Bob Smith

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.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I would like to announce that today there will be a period for morning business until the hour of 10:30 a.m. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of S. 1415, the tobacco legislation, with several amendments still pending. It is hoped that short time agreements can be reached on those amendments so that remaining amendments to this important bill may be offered and debated. As a reminder to all Members, a cloture motion was filed by the minority leader to the tobacco committee substitute. Under rule XXII, Senators have until 1 p.m. today to file first-degree amendments to the modified tobacco committee substitute. The leader has also announced that there will be no rollcall votes during today's session. Therefore, the cloture vote and any votes offered with respect to the tobacco bill today will be postponed to occur at a later date. As always, Members will be notified of the voting schedule next week as it becomes available.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to require Vietnam to provide freedom of emigration for the Vietnamese people before tax dollars from our constituents across America are used to further expand our government's trade relations with this communist regime. As provided for in the Trade Act of 1974, my resolution prohibits implementation of the President's decision yesterday to waive the freedom of emigration requirements with Vietnam. I am pleased that Senator Helms, the distinguished Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has joined me as a sponsor of this joint resolution, and I commend my colleague, Congressman Rohrabacher, for introducing a companion measure in the House. I also note that our efforts are strongly supported by the Chairman of the House International Relations Committee, Congressman Gilman, the Chairman of that Committee's panel on International Operations and Human Rights, Congressman Christopher Smith, and several other Members on both sides of the aisle in that chamber. Frankly, Mr. President, given the support for this resolution by the relevant Committee chairmen, one has to question why the Administration moved forward on this in March of this year and again yesterday. This is particularly troublesome given the fact that the President's own National Security Advisor stated this past December that the President would not move forward unless consultations with Congress went well. Clearly, the consultations did not go well. When Congress considered and passed the amendment by Senator Jackson and Representative Vanik in the Trade Act of 1974, everyone at the time understood Congressional intent--free emigration was to be a condition for expanding U.S. trade relations with non-market communist nations. Today, nearly two and a half decades later, we do not have free emigration provided to the people of Vietnam by the communist regime that took over that entire country by force in 1975. Moreover, the Administration has failed to make a convincing case to the Congress to justify President Clinton's decision to waive freedom of emigration requirements. Hanoi's record does not support this decision. Yes, Hanoi has taken some steps to permit more orderly departures in recent years, but there are still unwarranted delays, and I am very concerned that recent promises and pledges of cooperation have yet to be satisfactorily fulfilled. Congressional intent was clear in 1974, and it has not changed since that time. U.S. policy is supposed to put freedom of emigration ahead of the trade interests some might have with this one-party communist state. We are supposed to be putting principle over profit, not the other way around. I believe America should not abandon the Vietnamese people who long for respect for human rights and democratic freedoms. They were abandoned over two decades ago, and we simply cannot let it happen again. Jackson-Vanik requirements should not be waived for Vietnam if it is not absolutely clear that such a waiver would ``substantially promote'' freedom of emigration requirements as the law requires. This past March, State Department witnesses testified there had been ``measurable'' progress. The term measurable does not imply to me that we are seeing dramatic positive changes by Vietnam. I do not believe we have seen ``significantly more rapid progress'' which was the standard set by Secretary of State Albright herself last year during her visit to Vietnam. And I fail to see how the President's first waiver for Vietnam on March 9, 1998 has substantially promoted progress these past three months. If more people had been permitted to leave Vietnam in the last three months than we had seen over the last three years, then maybe the waiver would have, indeed, substantially promoted progress, but that has not happened, Mr. President, from what I have been told. Today, as we introduce this joint resolution, there are still people in Vietnam who supported us and fought for us during the war who have not been allowed to freely emigrate. Some of them have not even been allowed to meet with U.S. officials for interviews. I understand that others have been forced to pay exorbitant bribes in order to be considered for exit visas. Under the Trade Act of 1974, Congress has an opportunity to ensure that freedom of emigration requirements are met by Vietnam before further trade benefits are extended. The joint resolution introduced today by myself and Senator Helms provides my colleagues the opportunity to go on record in support of the people of Vietnam. If you want to send a message to the Government of Vietnam that they must fully comply with the promises and commitments they have made in recent years, this is the way to do it. Additionally, for those of my colleagues who continue to be concerned, as I am, that Hanoi has not been fully forthcoming in their accounting for American POWs and MIAs, and their progress on human rights, then you should support this resolution. Some of my colleagues may recall that both the POW/MIA issue and human rights concerns were, indeed, central to the provisions first adopted in the Trade Act of 1974, and so it is appropriate that these concerns are made part of the current debate as well. How far must we go, Mr. President, to embrace this communist regime before they fully address our long-standing concerns on all these important issues? I am certain that the time has come once again for Congress to go on record in support of the objectives behind this resolution. Finally, Mr. President, I would note that the resolution we are introducing today is strongly supported by numerous organizations of Vietnamese-Americans, many of our national veterans and POW/MIA family organizations, several international refugee organizations, and a host of other concerned groups of Americans. I look forward to the forthcoming debate on this timely and important issue.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to require Vietnam to provide freedom of emigration for the Vietnamese people before tax dollars from our constituents across America are used to further expand our government's trade relations with this communist regime. As provided for in the Trade Act of 1974, my resolution prohibits implementation of the President's decision yesterday to waive the freedom of emigration requirements with Vietnam. I am pleased that Senator Helms, the distinguished Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has joined me as a sponsor of this joint resolution, and I commend my colleague, Congressman Rohrabacher, for introducing a companion measure in the House. I also note that our efforts are strongly supported by the Chairman of the House International Relations Committee, Congressman Gilman, the Chairman of that Committee's panel on International Operations and Human Rights, Congressman Christopher Smith, and several other Members on both sides of the aisle in that chamber. Frankly, Mr. President, given the support for this resolution by the relevant Committee chairmen, one has to question why the Administration moved forward on this in March of this year and again yesterday. This is particularly troublesome given the fact that the President's own National Security Advisor stated this past December that the President would not move forward unless consultations with Congress went well. Clearly, the consultations did not go well. When Congress considered and passed the amendment by Senator Jackson and Representative Vanik in the Trade Act of 1974, everyone at the time understood Congressional intent--free emigration was to be a condition for expanding U.S. trade relations with non-market communist nations. Today, nearly two and a half decades later, we do not have free emigration provided to the people of Vietnam by the communist regime that took over that entire country by force in 1975. Moreover, the Administration has failed to make a convincing case to the Congress to justify President Clinton's decision to waive freedom of emigration requirements. Hanoi's record does not support this decision. Yes, Hanoi has taken some steps to permit more orderly departures in recent years, but there are still unwarranted delays, and I am very concerned that recent promises and pledges of cooperation have yet to be satisfactorily fulfilled. Congressional intent was clear in 1974, and it has not changed since that time. U.S. policy is supposed to put freedom of emigration ahead of the trade interests some might have with this one-party communist state. We are supposed to be putting principle over profit, not the other way around. I believe America should not abandon the Vietnamese people who long for respect for human rights and democratic freedoms. They were abandoned over two decades ago, and we simply cannot let it happen again. Jackson-Vanik requirements should not be waived for Vietnam if it is not absolutely clear that such a waiver would ``substantially promote'' freedom of emigration requirements as the law requires. This past March, State Department witnesses testified there had been ``measurable'' progress. The term measurable does not imply to me that we are seeing dramatic positive changes by Vietnam. I do not believe we have seen ``significantly more rapid progress'' which was the standard set by Secretary of State Albright herself last year during her visit to Vietnam. And I fail to see how the President's first waiver for Vietnam on March 9, 1998 has substantially promoted progress these past three months. If more people had been permitted to leave Vietnam in the last three months than we had seen over the last three years, then maybe the waiver would have, indeed, substantially promoted progress, but that has not happened, Mr. President, from what I have been told. Today, as we introduce this joint resolution, there are still people in Vietnam who supported us and fought for us during the war who have not been allowed to freely emigrate. Some of them have not even been allowed to meet with U.S. officials for interviews. I understand that others have been forced to pay exorbitant bribes in order to be considered for exit visas. Under the Trade Act of 1974, Congress has an opportunity to ensure that freedom of emigration requirements are met by Vietnam before further trade benefits are extended. The joint resolution introduced today by myself and Senator Helms provides my colleagues the opportunity to go on record in support of the people of Vietnam. If you want to send a message to the Government of Vietnam that they must fully comply with the promises and commitments they have made in recent years, this is the way to do it. Additionally, for those of my colleagues who continue to be concerned, as I am, that Hanoi has not been fully forthcoming in their accounting for American POWs and MIAs, and their progress on human rights, then you should support this resolution. Some of my colleagues may recall that both the POW/MIA issue and human rights concerns were, indeed, central to the provisions first adopted in the Trade Act of 1974, and so it is appropriate that these concerns are made part of the current debate as well. How far must we go, Mr. President, to embrace this communist regime before they fully address our long-standing concerns on all these important issues? I am certain that the time has come once again for Congress to go on record in support of the objectives behind this resolution. Finally, Mr. President, I would note that the resolution we are introducing today is strongly supported by numerous organizations of Vietnamese-Americans, many of our national veterans and POW/MIA family organizations, several international refugee organizations, and a host of other concerned groups of Americans. I look forward to the forthcoming debate on this timely and important issue.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Robert Bowen for receiving the 1998 VITA Wireless Samaritan Award. The award is given by the Cellular Telecommunications Industry to recognize the contributions of individuals who used their cellular phone to heroically help their communities. Robert is a clear example of how matching emergency situations with technology can impact people's lives. Robert Bowen is a police officer who is the head of the Keene Crime Watch Bike Patrol. Robert was on patrol one day when the local police received a frantic call reporting a missing child. The police, in turn, alerted Robert on his wireless phone. An eight-year-old, who had run away from home, was nowhere to be found and was in need of his daily medication. Robert headed out on the wooded trails to an area he knew was a popular congregation spot for area children. He quickly spotted the boy and doubled back to alert the boy's father. The father and son were reunited, and Robert called the police department on his wireless phone to let them know they could call off their search. The Keene Crime Watch Bike Patrol, armed with wireless phones, has found lost children, stopped crimes and brush fires and assisted in similar emergency situations for the past two years. I congratulate Robert for his courage and for demonstrating how police forces are utilizing modern technology to protect their communities. I am very honored to have Robert Bowen as a police officer in the Granite State, and it is with great pride that I represent him in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I join the majority of my colleagues today in expressing strong support for the conference report on H.R. 2400, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act reauthorization. As a member of the conference committee, I know the amount of time and effort that was put into developing this final agreement. I believe a fair compromise was reached among the wide variety of interests and between the House and Senate. This legislation represents a change from past transportation legislation and a shift toward an integrated, intermodal transportation system to promote efficiency and economic growth. Some of its major provisions include: assurance that gas tax dollars are used for transportation purposes, greater planning authority for state and local government, increased funding for highway safety, and funding for environmental protection activities. A reauthorized ISTEA should continue to recognize regional differences but at the same time, recognize that our transportation system is a national system. Certainly, every state want to get its ``fair share,'' and we will need to balance each state's needs with the needs of the Nation. From New Hampshire's perspective, it is important to ensure that small states continue to receive adequate funding for their infrastructure needs. New Hampshire strongly supports certain programs, such as the Bridge Rehabilitation, Scenic Byway and Recreational Trail programs, that other states may not need as greatly. The strength of this legislation is that it recognizes these varying needs and provides states with the flexibility to direct funding as they see appropriate. There are many challenges before us as we operate in a balanced budget environment--something for which I have fought long and hard. Our needs will always outweigh our resources. But we also have to recognize how critical our transportation system is to our economy and social well-being. While it is difficult to balance these frequently competing goals, I believe this bill strikes the right balance in providing an adequate amount of resources within the context of the balanced budget agreement. In conclusion, I believe this is a good bill and deserves Senate approval. The quality of our Nation's transportation system is depending on it. Thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the students, teachers, and staff of the Frances C. Richmond Middle School in Hanover, New Hampshire for being recognized by the United States Department of Education as a Blue Ribbon School. Blue Ribbon status is awarded to schools that have strong leadership; a clear vision and sense of mission that is shared by all connected with the school; high quality teaching; challenging, up-to-date curriculum; policies and practices that ensure a safe environment conducive to learning; solid evidence of family involvement; evidence that the school helps all students achieve to high standards; and a commitment to share best practices with other schools. This honor is vigorously sought by thousands of schools across the nation, and only 166 schools are so recognized. The Richmond School is part of the Dresden School District, the first interstate district in the United States. The school educates sixth graders from Hanover, New Hampshire, and seventh and eighth graders from both Hanover and Norwich, Vermont. The curriculum of the Richmond School focuses on the academic, social and developmental transitions which take place at each grade level. Special care is taken as the Hanover sixth graders move from elementary to middle school, as the Norwich seventh graders join them one year later, and as the eighth graders take their place as school leaders and begin planning for high school. The Richmond School takes pride in the fact that students have individual schedules built around their choices for academic and elective courses. A foundation of their program is the fine and practical arts program, which allows students to choose from over 25 elective courses each quarter. Community service is required for all eighth graders to introduce students to the pleasures and responsibilities of contributing to their community. The school has grown from 286 students to 460 students in the past ten years, and this has presented the school with a number of challenges. A creative and challenging administrative response to the growing student population has been to divide leadership roles among the staff. Rather than simply hiring assistants in the central office, the administration asked teachers and other professionals to take on the role of leadership in budget development, curriculum articulation, school climate and technology planning. These initiatives on the part of the staff have resulted in lively staff debates, enriched staff development opportunities, better communication from grade to grade, and more frequent interaction with parents and community. As a former teacher and school board chairman, I recognize the challenges involved in providing students a quality education. I commend the teachers and staff for their effort and innovation that have built a top-notch school. I am pleased that they have been recognized for their success, and it is with great pride that I represent them in the United States Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Gary Hirshberg, president and chief executive officer of Stonyfield Farm in Londonderry, New Hampshire, who is being honored with the two most prestigious business leadership awards in New Hampshire. Dedicated to social and environmental corporate responsibility, Gary Hirshberg became the first New Hampshire entrepreneur to be named both ``Business Leader of the Year'' by Business NH magazine and ``New Hampshire's 1998 Small Business Person of the Year'' by the United States Small Business Administration. A New Hampshire native and third-generation manufacturer, Gary's vision and commitment to social and environmental issues played an integral role in the development of Stonyfield Farm. Gary Hirshberg was named CEO shortly after joining Stonyfield. Together, with founder Samuel Kaymen, they embarked on an educational project designed to revitalize family farms in the New England dairy industry while positively impacting the environment and the local economy. The same dedication and determination that prompted two individuals to do everything from milk cows to deliver products out of an old farmhouse in Wilton, helped the Stonyfield Farm family to grow to its current 150 employees and 21,000-square-foot, custom-designed ``Yogurt Works'' in Londonderry. Having been raised on a farm myself, I can appreciate the hard work done by Gary and his partner over the years. As Gary watched the company's distribution expand to all 50 States and Great Britain and annual sales exceed $40 million, he never lost sight of his commitment to family-owned farms. Under Gary Hirshberg's leadership, Stonyfield Farm continues to promote awareness of the plight of the small farm through such programs as ``Adopt a Cow,'' and to raise environmental consciousness through the company's use of operationally efficient natural resources and its sponsorship of recycling programs. As a former small business owner, I appreciate the challenges faced by small business owners and understand that these businesses are the backbone of our economy. Consequently, I have worked throughout my tenure in Congress to lift the tax and regulatory burden from the shoulders of small business so that the dreams and aspirations of people like Gary Hirshberg and Stonyfield Farm may continue to grow and prosper. Gary's compassion and commitment to local communities, environmental awareness, and social responsibility embodies the true New Hampshire spirit. I commend him for serving as a role model for not only the youth of the Granite State but for all of us. It is with great pride that I represent Gary Hirshberg in the United States Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Heidi Marie Noyes for being crowned Miss New Hampshire 1998. As Miss Winnipesaukee, Heidi prevailed over a competitive field of thirteen New Hampshire women. Her triumph earns Heidi the right to represent New Hampshire in the Miss America pageant in Atlantic City this September. One has to admire Heidi for her persistence and dedication. She had appeared in the pageant five times in the last seven years. Heidi's runner-up finish last year and her victory this year attest to her drive to improve and triumph. Heidi is deeply committed to helping children. She studies criminal justice at Franklin Pierce College in order to eventually work as an advocate for children and to campaign for juvenile law reform. She has been a volunteer for the Youth Services Court Diversion Program in Belknap County for the past six years, and she models in United Way bridal shows to benefit charity. Heidi's platform issue as Miss New Hampshire is the ``Let's Get Motivated'' scholarship program that she founded three years ago. At only 23 years old, Heidi is the owner of two dance studios, The Broadway North School of Performing Arts and Broadway North Andover. She is a renowned dancer herself, winning the talent portion of the Miss New Hampshire pageant twice. She was chosen to tour the United States with Dance Caravan and was the Grand National Female Tap Soloist for Hoctor's ``Stars of Tomorrow'' dance competition in 1992. I am proud to represent Heidi Marie Noyes in the United States Senate, and wish her much success as Miss New Hampshire.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I rise as chairman of the Strategic Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee to focus on some areas that are very critical to our Nation's defense. Certainly, ``strategic'' takes on a new meaning as we hear news in the last few days of what is happening in India. We tried, in our subcommittee, to continue initiatives that have been started in previous years. At the same time, because of overall funding reductions, we were forced to make some substantial cuts, cuts that I did not want to make. But as part of the overall budget, we felt we had to do it. So we do have a budget cap, and that issue, in and of itself, is somewhat controversial. I think it is time, as we look at the reduction in defense spending, to begin to look at that cap and, in my opinion, remove the cap. We must recognize that the defense budget has been cut deeply, and these cuts are beginning now to affect the effectiveness of our military force. The budgets of both DOD and DOE, which are in my Strategic Subcommittee, had to be reduced. I tried to do that as fairly as I possibly could. Let me just outline some of the tough choices that we had to make. Missile defense, of course, is an area that I care deeply about. But there is some redundancy in some of the programs that we have. We have to begin to set some priorities. The budget, as it was presented to us by the President, had some areas in it that were funded in this budget but not in future years. So the question is, If a program such as MEADS--Medium Extended Air Defense System--is not funded beyond 1999, what is the purpose of providing funding for it in fiscal 1999? So I tried to look at this. If I could not get a commitment from the administration to fund beyond fiscal year 1999, then I, for the most part, reduced or eliminated the funds for next year. In the case of MEADS, our intent is to encourage DOD to find alternative approaches to meeting the requirement. But we cannot support the program if DOD has no budget for it in the future. Another very controversial reduction, which I was not happy about, was our cut of $97 million from the Airborne Laser Program. Because this was a tough decision, I want to explain what happened. There were a lot of news reports that said we ``slashed'' the Airborne Laser Program, that we ``ruined'' the program, that we ``killed'' the program, that we have made it impossible for the program to recover, and so on. This is unfair and inaccurate. I simply felt that we had an obligation to review the technical and operational viability of the program. Two years ago, our Committee included report language which basically called on the Air Force and Airborne Laser Program advocates to come forward and justify the program. I do not believe that they have done so. So we withheld funds for placing this very complex technology on an actual aircraft, a 747, until the capability is more fully tested and the operational concepts are better defined by the Air Force. I do not want to go into great detail; to some degree I cannot because it is classified. But let me be clear--we only cut the dollars intended for integrating this technology on an aircraft. This does not destroy the Airborne Laser Program, nor does it make any comment, subtle or otherwise, by anyone on the committee that somehow this program is not worthy. It does require the Secretary of Defense, with the help of outside experts, to review the program's technology and concept of operations, and show us how this technology will work when it is placed upon an aircraft. I don't think it destroys the program to delay the purchase of an airplane for a year or two while we find out whether the technology and the operational concept is valid. This is what congressional oversight is all about. We have increased funding for Navy Upper Tier, another missile defense program, and the space-based laser readiness demonstrator, which is the ultimate step, I think, in missile defense--the space- based laser. We tried to reduce as much of the risk as possible in the NMD Program by encouraging the Department to modify the program. Currently the so- called 3+3 program is extremely high risk. To deploy a complex system in 3 years is very, very difficult. It is an artificially compressed date and an artificially compressed program. It requires us to do everything at once instead of running a low-risk program to ensure everything fits together first. There is no margin for failure or problems. If one thing goes wrong, the whole program could collapse. It needs to be run like any other defense acquisition program, with the objective of reducing the program risk. With the Administration's 3+3 program, we must first decide that there is a missile threat to the United States. Then we assume that in 3 years we can deploy a system to intercept that missile. I think that assumption just does not make sense. Can we depend on our intelligence to give us that information? I draw my colleagues' attention to what happened in the last few days with India's nuclear tests. We didn't, frankly, know what was happening until it happened. We either did not have that information, or we did not heed it. I am not trying to fault the intelligence community, other than to say that intelligence is not always objective. It is not always thorough. It is not always timely. It is not always heeded. The question we have to ask is, Are we willing to take the risk once we know that somebody has the capability and the intent to use a missile against us, and are we then prepared to say that in 3 years we will have the technology deployed to intercept that missile? I am not prepared to take that kind of chance, which is why I was very disappointed in the vote in the Senate yesterday on Senator Cochran's legislation, which would have established a policy to deploy a national missile defense system when it becomes technically feasible. That wise legislation was rejected; it did not get enough votes to bring it to cloture. So the current administration plan for NMD 3+3 means an NMD system will be developed in 3 years, and when a threat is acknowledged this system will be deployed in 3 years. This just does not make a lot of sense. It naively assumes that we will see all emerging threats, and that if and when we see one, we can confidently deploy a complex system in just 3 years. So I hope my colleagues in the Senate sometime sooner rather than later will come to the realization of how dangerous this 3+3 approach really is. Perhaps a few more unforseen nuclear tests will convince them. If not, this extremely naive and extremely dangerous complacency could cost us dearly in years to come. We are seeing proliferation of missiles, and of the technology to develop missiles, all over the world--China, North Korea, India, Pakistan, Iran. And, yet, we were denied the opportunity yesterday on the Cochran proposal to get going on a national missile defense system. It is extremely disturbing. As one who deals with these issues every day on the Armed Services Committee, and specifically as the chairman of the Strategic Subcommittee, I know full well that this is a naive policy. It is well intended--there is no question there--but naive. Colin Powell, former National Security Adviser to President Reagan and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Presidents Bush and Clinton, used to say we have to be concerned first and foremost about the capability of an enemy because we never know what his intent will be. The intent tomorrow might be good. It might be bad. But what is the capability? We all know that the Chinese, and the Russians, have the capability to fire a missile at the United States of America. Do they have the intent? Maybe not today. But what about tomorrow? So we have to deal with capability. If we deny that, if we look the other way, we are really putting our heads in the sand. In space programs, the committee increase funding for a range of activities: space control technology development; the enhanced global positioning system; the microsatellite program and the space maneuver vehicle. The budget for those programs were increased. These efforts are critical for the future exploitation and use of space by the United States. Another area of the strategic forces subcommittee budget concerns weapons and other activities of the Department of Energy. We tried there to stabilize the core mission funding for weapons activities and environmental cleanup. As you know, we have a lot of environmental cleanup to do as a result of DOD and DOE activities over the past several decades, especially during the cold war. So we tried in our budget to maintain the capability to remanufacture and certify enduring U.S. nuclear warheads. We tried to maintain the pace of cleanup at DOE facilities with our funding, and though the overall DOE budget was reduced, a number of funding increases were authorized for programs critical to achieving these goals. Increases include additional funding for the four weapons production plants, tritium production, and environmental management technology development. Some will criticize these DOD cuts. But it is a matter of balance. If you look at the budget in real terms, since 1996, DOD funding has decreased by 5.2 percent, and DOE has increased by 7.7 percent. We did the best we could. I hope that my colleagues will be supportive of the recommendations that we have made, not only in the Strategic Subcommittee but in other subcommittees as well. It is a tough job. I don't think there is a member of the committee who doesn't feel that we have gone probably too far, that we need to, perhaps, remove that budget firewall and begin to put more dollars into defense. But given the constraints of the budget agreement, we had to do with what we had. In conclusion, I thank Senators Thurmond, Levin, and Bingaman for the cooperation that we have had together, especially Senator Bingaman on the subcommittee who has always been courteous to me. I want to thank Eric Thoemmes, Paul Longsworth, and Monica Chavez of the Armed Services Committee staff, and John Luddy, Brad Lovelace, and Steve Hellyar of my own staff as well. I would be happy to yield the floor, Madam President. I see others who wish to speak. Privilege of the Floor

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise to address the committee amendment offered by the Senator from South Carolina and the Senator from Michigan. This amendment implements agreements made between the Armed Services Committee and the Intelligence Committee. Pursuant to this agreement, the Armed Services Committee has agreed to reduce by $275 million funds in the pending bill for non-intelligence programs, and to increase by $275 million funds for the National Foreign Intelligence Program, which is also part of this bill. The Armed Services Committee has considered a range of options for implementing this agreement, all of which involve making difficult choices to cut defense programs. After consideration deliberation, the committee has decided to reduce funding for the Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) program by $254 million and the Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile system by $21 million. The $21 million in AMRAAM is now excess to program requirements as a result of contract negotiations between the Air Force and the contractor. The funding issue related to THAAD is more complex. We have all heard the news of Tuesday's THAAD test failure. This was the fifth time in a row that THAAD has filed to intercept a target. Although we don't have the details, we know that there was an electrical failure in the booster which caused the missile to self- destruct early in flight. Whatever impact this may have on the long- term prospects for THAAD, judging by what we now know it appears that the THAAD program will not be able to enter engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) during fiscal year 1999. In its markup of the Defense Authorization Bill, the committee expressed concern that THAAD might not be able to spend all of its EMD budget during fiscal year 1999 even if the recent flight test was a success. Therefore, the markup included a reduction of $70 million in THAAD EMD. This left $254 million in the THAAD EMD budget, $498 million in the THAAD Demonstration and Validation (Dem/Val) budget, for a total of $752 in fiscal year 1999 for THAAD. With the recent test failure, however, it will be virtually impossible for THAAD to enter EMD during fiscal year 1999, which means that the remaining $254 million of THAAD EMD money cannot be spent. I am very disappointed by the results of the THAAD test, but I continue to believe that this program is important and must be permitted to proceed. Therefore I believe that the Senate should support the full budget request of $497 million for THAAD demonstration and validation. Nonetheless, due to the circumstances that the THAAD program is now in, I believe the best course of action to take now is to disapprove funding for THAAD to enter EMD during FY99. I would remind the Senate that this would leave almost $500 million in the THAAD program overall. I would like to emphasize that I fully support the THAAD program and I would not have supported this reduction if I felt it would in any way hinder current progress on the program. The THAAD program is a critical upper-tier theater missile defense program that has encountered a setback, but I have full confidence these programs can be corrected and the program can move forward to its next test.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, first of all, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Brad Lovelace, a fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges throughout debate on both S. 1873 and S. 2060, the fiscal year 1999 DOD authorization bill.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, yesterday, India conducted three underground nuclear tests, further destabilizing relations among Pakistan, India, and China. Today, two more tests were conducted. The whole world was caught by surprise--including the U.S. intelligence community and the Clinton administration. In fact, administration officials were quoted in the Washington Times yesterday saying that, ``Our overhead [satellites] saw nothing, and we had zero warning.'' The most ominous response came from Pakistan, which recently tested its newest ballistic missile, with a range of 1,500 kilometers, and now says it may conduct a nuclear test of its own. It is against this very stark backdrop that we are today, this week, considering the American Missile Protection Act of 1998. I want to commend my colleague, Senator Cochran, for his long-time leadership on this issue. He deserves a lot of credit. It is a very timely situation, I must say. S. 1873 would establish a U.S. policy of deploying a national missile defense system capable of defending the territory of the United States against a limited ballistic missile attack as soon as is technologically possible. How could anyone be opposed to that? It is irresponsible to be opposed to it. The current administration plan for ``3+3'' means that an NMD system will be developed for 3 years. And when a threat is acknowledged, this system will be deployed in 3 years. It is a naive plan. It assumes that we see all emerging threats and that when we see one, we can confidently deploy a complex system in 3 years. It is just not feasible. Well, we saw how easy it was to see three nuclear devices that were tested by India yesterday. We didn't know about it. We didn't know they were coming. Even John Pike of the Federation of American Scientists, a long-time critic of missile defense, says it is ``the intelligence failure of the decade.'' Mike McCurry said, ``We had no advance notification of the tests.'' According to administration officials quoted in the Washington Times, the United States has been ``watching this site fairly carefully and on a fairly regular basis.'' If that is careful and regular and we don't know about it, I don't know how we can possibly expect to be able to deploy missiles 3 years after we know they are being produced. If we can't detect in advance activities at facilities that we are watching, what is going on at facilities we don't know anything about and are not watching? This is extremely dangerous policy, Mr. President. How can this administration continue to believe that we will have advance warning and plenty of time to respond to a missile threat when we cannot even detect in advance three unanticipated nuclear tests? This week's failure to predict India's nuclear tests is part of a pattern. Pakistan--in a 1997 U.S. Defense Department report on proliferation, Pakistan was only credited with a missile that could fly 300 kilometers. Yet, they tested one at 1,500 kilometers. Here again, the United States was unable to predict the appearance of a new ballistic missile system. Iran--the DCI told the Senate a few months ago that the intelligence community was surprised at the progress made on this Shahab-3 because of Iranian indigenous advances and help received from Russia. The Director of Central Intelligence told the Senate that, ``Gaps and uncertainties preclude a good projection of when the `rest of the world' countries will deploy ICBM's,'' thereby explaining why we might be surprised in the future. From an intelligence standpoint, there is nothing fundamentally different between medium- and long-range missiles--nothing. We will be just as surprised by ICBM developments as we have been with Iran and Pakistan's shorter-range missiles. These questions and failures, combined with yesterday's events in India, completely invalidate the administration's approach to NMD. The fact is, we don't know where all of the threats will come from and how fast they will develop. It is irresponsible to stand on this floor and oppose a policy that says we ought to produce this system when it is technologically feasible. According to Tom Collina of the Union of Concerned Scientists, India tests were designed to ``finalize a warhead for delivery on a missile.'' Mr. Collina added that ``it will not take long for India to take the next steps to have a fully deployed, fielded system.'' Yet, the administration persists in misleading the American people, and in a Senate hearing on May 1 of this year, the Director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency [ACDA] stated that the Defense Department will design a system as the threat emerges, to answer that threat. How will the Director of ACDA know when the threat is emerging or has emerged? Trying to deploy an NMD system in 3 years is difficult and extremely risky. It requires doing everything at once--impossible to run a low risk test program to make sure everything fits together first. It leaves no margin for failure or problems--if one thing goes wrong the whole program could collapse. It is a dangerous way to approach defense. The events in south Asia confirm once and for all that we cannot base the security of the United States on rosy assumptions about our ability to detect and predict existing or emerging threats around the world. North Korea: In addition to the news out of south Asia, I find that today's New York Times reports that North Korea has announced they are suspending their compliance with the 1994 Nuclear Freeze Agreement that was intended to dismantle that country's nuclear program. Who will tell the citizens of a destroyed Los Angeles or New York that they were left undefended from ballistic missiles because their Government ``did not see an emerging threat''? With our inability to track and detect ballistic missile development and nuclear tests, and the inherent challenges of fielding highly complex defense systems, we must support the American Missile Protection Act of 1998. I thank my colleague for yielding. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President. I rise today to pay tribute to a unique and wonderful woman, Doris Stocklan, of Dover, New Hampshire. Doris will celebrate her 90th birthday on May 29, 1998. She will be surrounded by family and friends at a party in her honor at the Ashworth Hotel in Hampton Beach on May 24. Although I am unable to join Doris at the festivities, I would today ask that she count me among the admirers who will be wishing her well on her special day. Doris' parents came to America from Eastern Europe in the late 1800's. She was raised in the Boston area where she met her husband, Louis. They were married for 61 years before he passed away in 1991. They raised three children, Stephen Stocklan, 56, of Barrington, New Hampshire; Maralyn Simond, 67, of Rochester, New Hampshire; and Joyce Goldberg, 65, of North Miami, Florida. They also had five grandchildren; Sandra, Melody, Lisa, Lauren and Jennifer; and one great-grandchild, Thomas. Doris and Lou moved to Dover in the 1930's, where Lou began work at Dover Hardware. He eventually purchased the store, and business boomed. Soon they were able to buy two more stores in the Seacoast, and Doris pitched in as a cashier and occasional bookkeeper. Steve and Maralyn joined the staff, and the operation was one of the most successful family-run businesses in the area. In the mid-1970's, Doris and Lou also bought The Strand movie theater in Dover. Again, it was a family affair. Doris, Maralyn, and some of the grandchildren worked the ticket booth and the concession stand. The success of Doris and Lou was the embodiment of the ``American Dream.'' The Stocklans were always active in their community, in politics, and in their synagogue. Doris' commitment to her community and her country started when she was a young mother, volunteering for the local Red Cross during World War II. Doris is a life member of the Sisterhood and the Hadassah of Temple Israel in Dover. She is also a life member of the Wentworth Douglass Hospital, and a 50 year member of the Women's Club of Dover where she serves on the Board. She is loved and respected by her peers, her family, and all the people she has graced with her warm smile and laughing eyes. There is no one more deserving than Doris of the special honors and kind words that will be bestowed upon her at her 90th birthday celebration. I have known Doris Stocklan for over a decade. She is a lovely and gracious woman with a heart of gold, and I am proud to represent her in the United States Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R. 2676, the IRS reform bill that is now under consideration on the floor. This bill, which is the product of extensive oversight hearings, is much needed and long overdue. I applaud Chairman Roth and the other Finance Committee members for reviewing the legislation sent to us by the House, for their efforts to strengthen the bill, and for their persistence in moving this bill to the Senate floor. As taxpayers testified at the Finance Committee hearings, the abuses fostered by the IRS are intolerable. Innocent taxpayers are suffering under an out-of-control agency. We have witnessed this problem in my own state of New Hampshire. Shirley Barron of Derry, New Hampshire has suffered greatly since her husband's death in 1996, and she claims that the IRS's collection tactics are the cause. The Barrons' problems with the IRS began in the mid-1980s when they lost an $80,000 investment. The couple's accountant advised them that they could get a tax deduction, but the IRS informed the Barrons two years later that they had to pay. Mrs. Barron said that she and her husband were unable to pay the IRS immediately, so interest and penalties mounted. According to Mrs. Barron, her husband took his own life just after learning that creditors were to foreclose on the couple's Derry home because the IRS had placed a lien on it. Even after Mr. Barron died, the agency continued their collection efforts against Mrs. Barron: They foreclosed on the family's Cape Cod vacation home, they took her tax refunds, and they placed claims against the life insurance of her late husband. The IRS recently agreed to cancel Mrs. Barron's entire tax debt, thus ending her long ordeal. While this is a welcome development, it won't bring her husband back. No one should have to go through an ordeal like that again. Last week, the Senate Finance Committee heard similarly disturbing accounts of IRS intimidation from agency employees. Auditors and agents voiced their frustration with field office managers and high level management. Some reported that almost no one at the agency listens to them when they report discrimination or wrongdoing. For example: Ginger Garvis, a District auditor in New York City, said that she uncovered a multimillion-dollar tax evasion and money-laundering case which her supervisors refused to pursue. Ms. Garvis testified that the IRS often forgives tax debts by large firms with the resources to fight back in court. Instead, it focuses on smaller companies that cannot fight back. Michael Ayala, a thirty-year IRS employee, testified that he has observed ``a broad range of misconduct by high level managers.'' He said that ``such abuses are generally known to a large percentage of the IRS workforce but are perpetuated by management's intimidation and punishment of anyone within the agency who objects to or reports such misconduct.'' A former IRS criminal investigation agent, Patricia Gernt, reported that her supervisors did little or nothing to help her stop another IRS agent who tried to frame former U.S. Senator Howard Baker. Perhaps for these reasons, another District auditor in New York City testified: ``before there is a taxpayer victim there is first an employee victim.'' Such an atmosphere of fear and intimidation is deplorable and must be stopped. The American taxpayers deserve better. H.R. 2676 will help us change the culture at the IRS to which so many are objecting. This bill establishes many new taxpayer rights; it calls for the IRS to revise its mission statement to focus on taxpayer service; and it provides for increased oversight of agency activities by a citizens' advisory board. At the same time, the bill gives the new IRS Commissioner, Charles Rossotti, broad flexibility to better manage the agency. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. We have an historic opportunity to restore accountability to the IRS and change how the agency functions. Let us seize this opportunity by promptly passing H.R. 2676. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Roth, No. 1, for recognizing me, but more importantly for supporting the provision that we should not use these environmental income taxes, and oil and chemical excise taxes, for anything but Superfund. I know it was a difficult decision. I support the Senator fully on the IRS reform which he has done such a tremendous job on, and on which he has exerted such great leadership. I commend him for understanding, also, there is another issue here with Superfund. This, essentially, with the greatest respect to my colleague from Nebraska, will just totally destroy the Superfund reform that we have worked on for some 3\1/2\ years. In order to make the things happen that we need to make happen in the Superfund Program, these taxes would have to be reinstituted and used strictly and exclusively for the Superfund Program. So I vehemently oppose the Kerrey amendment. I am certain the majority of this body, and I think the majority of the American people agree that IRS and Superfund have a similarity. They are both badly broken. They both need to be fixed. But they don't have to go against each other to do that. These are two separate and distinct issues. I support the IRS reform the distinguished chairman is pursuing and I also support reforming the Superfund Program. It is inappropriate to utilize Superfund taxes to pay for the cost of IRS. Superfund taxes should be used to fix Superfund. For those who have been anxiously waiting for the reform of the program, help is on the way, I hope, if the Senate will be supportive. Working with the distinguished chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee who is on the floor, Senator Chafee, and through his leadership we were able to pass a bill out of committee. I am hopeful the majority of our colleagues will allow that bill to be brought to the floor and fully debated. Within the next few days the committee's report will be complete. There are differences on the bill. But I think clearly no one should be of the opinion that we should use Superfund taxes; that is, the environmental income tax and the oil and chemical excise tax, for anything other than to reform that program. I don't want to get into a full debate now on the problems associated with Superfund. I will have that opportunity when we get the bill to the floor. But I just want to say, when Congress established this program in 1980, the consensus was it would take a few billion dollars to clean up what we thought were around 400 sites. In order to fund this program, revenues were collected through these taxes. We reauthorized the program in 1986, extending the taxing authority. What has happened is we spent $20 billion of taxpayers' money and we have only cleaned up about 160 sites; that is 160 sites were removed from the NPL. These folks who pay the environmental income taxes, who pay the oil and chemical excise taxes, rightfully say this program isn't working. We are paying all this tax money and it is going to lawyers and it is being wasted and we are not cleaning up sites. Our Superfund bill clearly expedites cleanup, gets the money away from lawyers and towards cleanup. To take that money away from this program and provide it for some other use is simply unconscionable. Although maybe well intended, it is a serious mistake in terms of the bipartisan consensus that we have to fix a broken program. So I am hopeful--I wish the Senator would reconsider his amendment and I hope this will be defeated. Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I yield for a question.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I say to my colleagues I will be very brief and try to keep it within 10 minutes. This amendment is really quite simple. It is very much like the Craig amendment that we voted on earlier with the exception that it doesn't call for the passage. It simply says that one way or the other we would require Congress to debate and then vote--whichever way the vote comes out--but just vote on our deployment in Bosnia prior to depositing the instruments of ratification. I want to briefly touch on why I am offering this amendment. When the Congress first considered the President's plan to send troops to Bosnia in 1995, the administration placed very clear limits on the duration of this commitment. On every single occasion I am aware of, the administration official stated that U.S. troops would remain in Bosnia for 1 year. In fact, Secretary Perry, on December 1, 1995, said, ``We believe the mission can be accomplished in one year, so we based our plan on that time line. This schedule is realistic because the specific military tasks in the agreement can be completed in the first six 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 one year. But, even if some of them are not, we must not be drawn into a posture of indefinite garrison.'' I think these remarks were well intended, and I think it is clear that the Secretary of Defense meant what he said, but it is also clear that they didn't bear out. We also heard from Secretary of State Holbrooke on December 6, 1995: ``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's a real question. But it's not the NATO or U.S. force responsibility to do that. It's on the civilian side, working with the Europeans. It's going to be very tough. Should the military stick around until every refugee has gone home, 'til everything else in the civilian annexes has been done? No, that is not their mission.'' There were many of us who watched these comments--especially in the Armed Services Committee--very closely, studying the conflict in Bosnia. We felt that this was an unrealistic commitment. We didn't feel that those kinds of commitments should have been made, because we didn't feel they could have been kept. But the American people had no choice but to kind of accept these comments from our leaders. I was disappointed but I wasn't surprised when right after the 1996 elections, the President announced the continuation of the military commitment for an additional 18 months, to June of 1998. That is where we are now. It is almost June of 1998. Last December, the President acknowledged that our commitment now in Bosnia is open ended but we are still talking about clear and achievable goals. For 2 years the President has had this opportunity, and I believe that he has been wrong in making these statements. I believe it is wrong for the Government to conduct the foreign policy of the United States without any input from Congress and the public. The American people need to understand what is at stake and either agree to the commitment or not. We have a commitment. The President made it, and now he has extended it open ended. The question before the Congress today is, do you want to continue with an open-ended commitment, a blank check in Bosnia or don't you? The President has stated he wants to, and he stated why. Now the American people ought to hear from us, the Congress, as to whether or not this is a good idea or a bad idea. This is no longer simply a Presidential use of force based on his judgment of an immediate threat. We now have nation-building in Bosnia as deliberate foreign policy, and it ought to be approved and funded by the Congress of the United States. Failure to place this before Congress, in my opinion, will destroy congressional support for his foreign policy and, frankly, it insults the intelligence of the American people. There already has been a casualty in Bosnia, and that casualty is the trust of the American people that their Government will do what it says it will do when it puts American armed forces in harm's way. I don't see how Congress can allow this extended commitment to continue simply because the President sees no way out. Now, I have been around the cloakroom and in meetings for a couple of years now while this policy has been going on and I have been hearing a lot of complaining from my colleagues, a lot of complaining about how this will continue, it is open ended, what are we going to do about it. Here is a chance to vote--and I'm not asking you to vote to say that we ought to take the troops out or leave them in; I'm asking you to vote. All I'm asking for is a vote. It could go 5-90 against deployment or the other way around for deployment. I'm not asking for a vote to come out either direction. I'm just simply saying the Congress should vote, the Senate and the House of Representatives, before we deposit the instruments of ratification. That is all this amendment does. It does nothing less and it does nothing more. I don't, frankly, think that is asking very much. With the new nations we may have more Bosnias. We may have more Bosnias before we are finished, especially as we continue the expansion that Senator Hutchison of Texas was talking about a few moments ago, where we defeated the Warner amendment. So who is next down the line? We continue to draw lines. Where do we draw these lines? This is a very important debate, and I really cannot understand why anybody would oppose this amendment that simply says vote one way or the other. Keep them in 90-10, or take them out 90-10. Just vote. That is all this amendment asks for, before we submit the articles of ratification. In either case, I think the objective is clear that the American people need to be heard. They haven't been heard. We should let them be heard right here on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Again, let me just say that if my colleagues on both sides of the issue don't support this amendment, which simply requires them to cast a vote--just cast a vote--on this matter before the June 30 deadline, they ought to forever keep their peace on Bosnia. No more complaining in the cloakroom, no more speeches on the floor about how the policy is so bad and so open-ended, no more second-guessing the President, no more criticizing the President, no more saying Congress doesn't have any responsibility. If we can't force ourselves to stand up here tonight and be counted on this subject, then we don't have a right to criticize the President on this issue. Every time I am on the floor and I hear somebody criticizing the President on this, I am going to check the vote list and see how the votes were, and I am going to rise up and challenge that Senator. This is not going to delay the passage, the instruments of ratification. We can vote on this any time. We can vote next week or the following week, or tonight, for that matter. It doesn't matter to me when we vote on it. Whenever the leader wants to schedule it. Mr. President, my final remarks. The purpose of this amendment is to simply require Congress to vote, period, one way or another on deployment to Bosnia prior to depositing the instruments of ratification for NATO. That's it. what will expansion cost, and who will pay the bill? It is obvious to me that nobody really knows what the true costs of NATO expansion will be. Just look at the cost estimates that are available. In March of 1996, CBO issued a report that provided five options or scenarios for NATO expansion. The cost of those five options ranged from $60 billion to $124 billion. In the fall of 1996, Rand Corporation completed a study on the costs of NATO expansion and concluded that the costs could range from $10 billion to $110 billion. In February of 1997, the administration provided its own cost estimates. In this report the cost of NATO expansion was pegged at $27 to $35 billion. In December of 1997, NATO itself estimated the cost of NATO expansion as $1.5 to $2 billion. The February 16 edition of Defense News reports that the Pentagon will issue yet another study that will peg the cost of NATO expansion at $1.5 billion over 10 years. According to the CRS, the administration assumes that the new nations will pick up 50 percent of the bill, the current NATO members will pay 44 percent and the U.S. will pick up 6 percent of these costs. can poland, hungary and the czech republic afford nato expansion? Supporters of NATO expansion say we must expand in order to help the young fledgling democracies and market economies of these countries grow. This is not what NATO does. NATO is first a military or security alliance, not an economic alliance. If the goal is economic and not security, then let the EU deal with these countries, not NATO. With NATO expansion, we are placing a requirement that the new members ``buy'' their way in. If they could buy their way in, their young market economies wouldn't need the protection of NATO expansion. This circular logic is no logic at all. In an article on NATO expansion that appeared in the January/February 1998 edition of Foreign Affairs, Amos Perlmutter writes: The belief that the new members should be able to absorb costs of close to $42 billion between 1996 and 2001 overlooks the International Monetary Fund's rules and the Maastricht Treaty's expectations. The IMF requires former Warsaw Pact states to invest in economic infrastructure, and the Maastricht Treaty will accept members only on the basis of their conformity to its rigorous fiscal standards. Hungary and the Czech Republic are already experiencing serious budget crunches and are seeking ways to cut spending to meet IMF demands. Where, then, will the money come from to expand their military budgets? political will In addition, there is also the question of whether or not there is the political will in these countries to help pay for expansion. The United States Information Agency (USIA) conducted a poll in October of 1997 in the countries listed below and asked if the respondents supported increasing their government's defense spending: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Don't Support Oppose know ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Czech Republic......................... 29 63 8 Hungary................................ 36 60 4 Poland................................. 56 31 13 Slovakia............................... 21 71 8 Slovenia............................... 22 72 6 Bulgaria............................... 28 55 17 Romania................................ 55 39 7 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Result: Only Poles, not Czech or Hungarians willing to increase spending to pay for expansion. fiscal realities Even our current European allies have had sharply declining defense budgets as they prepare to meet the fiscal requirements of the European common currency. Sir John Kerr, the British Ambassador to the U.S. stated the following on July 23, 1997: I think, realistically, it is very unlikely that the Europeans will stump up another $15 billion on their defense budgets. It would mean increasing defense budgets on average by about 1.5 percent a year, a very much larger number than the cost for the United States. And I don't think it will happen. In July of 1997 French President Jacques Chirac made the following statement: We have adopted a very simple position: Enlargement must not cost anything in net terms. We are convinced that it is possible. A Washington Post article from July 10, 1997 quotes German President Helmut Kohl as saying: It is completely absurd to link NATO enlargement with cost factors as if the aim was to rearm large areas of Europe to the teeth. Another German, Walther Stuetzle, a former senior defense planner for the German Government said in the March 12, 1997 edition of the Washington Post: So who will pick up the tab? I think it will have to be the United States. So we've heard from our NATO allies and they are saying that they are not willing to pay for NATO expansion. Some supporters of NATO expansion will downplay these comments as political comments made for consumption at home. They say our allies will come through. I am a firm believer that past performance is an indicator of future performance. What hasn't been heard too much in public is the fact that our NATO allies have been falling well short on their current NATO commitments. That certainly doesn't bode well for any additional commitment from our current NATO allies to pick up their share of the costs to expand. In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Admiral Jack Shanahan (USN retired) made the following comments: In 1970 I was assigned to the U.S. mission to NATO in Brussels. The prevailing attitude of most of the alliance was that they were safely under the U.S. nuclear umbrella, and that the Warsaw Pact was not a major concern. As a result our allies did not consistently meet their NATO commitments in terms of defense spending. Their prepositioned war reserve of food, ammunition, fuel etc. were well below NATO standards. Interoperability was a joke. They were not ready then, they are not ready now, and as we integrate East European militaries into the alliance this condition will worsen, placing greater demands on the U.S. military to shoulder the burden. Even as we speak, our allies are making significant reductions in military spending and in their force structures. This testimony is very revealing and speaks for itself--especially in light of the additional commitments that our present NATO allies will be asked to bear through expansion. We not only have statements from the major Western European countries indicating that they are not willing to pay for NATO expansion, but also disturbing testimony before the Senate that our current NATO allies already have fallen well short of fulfilling their current NATO commitments. Thus, it will probably fall to the United States to pay for NATO expansion. Indeed, the March 12, 1997 Washington Post quoted a senior U.S. official as saying: ``There was a strong political imperative to low-ball figures. Everybody realized the main priority was to keep costs down to reassure Congress, as well as the Russians.'' What are the implications of all this for the article V commitment that an attack on one is an attack on all? Do we really believe we can effectively carry out this commitment if the cost of NATO expansion has been fudged in order to reassure the Congress and Russia? Don't the supporters of expansion take the alliance more seriously than this? are they prepared? The three nations who would become part of NATO have military infrastructures that are profoundly unprepared to join NATO. Defense news recently reported on NATO's most recent assessment of the invitees. The report concluded that Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary are years away from having militaries that are minimally functional, much less strategically interoperable with NATO's military systems. Examples include: All of the Czech Army's equipment is ``old and approaching obsolescence.'' None of Poland's naval ships are ``capable for command and control of joint or combined operations.'' In Hungary, 70 percent of the pilots carry out only 50 hours of training per year, far below NATO standards. The United States cannot even pay for its own modernization. Why would we want to pay for the modernization of three new NATO members? can the u.s. foot the bill? Don't be naive--NATO expansion is not going to be free--no matter how much the figure is lowered to make it more ``palatable.'' The balanced budget agreement has locked us into a flat if not declining defense budget during the next few years. We've all heard reports that readiness in the military is starting to deteriorate. The House National Security Committee issued a report recently that chronicled some of the readiness problems that are starting to appear in our military. What we are facing, in my opinion, is the very real scenario where we will be increasing our national security commitments without a corresponding increase in our defense spending because of the balanced budget agreement. The current defense budget we have now is inadequate to meet our current plans and requirements. Just like every other contingency operation the Clinton administration has signed U.S. forces up to, an underfunded Defense Department will have to foot the bill once again. We keep hearing from this administration that another round of BRAC is necessary to reduce infrastructure and pay for modernization. Could it be that the real objective of another BRAC is to pay for NATO expansion? Does the Senate really want to approve adding one more IOU to an already empty Pentagon checkbook, when we do not even know how large the IOU will be? I don't think so. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay my amendment aside so that Senator Inhofe may discuss his amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I want to compliment my colleague on his amendment. As chairman of the Strategic Subcommittee on the Armed Forces Committee, this has long been an irritation and frustration for many of us, the fact that we don't have a national missile defense. As it is right now, you have a provision in the NATO resolution that would exclude a missile defense system for Canada and the United States, and, in turn, having specifically mentioned Europe would be just outrageous. I think that the fact that the Senator has identified this and brought this forward is a huge plus to this debate. I also would like to lend my remarks in support of the remarks the Senator made about the caliber of the debate here. We have had, as the Senator said, no partisan debate but rather a very academic debate for several days now and one which I think is very, very important and I think will have a profound impact on our future and perhaps the future of the world. I know people, as we get down to the latter part of the time here, get a little upset with planes to catch and so forth. But this is a very, very important debate. Votes have been changing in the past several days. In one case somebody told me they were absolutely in favor and are now opposed. I think we are moving in the right direction. Even though this may seem dilatory, I am very much pleased with the debate and where we are. I again want to say on this amendment that it is extremely important to identify and not to have this separation. To say in the NATO resolution that we would have Europe protected and not the United States and Canada just wouldn't work. Let me just make a couple more points. The President's plan, as we know, does not cover all of the United States. A plan for a missile defense system would comply with the ABM Treaty and, as required by the treaty, would be based out as a single site. The evidence available shows the areas that the President's ABM Treaty compliance system would protect in the event of a ballistic missile attack. As one can clearly understand, Alaska and Hawaii are left vulnerable to a ballistic missile attack under the President's plan. There are a whole number of other factors, which I will not go into at this point other than to simply say that I am very strongly in support of this relatively minor change in terms of semantics and words. But a couple of words, where you change the word ``Europe'' and add ``Europe and the rest of NATO,'' that is very, very important and sends a very, very strong signal. Again, I strongly support the amendment, and urge its adoption.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Let me also agree with my colleague. I was somewhat surprised when the unanimous consent was offered, but I just want my colleagues to know I also have an amendment which is going to take a considerable amount of time, and I do not want to hold up Members, who may wish to leave, who need to vote or feel we should vote on the supplemental. So let me echo the comments of the Senator from Oklahoma and indicate that I am more than happy to agree to another UC to move the supplemental ahead of NATO if, in fact, it comes here in the near future.

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