Bob Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Idaho.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I respond to my friend by repeating what Senator Craig said a moment ago. There is $100 million in the law to do this, so we don't need to be charging additional fees. That is No. 1. No. 2, it is interesting how we pick out certain constitutional rights and say we are going to tax them and not others. Maybe we should tax everybody for having free speech. Or maybe we should tax everybody for reading the newspaper. Maybe we should tax everybody for going to church. It doesn't make sense. It is our constitutional right. Let me repeat, again. No. 1, this amendment prevents the FBI from keeping files on innocent people who simply had a background check done on them who did nothing wrong and were perfectly entitled to own a gun. Secondly, the amendment prevents the FBI from imposing a tax on these people. Thirdly, it allows a person to go to court if the FBI does that. We have seen abuses by the FBI. We have seen files held in the White House. Do you want this to go on? That is what this issue is about. That is what my amendment is about. I hope my colleagues will support me on this amendment because this is more than a gun issue-- this is a privacy issue. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, let me explain this amendment. I have heard some very interesting remarks on the other side about Brady and registration. That is not what my amendment is--very eloquent, but that is not what my amendment is. My amendment does three things. First, it prevents the FBI from keeping a file on a law-abiding citizen who, after he had the gun checked, came up fine, clear. Why would we want the FBI to maintain a file on a law-abiding gun owner who did nothing wrong except exercise his constitutional right to own a gun? They want 18 months to keep these files. I don't want 18 seconds. I want these files destroyed immediately. That is point one in my amendment. Second, my amendment prevents the FBI from imposing a tax on people who use this national instant criminal background check system because they want simply to exercise their right to own a gun. That is the second point. Why should they be taxed for that? Why should they pay this fee? It could be up to $20 to $25 just to do this--maybe more. That is to start. There is no reason why anybody should pay a fee. You are an individual who has a constitutional right to own a gun. Somebody in the Government decides that they want to check you out, fine. You check out clear. Why should you have to pay for that? You didn't ask for it; it is your right. The person who is a criminal or a person who is not entitled to have that gun because of something they did, fine, they can pay for it, and they should pay for it and they shouldn't get the gun. But that is not the people about whom we are talking. Third, if the Government, in violation of the law, holds these files, you have the right to pursue this matter in court, which is the proper procedure. I simply ask my colleagues, Why would you keep a file in the FBI on an innocent person who did nothing except own a gun, which is his constitutional right to do so? That is what this amendment is about. If you want those files maintained, then you would vote against this amendment. This is Big Brother at its worst. It is Big Brother at its worst. It is coming in and taking privacy--your privacy; you have the right not to have that file in the FBI, and they don't have the right to put it there, because you did nothing wrong. That is what this amendment is about. Secondly, it is about a tax. If you want to charge these fees, so be it. But then you can vote against my amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. How much time remains on this side?

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Alabama.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. The second-degree amendment will be the first one voted on. I would be happy to vitiate them on the second vote, but I need to have a vote on the second-degree amendment. Again, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. No; I have an amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. No.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Could I suggest a unanimous consent request. Let me make one and see if it is acceptable. I make a unanimous consent request that I be allowed to offer my amendment to speak not more than 20 minutes, after which time we would go back to the amendment of the Senator from California.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. But not to preclude additional time after your amendment is completed.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Rick Metts of Derry, New Hampshire, on being named the 1998 ``Citizen of the Year'' by the Greater Derry Chamber of Commerce. Rick has earned this very special honor as a result of his many years of volunteer work for a variety of different organizations in the City of Derry. At the Derry Village Rotary Club, Rick has been Sergeant at Arms for the past seven years and has participated in every fundraiser, project and event the club has held. As a member of the club's Social Committee, Rick has helped organize Pot-Luck suppers and Yankee Swaps, and has served as the Master of Ceremonies for Pictionary Games. Rick has also demonstrated his commitment to education, as he and his family have co-sponsored scholarships given to outstanding vocational students. In addition to his work at the Rotary Club, Rick is also active in a number of other organizations in his community. He is currently serving his second three-year term on the Derry School Board and has held the position of Chair twice. Rick also has shown his true dedication to children through his work with the Boys & Girls Club of Greater Derry. For the past two years, Rick has chaired the Club's largest fundraiser, which features a gourmet dinner as well as both a silent and live auction. He has also coached and refereed many basketball games for the club and recreation teams. Rick has also been a longtime member and supporter of the Greater Derry Chamber of Commerce. According to one of his close friends, Rick Metts ``never has to be asked, he always volunteers.'' The many ways Rick has found to be involved in his community are a true testament to that statement. Rick embodies that great spirit of volunteerism that helped make this nation great. I want to again congratulate Rick Metts on being named ``Citizen of the Year'' and it is with great pride that I represent him in the United States Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. As the Senator from Arizona knows, I took the lead as Chairman of the Armed Services Committee's Strategic Subcommittee in drafting these reporting requirements. I think that, if what the Senator has been told is accurate, the Administration's conduct would not only be unresponsive to the mandate of Congress, but irresponsible with respect to our national defense. It would be completely unacceptable if Congress were to be denied information it has sought, not because the information is unavailable, but because its conclusions are inconvenient to an Administration that is determined to do everything it can to prevent the deployment of missile defenses. As Chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee it is my responsibility to ensure that missile defense programmatic decisions are based upon solid information and facts. The report we are currently discussing is key to my subcommittee's future decisions on program direction and funding for missile defense. This report is one part of the process of examining our NMD program objectively, comparing the merits of each and deciding where future resources should be applied.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I for one would be prepared to support such a measure, should that prove necessary.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the players of the Kingswood High School varsity baseball team for winning their first division championship. As any baseball fan well knows, winning a division championship is no easy task. Yet what makes the Knights' season all the more remarkable is the fact that they ended their season with a spectacular record of 22 wins and only 1 loss. The Knights battled for the championship against Somersworth High School. Pitcher Kyle Frank and the team's four other seniors, Allie Shelley, Shaun St. Ong, Corey Eastman and Matt Pearson, led their team to an 8-5 victory to win the school's first championship. Equally as important as the team's victory is the way the players carry themselves both on and off the field. The Kingswood Knights' hard work, fierce determination and positive attitude in the face of tough competition are traits that exemplify true champions and should make every student at Kingswood Regional High School proud. The Kingswood Knights are a refreshing example of a principle that often gets lost in today's sports world: dedicated baseball playing. The Knights play because of a love and respect for the game of baseball and this is evident in their division championship. Kingswood's victory is also very special to me personally. Twenty years ago, as a teacher at Kingswood Regional High School, I had the privilege of coaching the Knights and, in fact, had Coach Chip Skelley on my team. Mr. President, I want to once again congratulate the Kingswood Knights as well as Coach Skelley and Assistant Coach Bill Rollins. It is an honor to represent the Kingswood Knights in the United States Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

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

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. No, I prefer to do it prior to this amendment, because it is on the same subject. It is Bosnia, and once you vote and that amendment is gone--my preference is to do it now if I can do it.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. My preference, I say to the Senator, is that I be allowed to debate this amendment, present it and allow----

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, just as an inquiry to the managers, I have an amendment that I would like to offer which will probably take 15 or 20 minutes for me to present at the most. I don't want to delay a vote, but it seems that we might be able to put the two votes together. We would have the voice vote on McCain, and then if I offer my amendment, we can have two votes together. Will that work for the Senator? I would at least like to debate and offer this amendment prior to the vote on your amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, it is not my intention to delay the Senate. I have a very serious amendment, and I have a few moments of time and would like to outline what it is. If there is not a lot of argument on the other side, I say to my colleagues, we could have a vote in a very few minutes. The amendment is very simple. It just limits the use of funds to support the continued deployment of ground forces of the United States in Bosnia pending a vote of Congress on the continuation of deployment, and to require the President to submit a plan for withdrawal, if the Congress does not do so by March 31. Very simply put, Mr. President--Mr. President, may I have order.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, this amendment is very simple. It simply says that we will have a vote, that the Congress will go on record one way or the other. It doesn't say we have to vote yes. It doesn't say we have to vote no. It just simply says that we exercise our opinion so that the Congress can speak, so that we will be on record one way or the other. Leaving forces in Bosnia, taking them out, whatever that vote turns out to be, that is all this amendment does. If the President decides to keep them there after that, then so be it. But we go on record as making a statement. This does not get into some of the other issues that have been gotten into. I would just like to briefly go back a little bit to remind Senators, because we hear a lot of talk of frustration about the Bosnia operation, about why our troops are there, how long are they going to be there, people complaining about being misled by the President or not being told the truth by the President and all this. I am hearing all of these comments and here is our chance with this amendment to be heard. It just seems to me if we vote against this amendment, I don't see any reason why we should be complaining about the operation. I remind my colleagues of some testimony. Secretary of Defense Perry on December 1, 1995, said the following: We believe the mission in Bosnia can be accomplished in 1 year. So we built our plan based on that time line. And this schedule is realistic because the specific military tasks in the agreement can be completed in the first 6 months and thereafter IFOR's role will be to maintain the climate of stability that will permit civil work to go forward. We expect these civil functions will be successfully initiated in 1 year, but even if some of them are not, we must not be drawn into a posture of indefinite garrison. Further, on December 6, 1995, Assistant Secretary of State Holbrooke said: The military tasks are doable within 12 months. There isn't any question. The deeper question is whether the nonmilitary functions can be done in 12 months. That is the real question. But it is not the NATO or U.S. force responsibility to do that. It is us on the civilian side working with the Europeans. It is going to be tough. Should the military stick around until every refugee has gone home, until everything else in the civilian annex has been done? No, that is not their mission. That is what Secretary Holbrooke said. So, Mr. President, the mission to Bosnia has very strong advocates and strong detractors. We have heard that in the debate in these past few hours. My amendment does not seek to open that discussion nor to close it. It really has nothing to do with that. It simply asks that Members of Congress at some point between now and March 31 of next year, 1999, cast a vote on the wisdom of the United States-Bosnia policy. That is all it does.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. That is correct. And I would just say to the Senator, I agree with him. I would like to vote for and see passed a resolution of disapproval.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Foster's Daily Democrat on its 125th birthday. On June 18, 1873, Foster's first paper proclaimed, ``We shall devote these columns mainly to the vital interests of Dover and vicinity. Whatever may tend to benefit this people and enhance their prosperity, will receive our warm and enthusiastic support.'' Our nation and indeed the world has changed many times since that day 125 years ago when Foster's first made that commitment to its readers. Ulysses Grant was president and the United States had just gone through the most destructive and divisive war in its history. Since then, the United States has fought two world wars, an economic depression and the Cold War. Yet in over 125 years, one thing has always stayed the same: Foster's commitment to truth, journalistic integrity and its readers. It is that unyielding commitment that has made Foster's Daily Democrat the nation's longest continuously managed and owned newspaper by direct family descendants of its founder in the United States. As the paper itself eloquently states, ``When your family's name is at the top of every page, you try a lot harder.'' Foster's has also been a leader in applying technological advancements to the field of newspaper publishing. In 1964, it became the first newspaper in New Hampshire to use offset printing as a way to produce brighter and sharper newspapers. At a time in our nation's history when journalists and the media in general are often accused of fostering cynicism, the people at Foster's have been reporting news to the men and women of New Hampshire while never sacrificing the principles of Joshua Lane Foster, the paper's founder. Congratulations to current publisher Robert Foster and all the other hard working men and women at Foster's Daily Democrat on your 125th birthday. It is an honor to represent you in the United States Senate.