veto threat. Unfortunately, his pledge comes a little late and still falls far short of the full support that we need to truly protect our citizens. As Chairman of the Armed Services Committee's Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, I have devoted myself wholeheartedly to the cause of missile defense for many years. It has always troubled me that the President of the United States has refused to engage us and help us to pass a bill to defend the United States of America and its citizens from ballistic missile attack. It has been especially troubling in recent days, with news that data on our most sophisticated nuclear warhead may have been stolen by China--which may have already used this information to perfect their own warheads on missiles aimed this very minute at the United States. The President seems to believe we need to let Russia have a vote on whether or not we choose to protect ourselves from blackmail and coercion from China, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. With all due respect, I am not interested in having the Russians determine whether or not we should protect ourselves. I am more interested in having us determine whether or not we should protect ourselves. The administration tells us that there are four critical criteria that must be met before we can decide whether to deploy a national missile defense: threat, technology, operational effectiveness, and cost. Let's look at these four issues; first, the threat. The Administration's national missile defense agenda is based upon, I believe, a false assumption that we will have plenty of warning to respond to the threat. We can't base the security of the United States of America on our ability to detect and predict existing or emerging threats around the world. And we do not have to--it is here even as we speak. The administration can no longer ignore the threat. It is real, it is dangerous, and it is here now, today, this moment. In May of 1998, India conducted three nuclear tests that shocked the world, and even worse, surprised our intelligence community. Ten days later, Pakistan conducted their own nuclear test. In July of 1998, a bipartisan commission headed by Don Rumsfeld, former Defense Secretary, came to some very startling assertions. Here is what he said: Hostile nations such as North Korea, Iran, and Iraq are making concerted efforts to acquire ballistic missiles with biological or nuclear payloads that will be able to inflict major destruction on the U.S. within five years of a decision to acquire such capability. And further, the U.S. might not even be aware if or when such a decision has been made. That is a pretty sobering analysis, Mr. President. He went on to say: The threat from rogue countries is evolving more rapidly than U.S. intelligence has told us, and our ability to detect a threat is eroding because nations are increasingly able to conceal important elements of their missile programs. The U.S. faces a missile threat from hostile states with little or no warning. The Rumsfeld Commission was bipartisan, and its conclusions were unanimous. Yet the entire report was downplayed by the administration. It was dismissed as paranoid, alarmist, and out of touch with current intelligence estimates. But only 2 months later, 2 months after the Rumsfeld report, the North Koreans shocked the world with the launch of a three-staged Taepo Dong missile over Japan. This signaled their progress toward the Taepo Dong 2 that could hit the continental United States. Some in the Senate have been willing to write off Hawaii and Alaska because they are not continental. I notice that the Senators from Alaska and Hawaii were not willing to write themselves off, however. They were early advocates and supporters and cosponsors of this legislation in both political parties. Not to be outdone, after North Korea, Iran tested their own new generation missile within weeks of the Rumsfeld report. On February 2 of this year, CIA Director George Tenet testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee: I see a real possibility that a power hostile to the United States will acquire before too long the ability to strike the U.S. homeland with weapons of mass destruction. In an interview with Defense Week on 23 February, Lieutenant General Lyles, Chief of the BMD organization, said: We now have indications that the threat is growing, and certainly there is little doubt that this threat will be there around the year 2000. The CIA recently reported that China has at least a dozen nuclear missiles aimed at U.S. cities right now. I say to my colleagues, the threat is here. How much more warning do we need? Let's go to the technology and the operational effectiveness issues that the President and some of this bill's critics have talked about. They say that this bill would require a deployment before the technology is ready. But technology and operational effectiveness are the cornerstones of this legislation. No one is suggesting we deploy a system before it is ready. How can we deploy something before it is ready? How can we deploy something that doesn't work? And yet we have had a big debate on this terminology. The Senator from Mississippi has done a good job, I think, in shooting holes in that false argument. I honestly do not understand what the debate between ``technologically possible'' and ``operationally effective'' is all about. This is what the bill says: . . . to deploy as soon as technologically possible an effective national missile defense. . . . It is pretty clear. When the technology allows us to build an effective system, we deploy it. Is that too much for the American people to expect from their elected leaders, who are sworn to protect and serve them? Are we going to build a system, know that it is effective, but then not deploy it? I do not think so. If we had something that was technologically possible and operationally effective and we didn't deploy it, I think our constituents would be a little upset with us. There are also those who claim it is simply too hard to, as they say, hit a bullet with a bullet. If we all had that attitude, we would still be using bows and arrows to defend ourselves. We certainly would not have the technology that we have today in stealth and missiles and lasers if we adopted that ``can't do'' attitude. Just 2 days ago at White Sands, we did successfully intercept a missile target with a Patriot-3 missile, proving we can hit a bullet with a bullet. The only problem is that when you hit the bullet with the Patriot, you are hitting it pretty close to you. What we want to do is hit that bullet long before it gets anywhere near us. The third issue the administration wants to base a deployment decision on is affordable cost. Boy, there is a bureaucratic attitude if I ever heard one. That statement is--frankly, with all due respect to those who made it--unconscionable. On February 2, Director Tenet told the Senate Armed Services Committee: North Korea's Taepo Dong 1 launch last August demonstrated technology that, if further developed, could give Pyongyang the ability to deliver a payload to the western edge of the United States of America. To put it bluntly, North Korea will soon be able to strike San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland, and Seattle with nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons--and the President is telling us he is worried about the cost? He is worried about the cost? What is the cost of one of those missiles hitting one of those cities? What in the world is he talking about? I wish he had been as worried about having a spy continue to operate in one of our weapons labs for 3 years without doing anything about it. I note that the combined population of just the five cities I mentioned is 30 million people. The total population from San Diego to Seattle is 50 million people. What is the cost of losing 30 to 50 million people to that kind of missile attack? With all due respect, is the President willing to go out there and look those 50 million people in the eye and say, ``We're going to check this out to see if it is affordable''? I say, if we are worried about money, then let's take money out of someplace else in the budget and protect 50 million people along the western coast of the United States of America. The President wants to tell U.S. citizens we cannot protect them from weapons of mass destruction until we figure out how much it might cost. I say it is the opposite. We have to defend our citizens, and worry later about the cost. This is not an imagined threat. The CIA recently reported that China now has a dozen missiles aimed at the United States. We have all heard the reports of the Chinese general who, in 1996, warned that if we chose to defend Taiwan, we had better be willing to sacrifice Los Angeles. This, from a nation that the administration says we must engage. Those are pretty tough words from a country that we are supposed to be engaging. Maybe we ought to disengage a little bit from China when it threatens us with nuclear attack and steals our nuclear secrets from our lab at Los Alamos. Cost is a matter of relative priorities, Mr. President. As Senator Sessions pointed out recently, the cost of a 3-year deployment to Kosovo could reach 50 percent of what this administration plans to spend on national missile defense. We have already spent as much in Bosnia in the past 3 years as an entire NMD program is estimated to cost. Priorities, I say to my colleagues, priorities. Kosovo, Bosnia or 50 million people along the coast of the United States? We know what the President has chosen as his priority. What is the Senate going to choose for its priority? Let's go to the last issue, the ABM Treaty of 1972, the bible for some people in this body. The biggest fear is that we are going to undermine the ABM Treaty. What ABM Treaty? We signed the ABM Treaty with the U.S.S.R. The last time I looked, there was no U.S.S.R. On the 20th anniversary of the ratification of the treaty, President Nixon said: The ABM Treaty has been overtaken by the cold war's end. Dr. Kissinger, the primary architect of the treaty, said in 1995 in testimony before the Congress that the time had clearly come to: . . . consider either amending the ABM Treaty or finding some other basis for regulating the U.S.-Russian strategic relationship. The ABM Treaty now stands in the way of our ability to respond in an effective manner to the proliferation of ballistic missiles, one of the most significant post cold war threats. That came from the architect of the treaty. He is saying that the treaty stands in the way of our ability to defend ourselves. Even Secretary of Defense Cohen recently said before the Senate Armed Services Committee that we may have to consider withdrawing from the ABM Treaty. I am not advocating withdrawing at this point. I am just insisting that we not let the treaty harm our national security. How absurd would it be for us to continue to honor the treaty with Russia, preventing us from protecting ourselves from weapons of mass destruction, while all other nuclear-capable countries of the world would be free to develop their own missile defense? What would that do to American security if we could not defend ourselves, but our enemies could? Does that make sense? Am I missing something here? I just do not understand the foreign policy of this administration. In conclusion, it would be indefensible to the American people to concede that the threat of rogue missile attacks is real and credible, but offer only a self-imposed weak defense against it. It is unconscionable. If the threat to the American people is real, then the defense against these attacks must be real; not only that, it must be aggressive, full-scale and monumental. Whatever resources are necessary, the American people deserve to be defended. Some in the minority claim that the passage of this bill might lead to a new arms race with the Russians. But everyone knows that any missile defense currently in development would not upset the balance of power between Russia and the United States. NMD will provide defense against only limited and rogue attacks, not against incoming Russian missiles. What about Russia's proliferation of missile technology to rogue states? Between technology transfers to Iran, India, and perhaps even China, Russia is a large part of the reason we are here debating this bill today, because they are selling their technology around the world. Proliferation is already a growing threat, independent of this bill. Mr. President, we must pass this bill. This is not a partisan issue. It is an issue of national security. And the defense of the American homeland against a real and growing threat of ballistic missiles and our national security depends on it. I urge my colleagues to pass this bill, and to do it today. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``Second Anendment Rights Protection Act of 1999.'' I am pleased and honored that Senators Inhofe, Burns, Enzi, and Murkowski are joining me as original cosponsors. Mr. President, the Second Amendment Rights Protection Act of 1999 encompasses all of the provisions of the Smith Amendment, which passed the Senate by a vote of 69-31 on July 21, 1998, during consideration of the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill for fiscal year 1999. Only a substantially modified version of the Smith amendment was included in the final omnibus appropriations measure. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) went into effect on December 1, 1998. My bill would require the immediate destruction of all information submitted by any person who has been cleared by the NICS to purchase a firearm. There is no reason why such private information on law-abiding gun owners should be retained. I continue to be troubled by the Clinton administration's insistence upon doing so. In addition, Mr. President, my bill would prohibit the imposition of any tax or fee in connection with the NICS. Once again, in his budget submission for fiscal year 2000, President Clinton is seeking to fund NICS with a gun tax. With the Smith amendment last year, we told President Clinton ``no'' to the gun tax. Let us tell him ``no'' again, once and for all, by enacting the Second Amendment Rights Protection Act. Finally, Mr. President, my bill would create a private cause of action for any individual who is aggrieved by a violation of its provisions. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the printing of the text of my bill, the Second Amendment Rights Protection Act of 1999, in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``Second Anendment Rights Protection Act of 1999.'' I am pleased and honored that Senators Inhofe, Burns, Enzi, and Murkowski are joining me as original cosponsors. Mr. President, the Second Amendment Rights Protection Act of 1999 encompasses all of the provisions of the Smith Amendment, which passed the Senate by a vote of 69-31 on July 21, 1998, during consideration of the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill for fiscal year 1999. Only a substantially modified version of the Smith amendment was included in the final omnibus appropriations measure. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) went into effect on December 1, 1998. My bill would require the immediate destruction of all information submitted by any person who has been cleared by the NICS to purchase a firearm. There is no reason why such private information on law-abiding gun owners should be retained. I continue to be troubled by the Clinton administration's insistence upon doing so. In addition, Mr. President, my bill would prohibit the imposition of any tax or fee in connection with the NICS. Once again, in his budget submission for fiscal year 2000, President Clinton is seeking to fund NICS with a gun tax. With the Smith amendment last year, we told President Clinton ``no'' to the gun tax. Let us tell him ``no'' again, once and for all, by enacting the Second Amendment Rights Protection Act. Finally, Mr. President, my bill would create a private cause of action for any individual who is aggrieved by a violation of its provisions. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the printing of the text of my bill, the Second Amendment Rights Protection Act of 1999, in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have 5 minutes extending beyond the morning business time, no more than 5 minutes.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I thank my colleague, Mr. Voinovich, for not objecting. I would like to compliment my colleague, the Senator from Minnesota, for his support on this issue. Mr. President, 1999 is the eighty-sixth anniversary of the Sixteenth Amendment and the collection of income taxes by the Federal government. It is not an anniversary that we really, in my view, ought to celebrate. As a matter of fact, I propose that we mark the occasion by throwing out our existing tax code and starting over from scratch. The Tax Code Termination Act, which I am pleased to join with my colleague, Senator Tim Hutchinson, and others to soon introduce, would accomplish just that goal. Our bill would sunset the Internal Revenue Code by December 31, 2003. This year provides a good opportunity for the Senate to reexamine the income tax and consider how the tax code has changed. As stated in the Salt Lake Tribune of Wednesday, January 27, 1999, the income tax is a relatively new development: France had an income tax in 1793 and Britain in 1799. With a couple of short-lived exceptions, the United States generally managed to get by without one until 1913. An income tax was levied during the Civil War, but it was dropped after a few years. Congress passed a 2 percent income tax on individuals and business in 1894, but it was ruled unconstitutional. The Constitution barred the federal government from levying direct taxes except in proportion to population. In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution changed the rules, and an income tax was instituted. Shortly after the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified in 1913, Congress passed the first income tax law. The Internal Revenue Service, then an obscure government agency, enforced the new law and collected the income taxes. Back then, the taxpayers got to keep most of their earnings. In 1913, the income tax rate of 1 percent applied only to those making over $3,000 per year. Those making more than $20,000 paid a slightly higher surtax. The highest rate of seven percent was imposed on all income above $500,000. According to Peter Cleary of Americans for Tax Reform, in 1994 dollars, the one-percent income tax would apply on all income up to $250,000, while the seven percent rate would apply only to income above $6 million. Few people had to file returns in 1913. Only about 1 in 250 Americans did. Moreover, the original Form 1040 was brief and simple. As noted in yesterday's Washington Post Magazine, it consisted of just four pages, including one of instructions, and you would have finished calculating your income by Line 7. Since 1913, things have gotten more than a little out of hand. Consider these statistics: Close to half of all Americans file a tax return today. Instead of one form, there are many. According to economist J.T. Young, the average family pays about 25% of its income in Federal, state and local taxes, and ``30 percent of every additional dollar earned by a four-person median income household of $55,000 will go to pay taxes. Individuals and families earning $50,000 and above already pay 82 percent of total taxes and 91 percent of income taxes.'' The average middle-income taxpayer now has to work until at least May of each year just to meet all the federal, state and local taxes due. The Tax Foundation has estimated that collectively, individuals devote close to 2 billion hours to preparing tax returns each year. It's no wonder that Americans dislike the current tax code. It is unnecessarily complex and overly burdensome. Some of my constituents are especially upset about the fact that tax revenues last year grew 9 percent, or twice as fast as the economy. Consider these comments from a man in Exeter, New Hampshire: I have been reading and hearing about the tremendous budget surpluses we can expect over the next ten years. . . . Where is this money coming from and who authorized collecting it? It seems to me that if the government has a surplus it's because they're collecting more than they're spending. If that's the case, why are they collecting more than they're spending? I hope you realize that things like this are what disenfranchise American citizens from their government. How did we get to this point? Much of the blame lies with Congress. We have changed the Federal tax code many times since 1913, turning it into a tangled cobweb that few can understand. The changes have become more complex and the tax rates have increased over the years. What can we do about it? We can abolish the existing tax code and promptly adopt a new one that adheres to some basic rules: First, we should have a tax code that is simple and fair. Second, our tax code should encourage savings and investment. The current code distorts investment by creating incentives for Americans to use tax loopholes, rather than invest their money in more profitable ways. We should provide greater tax relief to the overburdened American taxpayers. Tax cuts would provide American workers with more incentives to produce, because workers would be able to keep more of their earnings. In closing, Mr. President, I want to urge my colleagues to support the Tax Code Termination Act. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. How much time is remaining in morning business, Mr. President?

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that I sponsored in the last Congress to give victims of crime a greater voice in sentencing. My bill, which is being cosponsored by Senators Jeffords and Helms, would reserve two of the seven seats on the United States Sentencing Commission for victims of violent crimes. Mr. President, the Sentencing Commission is an independent entity within the judicial branch that establishes sentencing policies and practices for the Federal courts. This includes sentencing guidelines that prescribe the appropriate form and severity of punishment for offenders convicted of Federal crimes. The U.S. sentencing Commission is composed of seven voting members who are appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, for six-year terms. The Commission also includes two non-voting members. Of the seven voting members of the Sentencing Commission, three must be Federal judges. Under my bill, two of the four seats on the Sentencing Commission that are not filled by Federal judges would be reserved for victims of a crime of violence or, in the case of a homicide, an immediate family member of such a victim. My bill utilizes the definition of a crime of violence that is found in section 16 of title 18 of the United States Code. All seven voting seats on the Sentencing Commission are vacant. Now is the right time to give victims of crime a voice by requiring that two of those vacant seats must be filled by Americans who have been victimized by violent crimes. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that I sponsored in the last Congress to give victims of crime a greater voice in sentencing. My bill, which is being cosponsored by Senators Jeffords and Helms, would reserve two of the seven seats on the United States Sentencing Commission for victims of violent crimes. Mr. President, the Sentencing Commission is an independent entity within the judicial branch that establishes sentencing policies and practices for the Federal courts. This includes sentencing guidelines that prescribe the appropriate form and severity of punishment for offenders convicted of Federal crimes. The U.S. sentencing Commission is composed of seven voting members who are appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, for six-year terms. The Commission also includes two non-voting members. Of the seven voting members of the Sentencing Commission, three must be Federal judges. Under my bill, two of the four seats on the Sentencing Commission that are not filled by Federal judges would be reserved for victims of a crime of violence or, in the case of a homicide, an immediate family member of such a victim. My bill utilizes the definition of a crime of violence that is found in section 16 of title 18 of the United States Code. All seven voting seats on the Sentencing Commission are vacant. Now is the right time to give victims of crime a voice by requiring that two of those vacant seats must be filled by Americans who have been victimized by violent crimes. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Fred Kfoury, Jr., as the 1998 Manchester Chamber of Commerce ``Citizen of the Year.'' I commend his outstanding achievement. Fred is the President of Center Paper Products Company in Manchester, New Hampshire. His company employs forty-five people and is a fixture in the Manchester business community. He is described by his business associates as a very generous, thoughtful businessman. His company, that was passed on to him from his father, continues to grow and thrive. Fred has always tempered his business success with a great devotion to volunteerism. His own philosophy, ``Service to one's community is an integral part of his company's culture,'' has been readily apparent in his actions through the years. Fred has constantly maintained a record of service to his community that is highly admirable. He has been active in organizations from his college alumni association to the annual Christmas party for students and families at Notre Dame College. As a former small business owner, I understand the demands of running a business. I commend Fred for his diligent work in his business as well as the devotion he has shown to the community. Once again, I wish to congratulate Fred on being named 1998 ``Citizen of the Year'' by the Manchester Chamber of Commerce. It is an honor to represent him in the United States Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, as President Reagan would say, ``Here we go again.'' This administration is now on the verge of making a commitment of American forces to another 911 humanitarian crisis around the world, without the approval of Congress. As I stand here today, the United States is poised to launch airstrikes against the sovereign nation of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Given the apparent failure of the talks in France regarding the issue of the peacekeeping force, there is a real possibility that airstrikes may be imminent and that American forces, as part of a NATO force, may be committed in Kosovo. I would venture to say that many Americans would be hard-pressed to find Kosovo on a map; yet here again our sons and daughters are going to be asked to put their lives on the line for this administration without approval of their elected representatives in Congress, and without any declaration of war. Mr. President, this is very, very disturbing. I have spoken out in the past against the Bosnia operation. I have spoken out against our occupation of Haiti. But Kosovo is the last straw for me. Today I am introducing a bill to ensure that Congress exercises its constitutional right of approval before this administration commits us to an act of war against a sovereign nation. If we are going to be taking offensive military action, I don't believe there ought to be any troops in any sovereign nation unless there is a declaration of war, or at least a specific authorization by Congress. The resolution I am introducing simply says that there will be no troops committed in any force of any kind without a specific authorization from the U.S. Congress. I am going to call on my colleagues to join me in this effort before we get embroiled in another long-term conflict that is not in the United States' interest. I want to make a few points about this. This administration apparently thinks nothing of committing an act of war without congressional approval--they will commit troops first, and come to us later and ask for our support. On the contrary, when President Bush wanted to repel Iraq from Kuwait, he came to the Congress--a Democrat-controlled Congress--and Congress authorized him to do that. He came here. He took his chance. He did the right thing. But that is not happening now. While this body has been wrestling with impeachment proceedings, President Clinton's administration has been preparing to wage war. I want to repeat that. We were tied down here for almost 2 months talking about the impeachment of the President of the United States, and while we were doing that, the same President who was nearly removed from office was preparing to wage war against a sovereign nation without congressional approval. That is absolutely outrageous, and I am not going to stand by any longer and be silent about it. The administration has crafted a plan to fix the internal problems of a sovereign state. And it proceeds, then, to hold a so-called peace conference where it threatens to use lethal force against that sovereign state if they don't accept the deal. The two parties are not even interested in an agreement. They still want to fight. They have been fighting in that region of the world for centuries. So we jam an agreement down their throats. And here come U.S. forces, again in harm's way, with no approval from Congress. Before we send our troops to another dangerous part of the world, which this President has been prone to do for a long time, we have a sacred responsibility to these men and women to consider the risks. We did not fight and win the Cold War so that--as the sole remaining superpower--we would get bogged down in parts of the world that the vast majority of Americans have never heard of. Kosovo is as much a part of Yugoslavia as New Hampshire is of the United States. We are dictating, under the threat of American military action, the internal policy of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. It may be a policy that I despise, that I hate, that I am upset about. But do we have that right, without an act of war or some authorization from Congress? We may not like it. It may be horrible. But that alone is not a reason to go to war. Should we go to war in Zimbabwe or Ethiopia or some other nation where some other problems are occurring that we don't like? Where do you draw the line? The administration tells us we must become involved in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation to prevent the spread of this conflict into neighboring nations, including perhaps NATO members. This is a bogey-man argument. It is meant to scare us into resolving the conflict with the American military. This argument is false and it obscures the real issue of placing troops at risk in an area of the world where were we have no real interest to justify direct intervention. Frankly, I am tired of it. I am tired of risking American lives when we do not have American interests at stake. The precedent we would be setting by intervening in Kosovo is far more dangerous to American interests than the small risk that this conflict is going to spread somewhere. What other troubled Balkan region will we go to next? Montenegro? Macedonia? Where do we stop, Mr. President? There was a letter to the Washington Post on February 20, written from a gentleman by the name of Alex N. Dragnich. He said: We are threatening to bomb the Serbs, not because they have invaded a foreign country but because they refuse to accept an agreement which we have crafted, to resolve a domestic conflict inside Yugoslavia and to permit the entrance of NATO troops to enforce it. . . . That is what this is about More serious [he says] in the long run will be the precedent we would be creating. Our proposed actions would provide the arguments to justify a power or a combination of powers to invade some country in search of justice for a minority or minorities. This could be some Arab states, perhaps in agreement with Russia, or it could be China seeking to take over Taiwan. The administration has created a situation where, no matter how the negotiations conclude, our military people will likely be placed at risk. Let me correct that--they will be placed at risk. The recklessness with which this administration treats our men and women in uniform is shameful--shameful. We had to fight in the Senate on this floor 2 years ago to get the administration to give them a pay raise. We fight on this floor to try to get a national missile defense to protect our own Nation--and we still cannot get it. If the parties do agree to a foreign military presence, then our troops will be committed to peace enforcement for more years than the administration is ready to admit; a lot more years than this administration has left in office. And they will be in great jeopardy from retaliation, not by one side, but by both sides. They will be in the middle of a civil war. If the Serbs do not agree, then this administration is prepared to send our troops into combat against an aggressive nation that is well equipped to defend itself from attack. Let there be no doubt, American lives will be endangered. This is not Iraq where everything is out in the open. There are SAM sites embedded in mountains. The Serbs have the capability to shoot down American aircraft. Remember that. We all remember the promises made by the administration about Bosnia. They said the troops will be out in a year. It was one year, then another year, then another; now it is 3 years, with no end in sight, and it's cost $10 billion. Most of the time the President didn't even fund the operation; he took it out of funds for the troops, he raided their equipment modernization accounts to fund it. One of the primary reasons given by the administration, justifying the Bosnia intervention, was it would stabilize the region--yet today we are about to commit American troops to intervening in a new unstable region, Kosovo. We field an army, not a Salvation Army. Our military is woefully underfunded. We need $125 billion over the next 5 years just to recover from where this administration has cut us. There are mounting concerns about readiness. Should a crisis emerge that truly does endanger America's legitimate interests, what happens? By volunteering to send forces to Kosovo, the President is again stretching our military too thin. The President is not just risking the lives of soldiers sent to the region, but also our troops around the world. And for what? Later on today we are going to be debating pay increases and retirement benefits for our troops. That is a serious need. The operations tempo that we require from our troops is a serious concern as well. Yet as we try to help on these problems, the administration once again overextends our forces. There are troops that have been in three or four hot spots in the last 3 years. Some have been in Bosnia, some have been in the Persian Gulf, some have been in Haiti, some have been in Korea, and there will probably be a fifth one, Kosovo, for some people. How much more can we take? The administration says the possible troop commitment for peace enforcement in Kosovo is only for 4,000 troops. In the military there is the three-times rule. Not only do we commit those 4,000 on the ground, but 4,000 more are preparing to go and 4,000 are recovering from being deployed there. This 4,000-man operation ties up 12,000 troops. In truth, a four-times rule is probably more realistic, so it is more like 16,000. We are already facing serious problems in recruiting, spare parts, and other results of this high operating tempo. The administration has strained the budget of the Defense Department to the limit, and our troops are going to be the losers because of it. We simply cannot ask our military to do more and more with less. That is what this President has continued to do. Mr. President, we are 7,000 troops down in recruitment for the U.S. Navy. We don't even have enough sailors to man our ships. We are short 23,000 recruits in the U.S. Army. Spare parts bins are empty in military bases all over this country. They cannot repair some vehicles-- they are just too old. And yet here is the administration, ready to send them into Kosovo. In conclusion, throughout the Cold War we fought to protect the rights of sovereign nations to conduct themselves according to their own laws. We fought World War II over the same thing. In the Gulf War we sent American soldiers to war to turn back an unlawful and immoral invasion of the sovereign nation of Kuwait. There was much disagreement over that policy, but it was an attack of one sovereign nation on another. Now, look at what has happened in just 8 years. Today we find our commitment to sovereignty turned on its head. Let me issue a warning. The KLA, the Kosovo Liberation Army--these are not Boy Scouts. Neither is Slobodan Milosevic. This is going to be a bloody mess, and we are going to be right in the middle of it. The KLA started a war that it cannot finish and now the administration wants U.S. pilots serve as its Air Force the American people know what we are spending in Bosnia--$4 billion a year and growing, now adding to that in Kosovo, and at the same time not yet deploying a missile defense system for this country which is imperative for the security of our own people and our troops wherever they may be in the world. I applaud the efforts of the Senator from New Hampshire. I certainly hope that we will get a chance to talk about this. I look forward to having the leaders in Congress stand up and say, What is the policy; how many more times are we going to put troops in harm's way, paid for by the taxpayers of America, when there is no exit strategy, there is no plan, there is no rotation out, there is no temporariness about this. It is open-ended. I applaud my colleague from New Hampshire, and I hope that the Senate will address this before we have a fait accompli, troops on the ground, as we have had in Bosnia in an unending mission, with no strategy, no plan and no exit.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

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

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, as President Reagan would say, ``Here we go again.'' This administration is now on the verge of making a commitment of American forces to another 911 humanitarian crisis around the world, without the approval of Congress. As I stand here today, the United States is poised to launch airstrikes against the sovereign nation of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Given the apparent failure of the talks in France regarding the issue of the peacekeeping force, there is a real possibility that airstrikes may be imminent and that American forces, as part of a NATO force, may be committed in Kosovo. I would venture to say that many Americans would be hard-pressed to find Kosovo on a map; yet here again our sons and daughters are going to be asked to put their lives on the line for this administration without approval of their elected representatives in Congress, and without any declaration of war. Mr. President, this is very, very disturbing. I have spoken out in the past against the Bosnia operation. I have spoken out against our occupation of Haiti. But Kosovo is the last straw for me. Today I am introducing a bill to ensure that Congress exercises its constitutional right of approval before this administration commits us to an act of war against a sovereign nation. If we are going to be taking offensive military action, I don't believe there ought to be any troops in any sovereign nation unless there is a declaration of war, or at least a specific authorization by Congress. The resolution I am introducing simply says that there will be no troops committed in any force of any kind without a specific authorization from the U.S. Congress. I am going to call on my colleagues to join me in this effort before we get embroiled in another long-term conflict that is not in the United States' interest. I want to make a few points about this. This administration apparently thinks nothing of committing an act of war without congressional approval--they will commit troops first, and come to us later and ask for our support. On the contrary, when President Bush wanted to repel Iraq from Kuwait, he came to the Congress--a Democrat-controlled Congress--and Congress authorized him to do that. He came here. He took his chance. He did the right thing. But that is not happening now. While this body has been wrestling with impeachment proceedings, President Clinton's administration has been preparing to wage war. I want to repeat that. We were tied down here for almost 2 months talking about the impeachment of the President of the United States, and while we were doing that, the same President who was nearly removed from office was preparing to wage war against a sovereign nation without congressional approval. That is absolutely outrageous, and I am not going to stand by any longer and be silent about it. The administration has crafted a plan to fix the internal problems of a sovereign state. And it proceeds, then, to hold a so-called peace conference where it threatens to use lethal force against that sovereign state if they don't accept the deal. The two parties are not even interested in an agreement. They still want to fight. They have been fighting in that region of the world for centuries. So we jam an agreement down their throats. And here come U.S. forces, again in harm's way, with no approval from Congress. Before we send our troops to another dangerous part of the world, which this President has been prone to do for a long time, we have a sacred responsibility to these men and women to consider the risks. We did not fight and win the Cold War so that--as the sole remaining superpower--we would get bogged down in parts of the world that the vast majority of Americans have never heard of. Kosovo is as much a part of Yugoslavia as New Hampshire is of the United States. We are dictating, under the threat of American military action, the internal policy of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. It may be a policy that I despise, that I hate, that I am upset about. But do we have that right, without an act of war or some authorization from Congress? We may not like it. It may be horrible. But that alone is not a reason to go to war. Should we go to war in Zimbabwe or Ethiopia or some other nation where some other problems are occurring that we don't like? Where do you draw the line? The administration tells us we must become involved in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation to prevent the spread of this conflict into neighboring nations, including perhaps NATO members. This is a bogey-man argument. It is meant to scare us into resolving the conflict with the American military. This argument is false and it obscures the real issue of placing troops at risk in an area of the world where were we have no real interest to justify direct intervention. Frankly, I am tired of it. I am tired of risking American lives when we do not have American interests at stake. The precedent we would be setting by intervening in Kosovo is far more dangerous to American interests than the small risk that this conflict is going to spread somewhere. What other troubled Balkan region will we go to next? Montenegro? Macedonia? Where do we stop, Mr. President? There was a letter to the Washington Post on February 20, written from a gentleman by the name of Alex N. Dragnich. He said: We are threatening to bomb the Serbs, not because they have invaded a foreign country but because they refuse to accept an agreement which we have crafted, to resolve a domestic conflict inside Yugoslavia and to permit the entrance of NATO troops to enforce it. . . . That is what this is about More serious [he says] in the long run will be the precedent we would be creating. Our proposed actions would provide the arguments to justify a power or a combination of powers to invade some country in search of justice for a minority or minorities. This could be some Arab states, perhaps in agreement with Russia, or it could be China seeking to take over Taiwan. The administration has created a situation where, no matter how the negotiations conclude, our military people will likely be placed at risk. Let me correct that--they will be placed at risk. The recklessness with which this administration treats our men and women in uniform is shameful--shameful. We had to fight in the Senate on this floor 2 years ago to get the administration to give them a pay raise. We fight on this floor to try to get a national missile defense to protect our own Nation--and we still cannot get it. If the parties do agree to a foreign military presence, then our troops will be committed to peace enforcement for more years than the administration is ready to admit; a lot more years than this administration has left in office. And they will be in great jeopardy from retaliation, not by one side, but by both sides. They will be in the middle of a civil war. If the Serbs do not agree, then this administration is prepared to send our troops into combat against an aggressive nation that is well equipped to defend itself from attack. Let there be no doubt, American lives will be endangered. This is not Iraq where everything is out in the open. There are SAM sites embedded in mountains. The Serbs have the capability to shoot down American aircraft. Remember that. We all remember the promises made by the administration about Bosnia. They said the troops will be out in a year. It was one year, then another year, then another; now it is 3 years, with no end in sight, and it's cost $10 billion. Most of the time the President didn't even fund the operation; he took it out of funds for the troops, he raided their equipment modernization accounts to fund it. One of the primary reasons given by the administration, justifying the Bosnia intervention, was it would stabilize the region--yet today we are about to commit American troops to intervening in a new unstable region, Kosovo. We field an army, not a Salvation Army. Our military is woefully underfunded. We need $125 billion over the next 5 years just to recover from where this administration has cut us. There are mounting concerns about readiness. Should a crisis emerge that truly does endanger America's legitimate interests, what happens? By volunteering to send forces to Kosovo, the President is again stretching our military too thin. The President is not just risking the lives of soldiers sent to the region, but also our troops around the world. And for what? Later on today we are going to be debating pay increases and retirement benefits for our troops. That is a serious need. The operations tempo that we require from our troops is a serious concern as well. Yet as we try to help on these problems, the administration once again overextends our forces. There are troops that have been in three or four hot spots in the last 3 years. Some have been in Bosnia, some have been in the Persian Gulf, some have been in Haiti, some have been in Korea, and there will probably be a fifth one, Kosovo, for some people. How much more can we take? The administration says the possible troop commitment for peace enforcement in Kosovo is only for 4,000 troops. In the military there is the three-times rule. Not only do we commit those 4,000 on the ground, but 4,000 more are preparing to go and 4,000 are recovering from being deployed there. This 4,000-man operation ties up 12,000 troops. In truth, a four-times rule is probably more realistic, so it is more like 16,000. We are already facing serious problems in recruiting, spare parts, and other results of this high operating tempo. The administration has strained the budget of the Defense Department to the limit, and our troops are going to be the losers because of it. We simply cannot ask our military to do more and more with less. That is what this President has continued to do. Mr. President, we are 7,000 troops down in recruitment for the U.S. Navy. We don't even have enough sailors to man our ships. We are short 23,000 recruits in the U.S. Army. Spare parts bins are empty in military bases all over this country. They cannot repair some vehicles-- they are just too old. And yet here is the administration, ready to send them into Kosovo. In conclusion, throughout the Cold War we fought to protect the rights of sovereign nations to conduct themselves according to their own laws. We fought World War II over the same thing. In the Gulf War we sent American soldiers to war to turn back an unlawful and immoral invasion of the sovereign nation of Kuwait. There was much disagreement over that policy, but it was an attack of one sovereign nation on another. Now, look at what has happened in just 8 years. Today we find our commitment to sovereignty turned on its head. Let me issue a warning. The KLA, the Kosovo Liberation Army--these are not Boy Scouts. Neither is Slobodan Milosevic. This is going to be a bloody mess, and we are going to be right in the middle of it. The KLA started a war that it cannot finish and now the administration wants U.S. pilots serve as its Air Force the American people know what we are spending in Bosnia--$4 billion a year and growing, now adding to that in Kosovo, and at the same time not yet deploying a missile defense system for this country which is imperative for the security of our own people and our troops wherever they may be in the world. I applaud the efforts of the Senator from New Hampshire. I certainly hope that we will get a chance to talk about this. I look forward to having the leaders in Congress stand up and say, What is the policy; how many more times are we going to put troops in harm's way, paid for by the taxpayers of America, when there is no exit strategy, there is no plan, there is no rotation out, there is no temporariness about this. It is open-ended. I applaud my colleague from New Hampshire, and I hope that the Senate will address this before we have a fait accompli, troops on the ground, as we have had in Bosnia in an unending mission, with no strategy, no plan and no exit.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that one of my staff, Mr. Jim Dohoney, be granted floor privileges during my remarks this morning.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to wholeheartedly endorse this Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's, and Marines' Bill of Rights. With this bill, the members of the Senate Armed Services Committee are making a pledge to the men and women who so bravely defend our freedoms: we honor them, we respect them, they and their families are important to us, and we are going to take care of them. We have been asking them to get by for too long, with too little. Starting now, we are going to make good on our debt of gratitude. In my view, this bill addresses three key areas that must be fixed if we are going to be able to keep quality people in uniform. The largest pay raise since 1982, and annual raises that outpace inflation, will shrink a double-digit pay gap that has been growing for 20 years. Service men and women know they will never make as much as their civilian counterparts, and they serve proudly anyway. But we cannot tell them their contributions to America are invaluable, and then stand by and watch their earning power erode more and more each year without any plan for stopping the erosion. They deserve to provide their families with an honorable standard of living, and we are committed to doing that. In addition, Mr. President, raises for mid-level officers and enlisted personnel are designed to retain critical personnel and reward performance over longevity. Currently, some leaders are paid less than their subordinates due to an over-emphasis on years served rather then results achieved. We win or lose wars based on results, not seniority, and the pay chart ought to reflect that reality. We want to encourage and reward those who go ``above and beyond,'' and reinforce a culture dedicated to achievement and success. Restoring previously reduced retirement benefits to their original levels shows a commitment to our veterans' long term security and the value of a career of honorable service. Our troops spend an entire career living in danger, sacrificing their own interests and putting their country's needs ahead of their family's. We cannot in good conscience reward their service by cutting their retirement benefits. In closing, Mr. President, more than just voicing a commitment to our service men and women, we must take bold, swift action to put that commitment to work. We must provide them a long overdue increase in pay, we must reform the pay table to reward performance over longevity, and we must repeal the Redux retirement plan.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, in accordance with Rule XXVI(2) of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I ask that the Rules of Procedure of the Select Committee on Ethics, which were adopted February 23, 1978, and revised April 1997, be printed in the Congressional Record for the 106th Congress. The rules follow: Rules of Procedure (Select Committee on Ethics, Adopted February 23, 1978, Revised April 1997, S. Prt. 105-19) Rules of the Select Committee on Ethics Part I: Organic Authority subpart a--s. res. 338 as amended (S. Res. 338, 88th Cong., 2d Sess. (1964) \1\) Resolved, That (a) there is hereby established a permanent select committee of the Senate to be known as the Select Committee on Ethics (referred to hereinafter as the ``Select Committee'') consisting of six Members of the Senate, of whom three shall be selected from members of the majority party and three shall be selected from members of the minority party. Members thereof shall be appointed by the Senate in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 1 of Rule XXIV of the standing rules for the Senate at the beginning of each Congress. For purposes of paragraph 4 of rule XXV of the Standing Rules of the Senate, service of a Senator as a member or chairman of the Select Committee shall not be taken into account. Footnotes at end of article. (b) Vacancies in the membership of the Select Committee shall not affect the authority of the remaining members to execute the functions of the committee, and shall be filled in the same manner as original appointments thereto are made. (c)(1) A majority of the Members of the Select Committee shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business involving complaints and allegations of misconduct, including the consideration of matters involving sworn complaints, unsworn allegations or information, resultant preliminary inquiries, initial reviews, investigations, hearings, recommendations or reports and matters relating to Senate Resolution 400, agreed to May 19, 1976. (2) Three Members shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of routine business of the Select Committee not covered by the first paragraph of this subparagraph, including requests for opinions and interpretations concerning the Code of Official Conduct or any other statute or regulation under the jurisdiction of the Select Committee, if one Member of the quorum is a Member of the Majority Party and one Member of the quorum is a Member of the Minority Party. During the transaction of routine business any Member of the Select Committee constituting the quorum shall have the right to postpone further discussion of a pending matter until such time as a majority of the Members of the Select Committee are present. (3) The Select Committee may fix a lesser number as a quorum for the purpose of taking sworn testimony.\2\ \3\``(d)(1) A member of the Select Committee shall be ineligible to participate in any initial review or investigation relating to his own conduct, the conduct of any officer or employee he supervises, or the conduct of any employee of any officer he supervises, or relating to any complaint filed by him, and the determinations and recommendations of the Select Committee with respect thereto. For purposes of this subparagraph, a Member of the Select Committee and an officer of the Senate shall be deemed to supervise any officer or employee consistent with the provision of paragraph 12 of rule XXXVII of the standing Rules of the Senate. ``(2) A member of the Select Committee may, at his discretion, disqualify himself from participating in any initial review or investigation pending before the Select Committee and the determinations and recommendations of the Select Committee with respect thereto. Notice of such disqualification shall be given in writing to the President of the Senate. ``(3) Whenever any member of the Select Committee is ineligible under paragraph (1) to participate in any initial review or investigation or disqualifies himself under paragraph (2) from participating in any initial review or investigation, another Member of the Senate shall, subject to the provisions of subsection (d), be appointed to serve as a member of the Select Committee solely for purposes of such initial review or investigation and the determinations and recommendations of the Select Committee with respect thereto. Any Member of the Senate appointed for such purposes shall be of the same party as the Member who is ineligible or disqualifies himself.'' Sec. 2. (a) It shall be the duty of the Select Committee to-- (1) receive complaints and investigate allegations of improper conduct which may reflect upon the Senate, violations of law, violations of the Senate Code of Official Conduct,\4\ and violations of rules and regulations of the Senate, relating to the conduct of individuals in the performance of their duties as Members of the Senate, or as officers or employees of the Senate, and to make appropriate findings of fact and conclusions with respect thereto; (2) recommend to the Senate by report or resolution by a majority vote of the full committee disciplinary action (including, but not limited to, in the case of a Member: censure, expulsion, or recommendation to the appropriate party conference regarding such Member's seniority or positions of responsibility; and in the case of an officer or employee: suspension or dismissal)\5\ to be taken with respect to such violations which the Select Committee shall determine, after according to the individuals concerned due notice and opportunity for hearing, to have occurred; (3) recommend to the Senate, by report or resolution, such additional rules or regulations as the Select Committee shall determine to be necessary or desirable to insure proper standards of conduct by Members of the Senate, and by officers or employees of the Senate, in the performance of their duties and the discharge of their responsibilities; and (4) report violations by a majority vote of the full committee of any law to the proper Federal and State authorities. ``(b)(1) Each sworn complaint filed with the Select Committee shall be in writing, shall be in such form as the Select Committee may prescribe by regulation, and shall be under oath. ``(2) For purposes of this section, `sworn complaint' means a statement of facts within the personal knowledge of the complainant alleging a violation of law, the Senate Code of Official Conduct, or any other rule or regulation of the Senate relating to the conduct of individuals in the performance of their duties as Members, officers, or employees of the Senate. ``(3) Any person who knowingly and willfully swears falsely to a sworn complaint does so under penalty of perjury, and the Select Committee may refer any such case to the Attorney General for prosecution. ``(4) For the purposes of this section, `investigation' is a proceeding undertaken by the Select Committee after a finding, on the basis of an initial review, that there is substantial credible evidence which provides substantial cause for the Select Committee to conclude that a violation within the jurisdiction of the Select Committee has occurred. ``(c)(1) No investigation of conduct of a Member or officer of the Senate, and no report, resolution, or recommendation relating thereto, may be made unless approved by the affirmative recorded vote of not less than four members of the Select Committee. ``(2) No other resolution, report, recommendation, interpretative ruling, or advisory opinion may be made without an affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the Select Committee voting. ``(d)(1) When the Select Committee receives a sworn complaint against a Member or officer of the Senate, it shall promptly conduct an initial review of that complaint. The initial review shall be of duration and scope necessary to determine whether there is substantial credible evidence which provides substantial cause for the Select Committee to conclude that a violation within the jurisdiction of the Select Committee has occurred. ``(2) If as a result of an initial review under paragraph (1), the Select Committee determines by a recorded vote that there is not such substantial credible evidence, the Select Committee shall report such determination to the complainant and to the party charged together with an explanation of the basis of such determination. ``(3) If as a result of an initial review under paragraph (1), the Select Committee determines that a violation is inadvertent, technical or otherwise of a de minimus nature, the Select Committee may attempt to correct or prevent such a violation by informal methods. ``(4) If as a result of an initial review under paragraph (1), the Select Committee determines that there is such substantial credible evidence but that the violation, if proven, is neither of a de minimus nature nor sufficiently serious to justify any of the penalties expressly referred to in subsection (a)(2), the Select Committee may propose a remedy it deems appropriate. If the matter is thereby resolved, a summary of the Select Committee's conclusions and the remedy proposed shall be filed as a public record with the Secretary of the Senate and a notice of such filing shall be printed in the Congressional Record. ``(5) If as the result of an initial review under paragraph (1), the Select Committee determines that there is such substantial credible evidence, the Select Committee shall promptly conduct an investigation if (A) the violation, if proven, would be sufficiently serious, in the judgment of the Select Committee, to warrant imposition of one or more of the penalties expressly referred to in subsection (a)(2), or (B) the violation, if proven, is less serious, but was not resolved pursuant to paragraph (4) above. Upon the conclusion of such investigation, the Select Committee shall report to the Senate, as soon as practicable, the results of such investigation together with its recommendations (if any) pursuant to subsection (a)(2). ``(6) Upon the conclusion of any other investigation respecting the conduct of a Member or officer undertaken by the Select Committee, the Select Committee shall report to the Senate, as soon as practicable, the results of such investigation together with its recommendations (if any) pursuant to subsection (a)(2). ``(e) When the Select Committee receives a sworn complaint against an employee of the Senate, it shall consider the complaint according to procedures it deems appropriate. If the Select Committee determines that the complaint is without substantial merit, it shall notify the complainant and the accused of its determination, together with an explanation of the basis of such determination. ``(f) The Select Committee may, in its discretion, employ hearing examiners to hear testimony and make findings of fact and/or recommendations to the Select Committee concerning the disposition of complaints. ``(g) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, no initial review or investigation shall be made of any alleged violation of any law, the Senate Code of Official Conduct, rule, or regulation which was not in effect at the time the alleged violation occurred. No provisions of the Senate Code of Official Conduct shall apply to or require disclosure of any act, relationship, or transaction which occurred prior to the effective date of the applicable provision of the Code. The Select Committee may conduct an initial review or investigation of any alleged violation of a rule or law which was in effect prior to the enactment of the Senate Code of Official Conduct if the alleged violation occurred while such rule or law was in effect and the violation was not a matter resolved on the merits by the predecessor Select Committee. ``(h) The Select Committee shall adopt written rules setting forth procedures to be used in conducting investigations of complaints.\6\ (i) \7\ The Select Committee from time to time shall transmit to the Senate its recommendation as to any legislative measures which it may consider to be necessary for the effective discharge of its duties. Sec. 3. (a) The Select Committee is authorized to (1) make such expenditures; (2) hold such hearings; (3) sit and act at such times and places during the sessions, recesses, and adjournment periods of the Senate; (4) require by subpoena or otherwise the attendance of such witnesses and the production of such correspondence, books, papers, and documents; (5) administer such oaths; (6) take such testimony orally or by deposition; (7) employ and fix the compensation of a staff director, a counsel, an assistant counsel, one or more investigators, one or more hearing examiners, (8) and such technical, clerical, and other assistants and consultants as it deems advisable; and (8) to procure the temporary services (not in excess of one year) or intermittent services of individual consultants, or organizations thereof, by contract as independent contractors or, in the case of individuals, by employment at daily rates of compensation not in excess of the per diem equivalent of the highest rate of compensation which may be paid to a regular employee of the Select Committee.\9\ \10\(b)(1) The Select Committee is authorized to retain and compensate counsel not employed by the Senate (or by any department or agency of the executive branch of the Government) whenever the Select Committee determines that the retention of outside counsel is necessary or appropriate for any action regarding any complaint or allegation, which, in the determination of the Select Committee is more appropriately conducted by counsel not employed by the Government of the United States as a regular employee. ``(2) Any investigation conducted under section 2 shall be conducted by outside counsel as authorized in paragraph (1), unless the Select Committee determines not to use outside counsel. \11\``(c) With the prior consent of the department or agency concerned, the Select Committee may (1) utilize the services, information and facilities of any such department or agency of the Government, and (2) employ on a reimbursable basis or otherwise the services of such personnel of any such department or agency as it deems advisable. With the consent of any other committee of the Senate, or any subcommittee thereof, the Select Committee may utilize the facilities and the services of the staff of such other committee or subcommittee whenever the chairman of the Select Committee determines that such action is necessary and appropriate. ``(d) Subpoenas may be issued (1) by the Select Committee or (2) by the chairman and vice chairman, acting jointly. Any such subpoena shall be signed by the chairman or the vice chairman and may be served by any person designated by such chairman or vice chairman. The chairman of the Select Committee or any member thereof may administer oaths to witnesses.\12\ \13\``(e)(1) The Select Committee shall prescribe and publish such regulations as it feels are necessary to implement the Senate Code of Official Conduct. ``(2) The Select Committee is authorized to issue interpretative rulings explaining and clarifying the application of any law, the Code of Official Conduct, or any rule or regulation of the Senate within its jurisdiction. ``(3) The Select Committee shall render an advisory opinion, in writing within a reasonable time, in response to a written request by a Member or officer of the Senate or a candidate for nomination for election, or election to the Senate, concerning the application of any law, the Senate Code of Official Conduct, or any rule or regulation of the Senate within its jurisdiction to a specific factual situation pertinent to the conduct or proposed conduct of the person seeking the advisory opinion. ``(4) The Select Committee may in its discretion render an advisory opinion in writing within a reasonable time in response to a written request by any employee of the Senate concerning the application of any law, the Senate Code of Official Conduct, or any rule or regulation of the Senate within its jurisdiction to a specific factual situation pertinent to the conduct or proposed conduct of the person seeking the advisory opinion. ``(5) Notwithstanding any provision of the Senate Code of Official Conduct or any rule or regulation of the Senate, any person who relies upon any provision or finding of an advisory opinion in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs (3) and (4) and who acts in good faith in accordance with the provisions and findings of such advisory opinion shall not, as a result of any such act, be subject to any sanction by the Senate. ``(6) Any advisory opinion rendered by the Select Committee under paragraphs (3) and (4) may be relied upon by (A) any person involved in the specific transaction or activity with respect to which such advisory opinion is rendered: Provided, however, that the request for such advisory opinion included a complete and accurate statement of the specific factual situation; and, (B) any person involved in any specific transaction or activity which is indistinguishable in all its material aspects from the transaction or activity with respect to which such advisory opinion is rendered. ``(7) Any advisory opinion issued in response to a request under paragraph (3) or (4) shall be printed in the Congressional Record with appropriate deletions to assure the privacy of the individual concerned. The Select Committee shall, to the extent practicable, before rendering an advisory opinion, provide any interested party with an opportunity to transmit written comments to the Select Committee with respect to the request for such advisory opinion. The advisory opinions issued by the Select Committee shall be compiled, indexed, reproduced, and made available on a periodic basis. ``(8) A brief description of a waiver granted under paragraph 2(c) of rule XXXIV or paragraph 1 of rule XXXV of the Standing Rules of the Senate shall be made available upon request in the Select Committee office with appropriate deletions to assure the privacy of the individual concerned. Sec. 4. The expenses of the Select Committee under this resolution shall be paid from the contingent fund of the Senate upon vouchers approved by the chairman of the Select Committee. Sec. 5. As used in this resolution, the term ``officer or employee of the Senate'' means-- (1) an elected officer of the Senate who is not a Member of the Senate; (2) an employee of the Senate, any committee or subcommittee of the Senate, or any Member of the Senate; (3) the Legislative Counsel of the Senate or any employee of his office; (4) an Official Reporter of Debates of the Senate and any person employed by the Official Reporters of Debates of the Senate in connection with the performance of their official duties; (5) a member of the Capitol Police force whose compensation is disbursed by the Secretary of the Senate; (6) an employee of the Vice President if such employee's compensation is disbursed by the Secretary of the Senate; and (7) an employee of a joint committee of the Congress whose compensation is disbursed by the Secretary of the Senate. subpart b--public law 93-191--franked mail, provisions relating to the select committee Sec. 6. (a) The Select Committee on Standards and Conduct of the Senate shall provide guidance, assistance, advice and counsel, through advisory opinions or consultations, in connection with the mailing or contemplated mailing of franked mail under section 3210, 3211, 3212, 3218(2) or 3218, and in connection with the operation of section 3215, of title 39, United States Code, upon the request of any Member of the Senate or Member-elect, surviving spouse of any of the foregoing, or other Senate official, entitled to send mail as franked mail under any of those sections. The select committee shall prescribe regulations governing the proper use of the franking privilege under those sections by such persons. (b) Any complaint filed by any person with the select committee that a violation of any section of title 39, United States Code, referred to in subsection (a) of this section is about to occur or has occurred within the immediately preceding period of 1 year, by any person referred to in such subsection (a), shall contain pertinent factual material and shall conform to regulations prescribed by the select committee. The select committee, if it determines there is reasonable justification for the complaint, shall conduct an investigation of the matter, including an investigation of reports and statements filed by that complainant with respect to the matter which is the subject of the complaint. The committee shall afford to the person who is the subject of the complaint due notice and, if it determines that there is substantial reason to believe that such violation has occurred or is about to occur, opportunity for all parties to participate in a hearing before the select committee. The select committee shall issue a written decision on each complaint under this subsection not later than thirty days after such a complaint has been filed or, if a hearing is held, not later than thirty days after the conclusion of such hearing. Such decision shall be based on written findings of fact in the case by the select committee. If the select committee finds, in its written decision, that a violation has occurred or is about to occur, the committee may take such action and enforcement as it considers appropriate in accordance with applicable rules, precedents, and standing orders of the Senate, and such other standards as may be prescribed by such committee. (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court or administrative body in the United States or in any territory thereof shall have jurisdiction to entertain any civil action of any character concerning or related to a violation of the franking laws or an abuse of the franking privilege by any person listed under subsection (a) of this section as entitled to send mail as franked mail, until a complaint has been filed with the select committee and the committee has rendered a decision under subsection (b) of this section. (d) The select committee shall prescribe regulations for the holding of investigations and hearings, the conduct of proceedings, and the rendering of decisions under this subsection providing for equitable procedures and the protection of individual, public, and Government interests. The regulations shall, insofar as practicable, contain the substance of the administrative procedure provisions of sections 551-559 and 701-706, of title 5, United States Code. These regulations shall govern matters under this subsection subject to judicial review thereof. (e) The select committee shall keep a complete record of all its actions, including a record of the votes on any question on which a record vote is demanded. All records, data, and files of the select committee shall be the property of the Senate and shall be kept in the offices of the select committee or such other places as the committee may direct.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. Chief Justice, thank you very much. I would certainly give more than a penny for your thoughts on this matter. But I am afraid we will probably never know. Mr. Chief Justice, I have been proud to be a U.S. Senator ever since that day over 8 years ago when I took the oath of office and my colleague, Senator Byrd, told me that I was the 1,794th person to serve in the U.S. Senate. During my tenure in the Senate, I have learned to respect my colleagues even when I strongly disagree with them on the issues of the day. I have challenged colleagues on issues and maybe at times even criticized their votes. But I have never challenged a colleague's motives and I never will. I respect each and every one of you and the high office you hold. I consider it a great honor to serve in this body, and serve with some giants here--Senator Helms, Senator Thurmond, Senator Byrd, to name a few. I remember when I came to the floor of the Senate and signed that book as No. 1,794. Senator Byrd reminded me of the significance of that. And I have never forgotten it. I also sit at the desk of Daniel Webster. It is a constant reminder that I am just a temporary steward occupying this seat in the U.S. Senate. It is also a reminder that we will move on. But the Constitution will not move on. The Constitution will endure forever. Our role here in this proceeding is to preserve the Constitution and the Presidency. Yes--even if it means we have to remove the President. Mr. Chief Justice, when the rollcall is called tomorrow, I will be voting ``guilty'' on both of the articles that are now before the Senate. It is clear that the Senate will not be finding President Clinton guilty on either article. But I just want to say regarding censure that my vote is my censure. I think anyone who votes to find him guilty does not need to be concerned about censure. As I contemplate my vote, I am reminded of a prayer offered in 1947 by a former Chaplain of the Senate, Rev. Peter Marshall. Reverend Marshall prayed: ``Our Father in Heaven . . . help us to see that it is better to fail in the cause that will ultimately succeed than to succeed in a cause that will ultimately fail.'' I have faith that the cause in which I believe will ultimately prevail, because I believe that history will judge that President Clinton is, in fact, guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors that warrant his removal from office. I know others respectfully disagree. And believe me, I respect that disagreement. Many of my colleagues have spoken on the instability a guilty verdict would cause for the Nation. We should never remove a President unless there is clear and present danger to the Nation, they say. With respect, colleagues, I submit to you that the double standard that we have set for our leader will ignite a cynicism directed against all of us. A cynicism is a clear and present danger to society. With a not guilty verdict, you will tell the American people that perjury and obstruction of justice for the President are acceptable; that those who put their lives on the line for our Nation every day in our Armed Forces have a higher standard than the Commander in Chief; and that for everyone else in America who lose their jobs because of perjury and obstruction, that is not acceptable. We reap what we sow. In my view, respectfully, history will judge us harshly for this. And I say that in great humbleness. It is my view. A not guilty verdict is a short-term victory for the President. It is a long-term defeat for truth, for honor, for integrity, for the Presidency, and, in my view, for the Constitution. As Peter Marshall intimated in his prayer, with a not guilty verdict we have succeeded in a cause which I believe will ultimately fail. My colleagues, we are all elected officials. And I want to comment about this partisanship. I say it in the spirit of bipartisanship. We have all been through the same ordeal together here. The nasty fundraising, the ad wars, dirty campaign tactics, thousands of miles of travel, neglecting our families, hours and hours away from home, much to the detriment of our own health and financial well-being. We do it all the time. And for anyone inside or outside this institution to suggest that my vote, or your vote, or anyone's vote in here is based on partisanship not only makes me sick, it makes me bristle with anger. What are my colleagues really saying when they invoke the word ``partisanship''? Do you really believe that the impeachment of the President of the United States by a majority of the Members of the House of Representatives, the body that is elected every 2 years, gives closure to the people, and the body elected by the same voters who elect one-third of us every 2 years would impeach the President of the United States because he is a Democrat? Even to imply that is unworthy, it is arrogant, and it is below the dignity of this very seat that you now hold. Have you forgotten the ``war'' that James Carville declared on Ken Starr a year or so ago, and on the Republicans, to protect the innocent Bill Clinton? Was that partisan? Was the President totally innocent? Partisanship has no place in this Senate, especially when it sits as a Court of Impeachment. We are here to do impartial justice, to be unbiased triers of fact. Yet, we have allowed that runaway partisan train of White House apologists, I might say, to rumble into the Senate with no brakes. One of my colleagues mentioned the courage of Republicans who voted against impeachment in the House. How about the Democrats who voted to impeach? Are they, by implication, cowards? Alexander Hamilton would be appalled at the notion of partisanship in an impeachment trial. Indeed, writing in the Federalist Papers, Hamilton said that the impeachment of the President ``will seldom fail to agitate the passion of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly to the accused. ``There will always be the greatest danger,'' Hamilton warned, ``that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of the parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.'' Mr. Chief Justice, there was a hero of the Revolutionary War era, Dr. Joseph Warren. He was a doctor. He didn't have to serve; he was 34 years old. His colleagues begged him not to go. But he picked up arms at Bunker Hill at 34 years old and he said, ``Our country is in danger. On you depend the fortunes of America. You are to decide the important questions upon which rest the happiness and the liberty of millions yet unborn. Act worthy of yourselves.'' He was killed at the Battle of Bunker Hill. We don't act worthy of ourselves when we let partisanship enter into this trial, or even accuse one another of it. Why is it, when Democrats march in lockstep on a vote, that we Republicans are the only ones being accused of partisanship? Why are the House Republicans partisan because they vote out the articles, yet the Democrats who vote to block them are not partisan? I have served with Henry Hyde in the U.S. House of Representatives, and so have many of you. There is not even a remote chance--and every single one of you knows it--not even a remote chance that Henry Hyde would bring articles of impeachment against the President of the United States of any party if he didn't believe they were justified. Honorable men and women can disagree on these articles, but leave your politics at the door. Act worthy of yourselves. If the articles were so outrageous, so political, so partisan, so vindictive, and it is nothing more than a private sexual matter, then why do those of you who say those things want to censure this President using such terms to describe his actions as ``shameful,'' ``disgraceful,'' ``reprehensible,'' ``false'' and ``misleading,'' and so forth? Before I leave the matter of partisanship, let me say a few words about the case of our former colleague, Senator Packwood. My colleagues know I was a member of the Ethics Committee, and I supported the expulsion of Senator Packwood. I lost a colleague, and I lost a friend over that. That case, too, was ``about sex.'' My colleagues and I didn't shrink from doing our duty in the Packwood case because this outrageous behavior was about sex. In addition, those organizations advocating that the Senate take strong action against Senator Packwood were, by and large, liberal feminist groups, which I disagree with on nearly every issue. That, however, did not matter. Instead of being partisan or being deterred because the case was about sex, those of us on the Ethics Committee painstakingly investigated that case in all of its sordid and unpleasant detail. We considered the shameful behavior in which Packwood engaged. We considered how his behavior reflected on his fitness to serve. We considered his obstruction of the investigation with respect to his diaries. And in the end, the committee, Republicans and Democrats alike, voted to recommend to the full Senate that he be expelled. In doing our duty as we saw fit, we were not deterred by the argument that we were ``overturning an election,'' nor were the Republican members of the Ethics Committee--at the time, Senators McConnell, Craig and myself-- deterred by the fact that Senator Packwood was a member of our own party, nor were we deterred because liberal feminist groups were aggressively supporting many of the women accusers of Senator Packwood. The heart of the issue is not who Paula Jones' lawyers are, my colleagues, but, rather, did Bill Clinton expose himself in the presence of Paula Jones against her wishes? That is at best sexual misconduct, and at worst it is sexual harassment. Right wing groups did not find Paula Jones. Bill Clinton did. He says he didn't do it. Do you really believe him? The women accusers of Senator Packwood received justice in spite of those who promoted their cause. Paula Jones deserves the same treatment. The Supreme Court agreed 9 to zero. It is outrageous to say, as some have on this floor, that it is acceptable to expel Senator Packwood and acquit the President. That kind of debate should not take place on the floor of the Senate. How can you say that Senator Packwood is equal under the law, and yet the President is above the law? Today, I ask my colleagues in the Senate to do in the impeachment case of President Clinton what we did in the ethics case of Senator Packwood. Put aside your political affiliation. Put aside your friendship or your personal disdain for President Clinton. Put all of that aside and do the right thing. The House managers have established, I believe, beyond a reasonable doubt that President Clinton perjured himself and obstructed justice. As such, I don't believe we have any option other than to remove him from office and replace him with the Vice President--a fine, decent man, as many of his predecessors who have assumed the office of the Presidency during difficult times, and the Nation has persevered. As I have listened to my colleagues in these final deliberations, I have heard time and again that the House managers did not prove their obstruction of justice charge because of conflicts in testimony. We heard about all these conflicts--conflicts in testimony about the hiding of the gifts, conflicts in testimony about the job search, conflicts in testimony about the President's coaching of Betty Currie. Well, let me ask you, colleagues, if you believed that these conflicts needed to be resolved, then why didn't you join some of us who signed a letter to call for the President of the United States to come here to the Senate and tell the truth? What were you afraid of? We could have called President Clinton here to a closed session of the Senate. It need not have been a media spectacle. It can and should have been a closed session--just the Senate and the President. Time and again, I have heard my colleagues say that there should be a higher standard for removing a President of the United States than for removing a Federal judge or expelling a Senator Packwood. If there is such a higher standard for the law, then why not insist on a higher standard for the man? One of my colleagues mentioned the Iran-contra matter. At an earlier time, not too many years ago, when impeachment talk was in the air, President Ronald Reagan walked to the microphone, and he said, ``I take full responsibility for my own actions and for those of my administration. As angry as I may be about activities undertaken without my knowledge, I am still accountable for those activities. As disappointed as I may be in some who served me, I'm still the one who must answer to the American people for this behavior. And as personally distasteful as I find secret bank accounts and diverted funds--well, well, as the Navy would say, this happened on my watch.'' Oh, what a little honesty and candor can do for the soul of the Nation. Why didn't we call the President? Why didn't every Member of this Senate sign that letter? What would be wrong with having him come, either in deposition or in person? I will always regret that we failed to do so. We will never know whether the President's own testimony here before us could have better enabled us to do our constitutional duty. We will never know. The President testified before the grand jury. He testified before the Paula Jones case. He should have testified at his own impeachment trial so we could get the truth, so those of you who want to know whether or not he obstructed justice or committed perjury could have heard from him, not his lawyers. It is a permanent black mark on this trial, and I believe historians will ask for a long, long time: Why didn't the President testify? It could have changed the outcome of the trial. Speaking of constitutional duty, I am reminded of the President's oath. Article II, section 1, clause 7, of the Constitution provides that: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: ``I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.'' The Constitution considers the oath so important that it requires the man or woman who is elected President to take it. So given the importance of an oath--it is so important that no one elected can serve unless they take it--how can we say that willful violation of that oath, being perjury and obstruction, doesn't rise to the level of impeachment? President Clinton has discredited the oath that the chief law enforcement officer of the Nation must take. We have compounded that discredit by not holding him accountable. Manager Lindsey Graham said that ``we could leap boldly into the 21st century by ignoring the rule of law.'' Unfortunately, the Senate opted to crawl. My colleagues, we all in politics know what a user is. With all due respect, Bill Clinton is a user. He used Monica Lewinsky; he used his friends; he used his Cabinet; he used the American people; and now he is using the Senate. The President has never been held accountable. He wasn't held accountable for not telling the truth about the draft; he was not held accountable for not telling the truth about marijuana; he was not held accountable for lying about his relationship with Gennifer Flowers; he was not held accountable for his actions towards Paula Jones; he was not held accountable for lying about Monica Lewinsky. He will walk away from this trial with an acquittal, and yet again he will avoid accountability for his actions. He will avoid being held accountable for the actions that every American citizen, every teacher, every CEO, every military man and woman, would have lost his or her job over, and we let it happen. We did. With the greatest respect, that is not a profile in courage. After the acquittal, I hope we will not be a party to the party. The champagne corks will pop; cigars will be lit; maybe even the bongo drums will be played. I implore you, colleagues, don't go to the party. There is nothing to celebrate. Act worthy of yourselves. In 1880, when Dostoevsky, the great Russian author, wrote ``The Brothers Karamazov,'' he could not even have dreamed that there would ever be a Bill Clinton, but here is what he says, and it goes right to the heart of this entire case: The important thing is to stop lying to yourself. A man who lies to himself and believes his own lies becomes unable to recognize the truth, either in himself or anyone else, and he ends up losing respect for himself as well as for others. When he has no respect for anyone, he can no longer love. And in order to divert himself, having no love in him, he yields to his impulses, indulges in the lowest form of pleasure, and behaves in the end like an animal in satisfying his vices. And it all comes from lying, lying to others and to yourself. The rule of law and the President's constitutional oath must pass the test of truth. President Clinton, regrettably, failed that test. Mr. Chief Justice, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that William Jefferson Clinton is guilty of perjury, is guilty of obstruction of justice, and must be removed from office. I have only to answer to my conscience, to the Constitution, and the judgment of history, and I stand ready for that judgment. I yield back any time.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I wish to announce that an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The purpose of this hearing is to review the President's FY2000 budget request for the Bureau of Reclamation and the Power Marketing Administrations. The hearing will take place on Wednesday, March 3, 1999, at 2 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. Those who wish to testify or submit a written statement should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please contact Ms. Julia McCaul, Howard Useem, (PMA's) or Colleen Deegan (BOR) at (202) 224- 8115. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. If the motion carries, as has been outlined by the majority leader, you have every right to release your statement. That would not violate rule 29.5.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Your statement, yours, not anybody else's. Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize students from Milford High School in Milford, New Hampshire for their outstanding performance in the ``We the People * * * The Citizen and the Constitution'' program. On May 1-3, 1999, more than 1200 students from across the United States will be in Washington, D.C., to compete in the national finals of the ``We the People * * * The Citizen and the Constitution'' program. I am proud to announce that the class from Milford High School will represent the state of New Hampshire in this national event. These young scholars have worked diligently to reach the national finals and through their experience have gained a deep knowledge and understanding of the fundamental principles and values of our constitutional democracy. The ``We the People * * * The Citizen and the Constitution'' program is the most extensive educational program in the country developed specifically to educate young people about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The three-day national competition is modeled after hearings in the United States Congress. These hearings consist of oral presentation by high school students before a panel of adult judges. The students testify as constitutional experts before a ``congressional committee,'' that is, the panel of judges representing various regions of the country and a variety of appropriate professional fields. The student testimony is followed by a period of questioning during which the judges probe students for their depth of understanding and ability to apply their constitutional knowledge. Administered by the Center for Civic Education, the ``We the People * * * The Citizen and the Constitution'' program has provided curricular materials at upper elementary, middle, and high school levels for more than 26.5 million students nationwide. Members of Congress and their staff enhance the program by discussing current constitutional issues with students and teachers and by participating in other educational activities. The student team from Milford High School is currently conducting research and preparing for the upcoming national competition in Washington, D.C. As a former history teacher, I recognize the importance and value of this unique educational experience. I wish the students and their teacher, Mr. David Alcox, the best of luck at the ``We the People * * * The Citizen and the Constitution'' national finals. I look forward to greeting them when they visit Capitol Hill, and I am honored to represent them in the United States Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Monsignor John P. Quinn of Manchester, New Hampshire, on his retirement from Catholic Charities. Monsignor Quinn has been Dioceasan Director of New Hampshire Catholic Charities since 1976. Monsignor Quinn was ordained on May 18, 1969 and has served many functions in the Diocese. He first served as Associate Pastor at St. Anne's Parish in Manchester. Most recently he served as Secretary to the Bishop in charge of Community Service and Director of New Hampshire Catholic Charities. He leaves these posts to occupy the position of Secretary to the Bishop in charge of Finance and Real Estate and to become the Finance Officer of the Diocese. Furthermore, Monsignor Quinn has continuously exhibited his unselfish dedication to the community. Having volunteered in various organizations such as the Trinity High School Board, the Manchester Police Department and the New Hampshire Social Welfare Council, Monsignor Quinn is an exemplary model for community service. As a lifelong Catholic, I would like to congratulate Monsignor Quinn on all of his accomplishments and thank him for his service to Catholic Charities and his continued service to the Diocese. I wish him well in all of his future endeavors. I am honored 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 Tom Nutting, the recipient of the ``Business of the Year Award'' from the Merrimack Chamber of Commerce. Tom began an electrical contracting business, Custom Electric, in 1983 with two employees. Today, his company employs fifteen people and continues to grow. He is described by his colleagues as a very enthusiastic, highly motivated businessman. Tom has served as Director of the Board of the Merrimack Chamber of Commerce since 1993. He is a member of the Merrimack Village District Board of Directors and a member of the Association of Facilities Engineering. Tom is also very active in the community. His business sponsors a Babe Ruth baseball team and he assists at a vocational/technical college. He helps to put together a yearly Golf Tournament and trade shows for the Chamber of Commerce. Every year, he sets up the holiday decorations in Fraser Square in Merrimack for all to enjoy. As a former small business owner myself, I understand the hard work and dedication required for success in business. Once again, I wish to congratulate Tom Nutting on Custom Electric being selected as ``Business of the Year'' by the Merrimack Chamber of Commerce. It is a pleasure to represent him in the United States Senate.