Bob Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. On record.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. The Senator is exactly correct. It gives us the opportunity to go on record as saying, one, let's just keep going, doing what we are doing. If you vote against the resolution, you can do that, or if you want to get out. But the point is we vote. This says that we have to have a vote by March 31 before we spend the rest of the money for the 6 months of the fiscal year 1999. That is all it says. Now, however we vote is another issue. Then Senators go on record one way or the other--get out, stay in, either one, but they will be on record instead of all the complaining that we hear around here about the Bosnia policy. Why would anybody object? This is not asking us to vote yes. It is not asking us to vote no. It is asking us to vote, have a vote.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. The Senator is correct. I would have preferred the stronger version myself, but given the fact that we didn't have the votes, I decided to step back and just say, look, let's go on record. Let's have the opportunity to go on record. It doesn't require that the vote be affirmative for the money to be released, only that a vote takes place. So to require that a vote take place and to have that vote taken seriously, my amendment uses the constitutional power that Senator Byrd spoke so eloquently of an hour or so ago of Congress to restrict funds. The amendment holds back half the money authorized for Bosnia operations next year until a vote is held--not a vote to leave them there, not a vote to take them out--a vote on a resolution authorizing continued deployment of U.S. ground combat forces to Bosnia. If it fails, the only result is that the President is required to tell us how and when he intends to withdraw. The money is still released. The purpose is simple and straightforward. It is to use a small amount of leverage, half of next year's money, to force Congress to express itself--that is all, to express itself--clearly on the Bosnia mission. The resolution may pass, it may fail, but at least Congress will have expressed itself. As the Senator from West Virginia has said so eloquently a while ago, why would Congress want to step away from its constitutional responsibilities if it doesn't tell the President what to do? It doesn't restrict the President. It doesn't get into troop strength. It doesn't get into deployment. It doesn't get into any of that. It just simply says Congress will have a vote. Let me just say this. Before we have a vote on this amendment, I would say to my colleagues that our constituents elected us to represent them. How can we represent them if we are afraid to just express ourselves on the Senate floor one way or the other? They expect us to stand and be counted on major foreign policy issues, and I can't think of any excuse that we would give our constituents that would justify refusing to even have a vote on the resolution on Bosnia. So I would urge my colleagues to accept some responsibility for United States-Bosnia policy, stand up and be counted and to pass the amendment. Let me be a little more specific, in summary, as to what the amendment does. It is going to withhold half of next year's funding for Bosnia until Congress votes on the issue. It doesn't require that the mission be approved, just that the vote is one way or the other. The purpose is to honor the very strong arguments and strong feelings on both sides of the issue--both sides of the issue--by requiring the debate and a vote. I hope my colleagues understand this amendment because I think there have been some expressions of misunderstanding. As the Senator from West Virginia so eloquently said awhile back, the only leverage that Congress has is funding. That is our leverage. I think to use it in this manner is to use it responsibly. Unless we place some restriction on it, there will be no pressure to debate anything and no pressure to vote on anything, and the debate itself will not, in my view, ever be taken seriously. You know: sense of the Senate, sense of the House--these resolutions, they don't mean anything. So, to try to get in the middle here so we can get some common ground, just to have a vote rather than go one way or the other, is my goal. I do not think that is asking that much, that the American people, through their elected representatives, declare either their support for or opposition to this. Don't you think your constituents are entitled to know how you feel, on the record, not in some speech where it is easy to say something and then walk it back a little later, but on the record with a vote? I don't think that is unreasonable. I think it is in everyone's interests to have this vote. I have been trying to offer this amendment for a long, long time. I have been put off on certain other vehicles because it was not the appropriate place to do it, they said. I don't know what the appropriate place is. I remember, as some of my colleagues will who are here on the floor with me, I remember similar debates on the floor of the Senate and the House of Representatives while people were dying every day in Vietnam. While those men and women were honorably serving their country, the debate raged on and nobody had the guts to do one thing or the other, either win the war or get out. I am not saying this is Vietnam, yet. But we do have a situation here where I believe Congress should go on record. I happen to be a critic of the mission. I agree with Senator Inhofe and I supported Senator Inhofe in his mission here, if you will, to end the deployment. But that is not what I am trying to do here. If the Senators on both sides cannot force themselves to vote, take a public position, then I don't understand how they can continue to talk about it and complain about it and attack the President and say: ``Oh, the President's going to do this,'' or, ``We might get stuck in Bosnia,'' or, ``We ought to do this,'' or, ``We ought to do that.'' Here is your chance to say, one way or the other. I want to have a vote. That is all it says. No more complaining about costs. No more second-guessing the President. Just stand up and be counted. Yes, we will have a vote, and when we take that vote, we can decide one way or the other what we want to do. I think I have made the case on this amendment. It uses funding leverage. It is an appropriate congressional tool. It does not micromanage the executive branch, as some people have expressed a lot of concern about. It does not do that. It doesn't tell the President how to conduct his operations. But it does say that we ought to have a vote, and I think it calls for a future vote. Don't wait until next year or the year after; let's have the vote. Let's let the American people know how we feel. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. With all due respect, the Senator misunderstands my amendment, because that is not what my amendment does. You just articulated the policy that you supported. Even if your side would lose in the debate that we would have in Congress--let's say we have the debate. If your side lost, the money would still be released. If my side loses --I happen to favor withdrawal--if I lost, the money would still be released. All my amendment calls for is a vote. It doesn't say that if we vote to get out on March 31 that the money is not released. The money is still released. This is on the Senator's time. He has been very generous. The only conclusion I can draw is the Senator just doesn't want a vote in the Congress at all.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. If I can respond to the Senator, I need to see if we are looking at the same draft, because that is not my intention, and if that is in the draft, I will amend that to change that because that is not the intention of the Senator's amendment. I yield back to the Senator his time and let me take a look at the draft.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I say to my colleague, I have a modification, and I will have it ready in a moment. So I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent it be in order for me to modify my amendment with the text that I now send to the desk.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I am happy to yield. Privilege of the Floor

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Thank you, Madam President. Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Further parliamentary inquiry. It is my understanding the tree is full with the McCain second degree; is that correct?

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I ask unanimous consent that the underlying amendment be set aside in order for me to offer my amendment and subsequently have a vote on both amendments.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. All I am trying to do is to make it a little more convenient for Members. I was saying if I had 15 or 20 minutes to present my amendment, we can have both votes on the underlying amendment and my amendment at the same time. That is my point.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask that my amendment No. 2912, which is at the desk, be called up.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to commend Sara McLaughlin of New Hampshire for receiving the Discover Card State Tribute Award Scholarship for 1998. Established in 1992, the Discover Card Tribute Award program honors outstanding high school juniors and seniors across the United States and overseas schools. The Tribute Award Program honors excellence in community service, leadership, special talents, unique endeavors and obstacles overcome. Of nearly 11,000 students nationwide who applied this year, only those who most exemplify these characteristics receive the scholarships. Winners may use their scholarships for any type of post-high school education or training. Gold, silver, bronze and merit State Tribute Award scholarships are awarded in three categories of study: Arts and Humanities, Trade and Technical or Science, Business and Technology. Due to her outstanding written statement, Sara received a gold award in the category of Science, Business and Technology Studies. It is no wonder Sara is one of the recipients of such a competitive award. The many activities in which she participates at Gilford Middle High School in Gilford, New Hampshire, include Students Against Drunk Driving, multiple drama productions and Student Council, where she was appointed vice president for two consecutive years. Sara is also a New England ranked competitive swimmer. In addition, she finds time to participate in the ``Big Brother, Big Sister'' program and Interact Society, a local community service group. She currently holds a ranking of third in her academic class, and aspires to study medicine in the coming years. Sara's many accomplishments and involvements easily illustrate her importance as a model student, leader and citizen in society. I wish to congratulate Sara for all of her accomplishments, and especially for being a distinguished recipient of the Discover Card State Tribute Award. It is an honor to represent Sara D. McLaughlin in the United States Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to commend Tom A. Rogers of New Hampshire for receiving the Discover Card State Tribute Award Scholarship for 1998. Established in 1992, the Discover Card Tribute Award program honors outstanding high school juniors and seniors across the United States and overseas schools. The Tribute Award Program honors excellence in community service, leadership, special talents, unique endeavors and obstacles overcome. Of nearly 11,000 students nationwide who applied this year, only those who most exemplify these characteristics receive the scholarships. Winners may use their scholarships for any type of post-high school education or training. Gold, silver, bronze and merit State Tribute Award scholarships are awarded in three categories of study: Arts and Humanities, Trade and Technical or Science, Business and Technology. Due to his outstanding written statement, Tom received a bronze award in the category of Science, Business and Technology Studies. It is no wonder Tom is one of the recipients of such a competitive award. A member of National Honor Society, and currently ranked first in his academic class, Tom is nothing short of a model student for all of his peers. In addition, he is a member of the Math Team, Outing Club and the Cross Country Team at Farmington High School in Farmington, New Hampshire. Due to his stellar academic achievements, Tom participates in University of New Hampshire's ``Project Search,'' a lecture series designed to allow advanced students across the state meet one another and discuss various topics of importance. All of the activities in which Tom participates illustrate his integral role as a member of his community. I wish to congratulate Tom for all of his accomplishments, and especially for being a distinguished recipient of the Discover Card State Tribute Award. It is an honor to represent Tom A. Rogers in The United States Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to commend Graziella G. Matty of New Hampshire for receiving the Discover Card State Tribute Award Scholarship for 1998. Established in 1992, the Discover Card Tribute Award program honors outstanding high school juniors and seniors across the United States and overseas schools. The Tribute Award Program honors excellence in community service, leadership, special talents, unique endeavors and obstacles overcome. Of nearly 11,000 students nationwide who applied this year, only those who most exemplify these characteristics receive the scholarships. Winners may use their scholarships for any type of post-high school education or training. Gold, silver, bronze and merit State Tribute Award scholarships are awarded in three categories of study: Arts and Humanities, Trade and Technical or Science, Business and Technology. Due to her outstanding personal statement, Graziella received a silver award in the category of Arts and Humanities Studies. It is no wonder Graziella is one of the recipients of such a competitive award. As a member of the National Honor Society, captain of the Debate Team, and ambassador for the Hugh O'Brian Youth Foundation, she has demonstrated her leadership abilities continuously at Salem High School in Salem, New Hampshire. Graziella has also displayed a marked interest in archaeology by excelling in an archaeologic methods collegiate level course at Plymouth State College, and she was named the ``New Hampshire Archaeology Rookie of the Year'' in 1997. In addition, Graziella finds time to participate in the Model UN and play soccer for the varsity team. In various facets of her school life and greater community, Graziella has successfully illustrated her importance as a model student and citizen. I wish to congratulate Graziella for all of her accomplishments, and especially for being a distinguished recipient of the Discover Card State Tribute Award. It is an honor to represent Graziella G. Matty in The United States Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to commend Michelle K. Franke of New Hampshire for receiving the Discover Card State Tribute Award Scholarship for 1998. Established in 1992, the Discover Card Tribute Award program honors outstanding high school juniors and seniors across the United States and overseas schools. The Tribute Award Program honors excellence in community service, leadership, special talents, unique endeavors and obstacles overcome. Of nearly 11,000 students nationwide who applied this year, only those who most exemplify these characteristics receive the scholarships. Winners may use their scholarships for any type of post-high school education or training. Gold, silver, bronze and merit State Tribute Award scholarships are awarded in three categories of study: Arts and Humanities, Trade and Technical or Science, Business and Technology. Due to her outstanding written statement, Michelle received a bronze award in the category of Arts and Humanities Studies. It is no wonder Michelle is one of the recipients of such a competitive award. Throughout the past three years, Michelle's activities have included the National Honor Society, track team, cross country running team, poetry club and drama club at Kennett High School in Conway, New Hampshire. She has represented her school and community at the Summer Institute for the Gifted, the Teen Institute, the Teen Leadership Conference and the World Affairs Seminar. Michelle is also a volunteer at the public library and at a local nursing home. In addition, Michelle will be traveling to Poland this summer for the purpose of meeting with Polish teens and helping them with their English proficiency. This trip illustrates Michelle's commitment not only to her immediate community, but to all of humanity. Not only is Michelle incredibly active within the community, but she has also maintained outstanding grades, and she is currently ranked second in her academic class. Michelle continuously shines as a model student and citizen. I wish to congratulate Michelle for all of her accomplishments, and especially for being a distinguished recipient of the Discover Card State Tribute Award. It is an honor to represent Michelle K. Franke in the United States Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to commend Susan Wood of New Hampshire for receiving the Discover Card State Tribute Award Scholarship for 1998. Established in 1992, the Discover Card Tribute Award program honors outstanding high school juniors and seniors across the United States and overseas schools. The Tribute Award Program honors excellence in community service, leadership, special talents, unique endeavors and obstacles overcome. Of nearly 11,000 students nationwide who applied this year, only those who most exemplify these characteristics receive the scholarships. Winners may use their scholarships for any type of post-high school education or training. Gold, silver, bronze and merit State Tribute Award scholarships are awarded in three categories of study: Arts and Humanities, Trade and Technical or Science, Business and Technology. Due to her outstanding written statement, Susan received a silver award in the category of Trade and Technical Studies. It is no wonder Susan is one of the recipients of such a competitive award. She is a long-standing member of 4H on the National Level and has served as President of her local chapter. Through 4H, she has volunteered for many community service projects. As a member of an equestrian team, Susan has displayed her leadership qualities by competing successfully, riding in the Eastern States Fair competitions. She is also a member of the Junior National Honor Society at her high school in West Swanzey, New Hampshire. Susan shines as a model student, athlete and citizen. I wish to congratulate Susan for all of her accomplishments, and especially for being a distinguished recipient of the Discover Card State Tribute Award. It is an honor to represent Susan Wood in the United States Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to commend Andrea Aldrich of New Hampshire for receiving the Discover Card State Tribute Award Scholarship for 1998. Established in 1992, the Discover Card Tribute Award program honors outstanding high school juniors and seniors across the United States and overseas schools. The Tribute Award Program honors excellence in community service, leadership, special talents, unique endeavors, and obstacles overcome. Of nearly 11,000 students nationwide who applied this year, only those who most exemplify these characteristics receive the scholarships. Winners may use their scholarships for any type of post-high school education or training. Gold, silver, bronze and merit State Tribute Award scholarships are awarded in three categories of study: Arts and Humanities, Trade and Technical or Science, Business and Technology. Due to her outstanding written statement, Andrea received a gold award in the category of Trade and Technical Studies. It is no wonder Andrea is one of the recipients of such a competitive award. A member of National Honor Society, student council, a peer mediator, and captain of the varsity cheerleading team at Plymouth Regional High School in Plymouth, New Hampshire, Andrea has proven her leadership abilities in varying experiences. In addition, she has found the time to improve the community around her in many ways. In 1995, a self-initiated community service program was begun by Andrea in order to assist underprivileged school-age children in obtaining school supplies. This program, entitled ``School Collectibles,'' has been so successful that it led to Andrea's receiving a bronze 1997 Prudential Spirit of Community Award in New Hampshire. In order to extend her services beyond the state, Andrea paid her own way to Philadelphia to volunteer at St. Francis' Soup Kitchen for an entire April school vacation. She has long been involved in theater productions at school, and has been a dancer for many years. Andrea's generosity, leadership skills and talent in theater illustrate only some of the outstanding characteristics that make her a model citizen and a well-rounded, motivated person. I wish to congratulate Andrea for all of her accomplishments, and especially for being a distinguished recipient of the Discover Card State Tribute Award. It is an honor to represent Andrea L. Aldrich in the United States Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to commend Aditi Garg of New Hampshire for receiving the Discover Card State Tribute Award Scholarship for 1998. Established in 1992, the Discover Card Tribute Award program honors outstanding high school juniors and seniors across the United States and overseas schools. The Tribute Award Program honors excellence in community service, leadership, special talents, unique endeavors and obstacles overcome. Of nearly 11,000 students nationwide who applied this year, only those who most exemplify these characteristics receive the scholarships. Winners may use their scholarships for any type of post-high school education or training. Gold, silver, bronze and merit State Tribute Award scholarships are awarded in three categories of study: Arts and Humanities, Trade and Technical or Science, Business and Technology. Due to her outstanding written statement, Aditi received a silver award in the category of Science, Business and Technology Studies. It is no wonder Aditi is one of the recipients of such a competitive award. She is a member of the National Honor Society at her high school in Salem, New Hampshire. She is also a member of the varsity tennis team, studies Indian classical dance and enjoys her volunteer work at Holy Family Hospital in Methuen, Massachusetts. Both in school and in the greater society, Aditi stands out as a model student and citizen. I wish to congratulate Aditi for all of her accomplishments, and especially for being a distinguished recipient of the Discover Card State Tribute Award. It is an honor to represent Aditi Garg in the United States Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Roger Wood, an institution in the broadcast community of New Hampshire. After 18 years as a radio reporter in New Hampshire, and 30 years in broadcasting, Roger will sign off at the end of this month to pursue other endeavors. Roger, 50, is the news and public affairs director at WOKQ radio in Dover, New Hampshire. WOKQ is one of the largest stations in New Hampshire and, with its country music format, is my unequaled favorite. I am a WOKQ listener not only for the playlist, but because of the outstanding commitment, dignity and character that Roger Wood has brought to the airwaves in my years as an avid listener. Roger's distinguished voice has broadcast the news to WOKQ's audience since 1979. Before that, Roger was a one-man news shop at WHEB AM/FM in nearby Portsmouth, and worked at a variety of Seacoast stations including WWNH in Rochester, WBBX in Portsmouth and New Hampshire Public Television. He also worked at a number of stations in his native Pennsylvania before he graced the Granite State with his presence in 1970. Roger was never one to ``rip and read.'' He always researched stories thoroughly, went the extra mile to get an interview, and provided in- depth coverage from both a human interest and hard news perspective. And he has the awards lining his walls that prove it. Roger Wood is committed to his profession. He has won recognition from UPI, AP, the New Hampshire Association of Broadcasters, and other organizations in the categories of outstanding reporting, best newscasts and individual achievement. He has said that one of the achievements that most touched him was his coverage in 1986 on the fatal launch of the Space Shuttle Challenger, with New Hampshire teacher Christa McAuliffe on board. Roger was at Cape Canaveral in person, and has said the implications of the explosion left him ``deeply moved.'' Although Roger Wood is a veteran newscaster, he is a trend setter for the new generation of broadcasters. He led WOKQ to an innovative partnership with Channel 7 in Boston, establishing the largest news exchange network in the region. He has also implemented the first cellular car phone reporting system in the region, for listeners to report accidents and news ``they see happening.'' Roger is committed to his community, as exemplified by involvement in the Seacoast Housing Partnership, a nonprofit organization dedicated to affordable housing issues; the Mayor's Blue Ribbon Committee to improve the environment of Pierce Island; the Greater Seacoast Economic Summit; and his volunteer work to help many local citizens in poverty. Most importantly, Roger is committed to his family. He and his wife, Elaine, have been married for 27 years. They have three grown children, Roger, Jr., Emily, and Melissa. His family can be very proud of his achievements, and glad that they will finally have him around for breakfast! My interviews with Roger always left us sharing a laugh and, though he rarely took any of my suggestions for use in the ``Joke Du Jour,'' his resulting stories were always fair, thorough, and forthright as is always Roger's style. As he embraces future endeavors in the field of communications and public relations, I wish Roger Wood all the best. I am proud to represent him in the United States Senate, and proud to call him my friend.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, later this year, under the so-called Brady Law, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) will go into effect. The purpose of NICS is to prevent the purchase of guns by persons who are prohibited from owning firearms. Pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974, on June 4, 1998, the United States Department of Justice published in the Federal Register a notice of its intention to establish a new system of records with respect to NICS to be maintained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I am particularly concerned about the statement in the Justice Department's June 4 notice that states that ``[i]n cases where the NICS background check does not locate a disqualifying record, information about the individual will only be retained temporarily for audit purposes and will be destroyed after eighteen months.'' It seems to me, Mr. President, that there is no reason whatever why the FBI would need to retain private information on a law-abiding citizen for any time at all, let alone for eighteen months, after that person has been determined not to be someone who is prohibited by law from owning a firearm. Any legitimate ``audit purposes'' could certainly be addressed without retaining such private information on file at the FBI. Mr. President, later this year the Senate will be considering the Fiscal Year 1998 appropriations bill for the Commerce, Justice, and State Departments, the Judiciary, and related agencies. It is my intention to introduce an amendment to that bill as soon as it is reported to the Senate by the Committee on Appropriations. The text of my amendment will be as follows: ``None of the funds appropriated pursuant to this Act or any other provision of law may be used for (1) any system to implement 18 U.S.C. 922(t) that does not require and result in the immediate destruction of all information, in any form whatsoever, submitted by or on behalf of any person who has been determined not to be prohibited from owning a firearm; (2) the implementation of any tax or fee in connection with the implementation of 18 U.S.C. 922(t); provided, that any person aggrieved by a violation of this provision may bring an action in the federal district court for the district in which the person resides; provided, further, that any person who is successful with respect to any such action shall receive damages, punitive damages, and such other remedies as the court may determine to be appropriate, including a reasonable attorney's fee.'' I am taking the unusual step of notifying the Senate of my intention to offer this amendment in the hope that the Committee on Appropriations will consider including my proposed language in the Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary appropriations bill when it is reported to the Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Jacquelyn Benson and Alexander Kaufman of New Hampshire for being named 1998 United States Presidential Scholars. Jacquelyn Benson is a student at Winnacunnet High School in Hampton Falls, New Hampshire, and has been active in her school's National Honor Society and Art Department. Jacquelyn plays the piano, is currently working on a book of fiction, and plans to attend Northeastern University in the fall. She chose Ms. Toni Talas as her most influential teacher. Alexander Kaufman is also a 1998 Presidential Scholar. As a student at Phillips Exeter Academy in Dover, New Hampshire, Alexander has excelled in writing and math and was the editor of the school's poetry journal. He is also active in environmental issues and will be attending Harvard University in the fall. Alexander selected the late Frederick Tremallo as his most influential teacher. The United States Presidential Scholars Program was established in 1964, by Executive Order of President Johnson, to recognize and honor some of our nation's most distinguished graduating high school seniors. Each year, the White House Commission on Presidential Scholars selects up to 141 Scholars on the basis of their accomplishments in many areas: academic and artistic success, scholarship, leadership, and involvement in school and community. The Commission invites the students to Washington, DC, to be honored for their accomplishments during National Recognition Week. The Scholars, as guests of the Commission, along with their families and the teachers whom the Scholars have chosen as the ``most influential'' in their academic and artistic endeavors, will be involved in many activities while in Washington, DC. They will participate in informative panel discussions, a ceremony sponsored by the White House, a reception and art exhibit of the work by Scholars in the Visual Arts at the National Museum for American Art, and an evening at the Kennedy Center featuring performances by the Scholars in the Performing Arts. As a former teacher and school board chairman, I recognize the challenges involved in providing students a quality education. Congratulations to Jacquelyn and Alexander for their distinguished recognition. I am pleased they have been recognized for their success and it is with great pleasure that I represent them in the United States Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, our Nation's founding document, the Declaration of Independence, ultimately proclaimed that the right to life comes from God and that it is unalienable. Life itself, the declaration held, is the fundamental right without which the rights of liberty and the pursuit of happiness have no meaning. As the author of the declaration, Thomas Jefferson, wrote, ``The care of human life and not its destruction . . . is the first and only object of good government.'' It is important and I think proper to note that without that basic right of life, there is no liberty, there is no opportunity to pursue happiness in any way, shape, or form. One hundred ninety-seven years after that Declaration of Independence, in 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court violated this most sacred principle of the declaration. In Roe versus Wade, the Supreme Court held that the entire class of unborn children--from fertilization to birth--have no right to life and may be destroyed at will. As we know, the statistics are pretty dramatic. Thirty-five million children since Roe versus Wade were denied the opportunity to be born. Without getting into the reasons or the explanations or the rationale, the result is that 35 million children were denied that right. In subsequent cases, the Court has zealously guarded the right to abortion that the Court created. The Court has repeatedly rejected all meaningful attempts by the States to protect the unalienable right to life of unborn children since that decision in 1973. Mr. President, those of us who support the pro-life cause must never lose sight of our ultimate goal. Our objective is very simple. It is not complicated. It is to keep the promise of the Declaration of Independence. There is only one way to do that, Mr. President, and that is to overturn Roe versus Wade and restore to unborn children their God-given right to life, a God-given right that our Constitution. I believe, and certainly the declaration, gave them. And the Court took it away--a court, by the way, that is sworn to uphold the Constitution. In order to keep that hope alive in the Senate today, Mr. President, I am introducing two legislative proposals, and I am pleased and honored that the distinguished Senator from North Carolina, Mr. Helms, and the distinguished Senator from Missouri, Mr. Ashcroft, are joining me as original cosponsors of both measures. Senator Helms for many, many years--long before my time in the Senate--had the courage to stand here on the Senate floor day after day, week after week, taking insult after insult but supporting the lives of unborn children. I believe history will judge Senator Helms very prominently in this regard. And Senator Ashcroft, with less time in the Senate, is certainly a strong proponent and advocate of the right to life of unborn children. Let me talk specifically about the bills--first, a bill, the Human Life Act of 1998. The human life bill sets forth the findings of Congress that ``the right to life is the paramount and most fundamental right of a person'' and that ``the life of each human being begins at fertilization.'' Based on these findings, and in the exercise of the power of Congress under section 5 of the 14th amendment, my bill establishes that the word ``person,'' as used in the Constitution, applies to all human beings, including unborn children, because, Mr. President, an unborn child is a human being. I have never been able to understand the rationale, as many times as it has been debated here on the floor, how one can say that an unborn child is not a human being. Remember, if it is a human being, it deserves the right of protection under the Constitution of the United States. As one Senator, I will freely admit that when fertilization occurred, I was created. There was a sequence of time that occurred after that caused me to be here today, standing on the floor of the U.S. Senate. If it had been interrupted at any stage from that moment of fertilization until today, I wouldn't be here. The effect of this legislative determination that the unborn child is a human being and, therefore, a ``person'' would be to place unborn children under constitutional shield of due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th amendment. Thus, the right to life of every unborn person would be protected to the same extent that the right to life of all born persons is guaranteed by our Constitution. Mr. President, today we have seen in this day and this age a number of violent acts: School shootings, violence of children upon children, of children upon parents, terrible violence. I think we have a cultural problem. Most Americans would not deny that. I think it is fair to say that we need to set an example as adults-- those who are supposedly leaders of our country not only here in the Senate, or in the White House, or in the Congress, but also at the head of our communities, our families, whatever else. Whatever the role we may play as parents, as citizens, or husbands, or wives. I think we have a role to set an example. I would ask here on the floor of the Senate my colleagues: Are we setting an example for young people to follow when, at the will of any individual at any time after fertilization occurs, we say or we tolerate that that unborn child's life may be ended? It is an innocent life. It is a life who can't speak here on the floor of U.S. Senate. No child who is unborn has the opportunity to stand up on the floor and say, ``I'd like to live; I'd like to have the opportunity to raise a family, to be a leader, to be a preacher, be a Senator, be a doctor, to cure cancer, to be a teacher, be a good mom, a good dad. I would like to have that opportunity.'' I think they would say if they could speak that they do not have that opportunity. I think of those 35 million children, I say to my colleagues, since 1973 whose lives have been ended. How many of those children may have lived to find that cure for cancer or may have lived to have made a difference in a life--perhaps one of those lives of those children who took the lives of others? Perhaps one of these children who died may have been a counselor, may have been somebody on the spot who may have made a difference. We will never know, because those 35 million lives are gone--never had the opportunity to be happy, never had the opportunity to be successful, never had the opportunity to live--gone. And we did it. We did it because of that Supreme Court decision. It is wrong. I am reminded of Abraham Lincoln--a totally different issue but very similar in terms of its scope. Abraham Lincoln didn't take polls when he stood up in the United States of America in the 1860s and said: Slavery is wrong. It is wrong to enslave an American, or any individual, because of the color of their skin. And he spoke out against it. He spoke out eloquently against it, and he didn't take polls. He didn't stand up at a press conference and say to his aide, ``I am going to examine the feelings of my constituents on this. Would you please take a poll and find out whether the majority of the American people favor slavery or oppose slavery?'' I am reminded of what Lincoln said. I don't have the exact quote in front of me. I am going to paraphrase it from memory. He said: They tell me not to oppose slavery in the slave States, because they have left the country, so it is not our concern. They tell me not to oppose slavery in the free States, because we don't need to because they are free. They tell me not to oppose slavery from the pulpit, because it is not religion. And they tell me not to oppose slavery in politics, because it causes too much of a fuss. Substitute abortion for slavery in each of those four examples and you have the same situation. If we can't oppose it in any of the 50 States, if we can't oppose it in politics, if we can't oppose it in religion, where does that leave the unborn children who will never have the opportunity to stand up here and debate this issue? The right to life of every unborn person should be protected to the same extent as the right to life of all born persons. How can anybody in America, any Christian in the Judeo-Christian culture of America, not believe that? I know the insults. I have been the victim of them. I know the taunts. I know the recriminations that come from standing up here and making these comments. But it is nothing--nothing--compared to what those unborn children endure because they have been denied after they have been created by God himself. Man denies them the right to life, that life. I am reminded of Gianna Jesson, a young woman, perhaps 23 or 24 now, who was aborted. She was aborted. I saw her sing ``Amazing Grace''in front of 1,000 people a couple of years ago in which she said ``I am thankful to my God to be where I am today, and I forgive my mother.'' Well, I say that is powerful, Mr. President. I have never seen anything to equal it. Not from the lips of any politician or any pastor have I ever seen testimony stronger or more powerful than that young woman crippled by abortion standing up before 1,000 people and singing ``Amazing Grace.'' There was not a dry eye in the place. That woman deserved the right to live. So did every one of those other 35 million children who have been denied. There is only one way to stop this. We can preach about it. We can talk about it. We can debate it in politics. We can sing, or be quiet and be silent. But there is only way to stop it. We have to change the Court. The Supreme Court is wrong. In 1857, the Supreme Court said in the Dred Scott decision that a slave could not sue in federal court because he was property and not human. Chief Justice Roger Taney made that decision. The Supreme Court is not omnipotent. Roger Taney was wrong in that decision. He was wrong. And Roe v. Wade was wrong. And we need to change it. My bill provides that nothing--nothing--in it ``shall prohibit a law allowing justification to be shown for only those medical procedures required to prevent the death of either the pregnant woman or her unborn offspring as long as such a law requires every reasonable effort be made to preserve the lives of both of them.'' I am also introducing a joint resolution that would submit the human life amendment to the States for ratification as part of the Constitution of the United States. Specifically and more directly, I am introducing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to protect the lives of unborn children. It has been done before. It has been introduced before, and it has gone nowhere. It doesn't mean that it should not be introduced again and again and again and again until somehow, someway the message is received in this country that we have to protect the lives of these innocent children. Let me explain why I am proposing a human life amendment in addition to the human life bill. If the human life bill were to be enacted into law and its constitutionality upheld by the Supreme Court, it could be weakened or repealed by some Congress of the future. But a human life amendment to the Constitution could not be altered or repealed except by another constitutional amendment. Thus, my human life amendment would provide more durable protection to the fundamental right to life of unborn children. Like the human life bill, the human life amendment restores the word ``person'' in the Constitution to its original and natural meaning by making clear that it includes all human beings--all human beings--born and unborn. I have witnessed the birth of three of my children. It is a privilege that I am glad I had. I will tell you something. There is no difference between the 15 or 20 minutes before the child was born, when it was in the womb and I could not see it, and 15 or 20 minutes after the child was born when I saw my daughter and my two sons for the first time. There is no difference. Why is it right and proper under the law to kill that child 20 minutes or 20 days or 20 months before that wonderful time when the child comes into the world? Why is it right to do that and wrong to do it 20 minutes or 20 months or 20 years after? It is wrong in both cases. It is wrong in both cases. So the human life amendment includes the same language as the bill regarding medical procedures required to prevent the death of either the pregnant woman or her unborn offspring. I introduce these two legislative proposals and I realize as I stand here today that there is not sufficient support in the Congress to restore legal protection of the right to life of unborn children in this country, but I believe ultimately we will prevail. When the abolitionists stood in this Chamber in the 1820s and the 1830s and the 1840s and they said that slavery was wrong, they did not prevail either, but ultimately they did because they were right. And we are right. It is wrong to take the lives of unborn children, and someday, someway, somehow, the American people are going to come to realize this, and they are going to throw everybody out of here who will not support the changing of that court. That is what they are going to do. One of our Nation's greatest Presidents, in my estimation, Ronald Reagan, had the same confidence that the right-to-life cause someday will prevail. He believed it deep into his being. I can remember meeting personally with President Reagan and discussing this issue with him. I know how deeply he felt about it, and I also know the attacks he had, but I would ask my colleagues who somehow are a bit timid to stand up; when this issue comes up, they hide, many of them. They are worried about the political repercussions. Well, those repercussions of politics are not as bad as what Gianna Jesson went through when she was aborted. Here is what Reagan said 14 years ago in a book called ``Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation.'' Despite the formidable obstacles before us, we must not lose heart. This is not the first time our country has been divided by a Supreme Court decision that denied the value of certain human lives. This is a reference to what I talked about earlier. The Dred Scott decision of 1857 was not overturned in a day, or a year, or even a decade. At first, only a minority of Americans recognized and deplored the moral crisis brought about by denying the full humanity of our black brothers and sisters; but that minority persisted in their vision and finally prevailed. They did it by appealing to the hearts and to the minds of their countrymen, to the truth of human dignity under God. From their example, we know that respect for the sacred value of human life is too deeply ingrained in the hearts of our people to remain forever suppressed. Mr. President, I close by addressing my colleagues in the Senate. Each one of us, every one of us, started out in life as an unborn child. We were once, all of us, very small human beings living in our mother's wombs. As President Reagan wrote, ``Abortion concerns not just the unborn child, it concerns every one of us,'' because we would not be here if our parents had made that awful decision. The English poet, John Donne said, ``Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.'' ``It tolls for thee.'' My colleagues, regardless of where you have stood on abortion in the past, regardless of the acrimonious debate, regardless of the hard feelings, regardless of the political pressures, the contributions, the political attacks, I urge you to search your conscience and to search your soul and ask yourself, is it right, is it really right to kill an unborn child? I am not interested in hearing about all of the social conditions of the person who is having the child. That is another issue. I am not asking you to comment about the plight of that child when it is born. That is another issue. I am asking you to think, reach down in your souls like you would have if you stood on this floor in 1840 talking about slavery, if you were an abolitionist. I am asking you to search your soul and I am asking you to say, Is it right; is it right? And if it is not right, then you have an obligation to support this amendment and to help me to right a wrong. I am pledging here today in this Chamber that as long as I am a Senator, and as long as I am alive, I am going to work for the passage of this amendment. I have two cosponsors this morning. That is all I have. But I know there are more people who agree with me in both political parties. Frankly, I am going to be talking to them, every one of them. It is not an in-your-face situation. This is an in-your-heart situation--not the face, the heart. Is it right or is it wrong? If you can look me in the eye and tell me it is right to take the life of an unborn, innocent child, then I will not bother you anymore. But if you don't tell me that, then I am going to keep on bothering you and try to get your support. I hope you will decide to join me in cosponsoring both of these measures and place the lives of the unborn children of our Nation once again under the protection of our great Constitution. The only way to do that, in my opinion, is through the amendment.