Bob Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I ask unanimous consent that Daniel G. Groeschen of Senator Inhofe's office be extended floor privileges for the remainder of the NATO debate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Would the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Virginia, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter to me from President Clinton dated April 20, 1998, in which he said: To ensure that NATO functions as effectively in the next century as it has in this one, we must preserve its ability to respond quickly, flexibly and decisively to whatever threats may arise. It is the ``whatever threats may arise'' that bothers me in this debate, Mr. President.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise in support, strong support, of the Craig amendment and commend the Senator for offering it. It is a very reasonable amendment that simply says, prior to the deposit of the U.S. instrument of ratification, that there must be enacted a law containing specific authorization for the continued deployment of troops in Bosnia. I don't know how--if Congress wants to exercise its responsibility--I don't know how anyone could object to the amendment. Surely, if the comments that I have heard on and off the floor over the past couple of years regarding the issue of troops in Bosnia are any indication, this vote ought to be overwhelming in support of the Craig amendment. I certainly don't think anyone has any right to complain ever again if they are not going to vote to at least have the opportunity to say that we ought to have a vote here in the Senate to put forces in Bosnia. I hope those who have been doing all of this complaining over the past couple of years will vote for the Craig amendment so that we can get a vote by the Congress to authorize the extension of having troops in Bosnia as part of the ratification process. When the Congress first considered the President's plan to send troops to Bosnia in 1995, the administration placed clear limits on the duration of that commitment. On every single occasion that I can think of, that I know of, administration officials stated that U.S. troops would remain in Bosnia for 1 year--1 year. That was 3 years ago. They are still there. Secretary Perry said on December 1, 1995: We believe the mission can be accomplished in 1 year. So we have 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 6 months and, therefore, its role will be to maintain the climate of stability that will permit civil work to go forward. We expect these civil functions will be successfully initiated in 1 year. But even if some of them are not, we must not be drawn into a posture of indefinite garrison. That is what Secretary Perry said on December 1, 1995. He used the term ``indefinite garrison.'' And 3\1/2\ years later, we are still in Bosnia with no end in sight, no plan to get out, and here is the opportunity for Congress, certainly the U.S. Senate in this case, to speak up. I hope the Senate will speak responsibly here and agree with the Craig amendment. Let me give you some more testimony. Secretary of State Holbrooke on December 6, 1995: The military tasks in Bosnia are doable within 12 months. There isn't any question. That is a quote-- The deeper question is whether the nonmilitary functions can be done in 12 months. That's the real question. But it's not NATO or U.S. force responsibility to do that. It's us 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, until everything else in the civilian annexes has been done? No. That is not their mission. That was Secretary Holbrooke on December 6, 1995, and yet troops remain. There are still troops there sitting in the middle of a war zone between warring factions. Yes, holding the peace, but the commitment that was made to the American people and to this Congress by this administration in 1995 was that we were not going to keep them there beyond 12 months, and he said there isn't any question about that, we don't need to keep them there. Nothing has changed. There is nothing different today than there was 3 years ago regarding that kind of comment. He says the deeper question is whether nonmilitary functions can be done in 12 months. That is the question. But the military is still there, and they are using the military to try to accomplish nonmilitary functions, which in and of itself is a real problem. Many of us who closely studied the conflict in Bosnia saw this, frankly, as an unrealistic comment. We didn't believe--I certainly didn't believe and I know many of my colleagues didn't believe--that this made sense. There was no way that you could make that kind of a military commitment and allow this whole situation to become resolved in less than 12 months. But, what choice did the American people have but to take the President and the Secretary of State and others at their word? That is what we did, we took them at their word. What do we have for it? I was disappointed, but not surprised, when right after the 1996 elections, the President said that we are going to continue this military commitment for an additional 18 months, until June of 1998. I happen to be a veteran of the Vietnam war. This has a familiar ring to it, a very familiar ring to it. I can remember the McNamara charts and the one more battle and, ``In just another year or two, we'll wrap this up.'' Mr. President, 58,000 lives and about 13 years later, we got out of Vietnam. That could happen here. This is an extremely sensitive area that has a lot of problems that could escalate in a hurry. Last December, the President said that he acknowledged that our commitment to Bosnia is open-ended, but he is still talking about clear and achievable goals. If you have an open-ended policy, you don't have clear and achievable goals. They are two direct opposites. There is no clear and achievable goal. There is an open-ended policy, and as long as it is open-ended, we are just going to give a blank check to the administration to stay in Bosnia and do what? To nation build, is that what our troops are there for? This policy must come to a vote in this Congress. We have to act responsibly, otherwise, another Vietnam could occur. After people are killed or injured or maimed, it is too late to debate it. It is too late for those people. We need to be debating it now, and the Craig amendment is simply asking for a vote in the affirmative if we are going to continue the policy and continue to keep troops in Bosnia. I don't know what the policy is. The policy to me is just open-ended. Just keep them there, keep them there, keep them there; make another promise, another promise, another promise. The administration has had a free ride in Bosnia now for 2 years. It is wrong, to put it very bluntly, for this Government to conduct its foreign policy without the participation of Congress and the public. For the life of me, I don't understand how anyone could oppose the Craig amendment. The American people need to understand what is at stake and either agree to the commitment or not. We represent the American people, supposedly. The President has stated what he wants to do and he said why. He said, ``I want an open-ended policy in Bosnia, and I want to do it because I feel like I have a clear and achievable goal.'' He hasn't said what it is, just to keep the peace. War has been going on in Bosnia for a thousand years. I am not sure just how long we have to hold American military forces there. Under this open-ended policy, maybe it is another thousand years. I don't know. But Congress has to act. The President gave his reasons, and now the American people ought to hear Congress' debate on this proposal, and that is what this amendment is about. This is no longer a Presidential use of force based on his judgment of an immediate threat. It is nation building in Bosnia. That is what we are talking about. It is now a deliberate foreign policy, and it must be approved and funded by Congress or not. Mr. President, how much time is remaining in the debate?

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. You certainly can. But I am saying this should be a requirement. If we don't have that vote, we ought not to complain about the resolution of ratification.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Did I say that?

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I announce this morning the Senate will resume consideration of the Senator Smith of New Hampshire and the Senator Hutchison of Texas amendment No. 2314, pending to the NATO enlargement treaty. Under the previous order, there will be 2 minutes of debate equally divided between Senator Smith and Senator Hutchison, followed by a rollcall vote on or in relation to the amendment. Following that vote, it is hoped that Members with amendments to the NATO enlargement treaty will come to the floor to offer and debate those amendments. The majority leader has indicated to me it is his hope the Senate will be able to complete action on the NATO treaty hopefully by the close of business today or by Thursday evening at the latest. So I thank my colleagues for their attention to this matter. Mr. President, I believe under the previous order, there are 2 minutes equally divided between Senator Hutchison and myself.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I yield to the Senator.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I yield the remainder to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President I yield myself 1 minute. This is a straightforward, simple amendment which I am confident has a strong bipartisan support of this Chamber. It is based on the debate yesterday, with myself, Senator Hutchison and Senator Biden. I don't expect any opposition. The amendment expresses a condition with full regard to NATO expansion requiring full cooperation from the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland concerning unaccounted for MIAs and POWs, and it is supported by all POW and MIA families and certainly many of the national veterans organizations. I want to stress that I personally received pledges of cooperation from the leaders of the three countries involved here. This amendment is designed to ensure that there is serious follow-up not only with the individuals who may have accessed information but also access to the archives. I want to thank Senator Hutchison of Texas for her support on this humanitarian issue, and I yield to her 1 minute.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending Kyl amendment be temporarily set aside for the purpose of offering an amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I appreciate my colleague's willingness to accept it. It seems to be the consensus of those of us who are sponsoring it, we seek a recorded vote on it because of the significance of the issue. With that in mind, I will ask for a recorded vote at the appropriate time.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I say to my colleagues, just 1 or 2 minutes. I wish to expound a little bit on what the Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, just said in terms of the impact on families. In the 1950s, there was a Captain Dunham who was shot down over Soviet territory--then Soviet territory--and as a result of the U.S.- Russian commission, of which Senator John Kerry and I are members, we ran an ad in the Red Star newspaper in Russia that went all over; it was read heavily by former military people, veterans of the Soviet Union. And an individual read the article about this Captain Dunham who was missing. It turned out that this individual had been at the crash site and provided us the ring of Captain Dunham, his personal ring, which came back to his family, and as a result of following that up, we were able to find Captain Dunham's remains, missing since the 1950s, and returned just 2 or 3 years ago. So I think this is a good example of what cooperation can really produce. Sometimes what might seem like a small, insignificant fact turns into a huge issue and a great relief to the family of a missing serviceman or woman. So this is very important, and I want to emphasize again that what this amendment does is very simple, Mr. President. Let me just mention three things. It would require that prior to the deposit of the U.S. instrument of ratification, the President shall certify to Congress that each of the Governments--Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic--is fully cooperating with the U.S. in order to obtain the fullest possible accounting of any military personnel from the cold war, from Vietnam, or any military conflicts; that they facilitate full access to all relevant archival material; and that they would identify any individuals who may possess knowledge relative to the capture of missing personnel. That is it. That is all the amendment does. I thank my colleagues, especially Senator Hagel, who has been waiting. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I had great confidence that you would not do that.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I also thank Congressman Sam Johnson, who, as many of my colleagues know, was a POW, along with Senator McCain, and others, during the Vietnam war. Congressman Johnson and I have traveled to Prague, Warsaw, and to Moscow together in search of answers, along with former Ambassador Malcolm Toon, as part of the U.S.-Russia commission to seek answers on our missing. There is a great window of opportunity here in the old eastern bloc countries as well as Russia to get some answers as to what may have happened to these Americans. I think as we went out and searched the countryside and met in the capitals of these countries, we received some cooperation. I want to make that very clear. But, Mr. President, there is much more to be done. There are clearly answers in these archives. I think it is very important that, if we are going to say that our military--our men and women in uniform--is going to be asked at some point, if NATO expansion occurs, to shed their blood, possibly, or defend these countries, I think it behooves these countries to provide us the fullest possible accounting of any service personnel who may have crossed their borders during the time the Communists held, basically, and controlled these countries. I wish that I could say that all follow-up action to our trip had occurred properly and that we had every satisfactory answer that we wanted, but that is not true. It is disturbing because of the reasons that I gave. At some point in the future, by having these countries part of NATO, we are going to ask Americans to face possible combat situations to defend these countries. So the least they could do is to provide us answers that they may have now of things that occurred during Communist control. It has been said by some NATO advocates that we have an opportunity to ensure the cold war never resurfaces. Yet we still can't seem to get the cooperation we need from this region to address vital questions about our missing Americans, especially from the cold war but also possibly from Korea and Vietnam. If their pledges were genuine, as I believe they were, then, frankly, I question why leaders of these countries can't convince the old cold war bureaucracies to allow us access to the archives and allow us access to individuals who could provide us answers. We have had some cooperation. I am very grateful for that cooperation. We met with some very influential people in the governments of those three countries when I traveled there last summer. Since last summer there have been follow-up communications by our commission support staff at the Department of Defense and also by my own office with each of these nations urging them to follow through. But most important is the fact that, based on current leads available, our commission really still believes that there is relevant information, very relevant information, which likely exists in Eastern Europe, especially in the military intelligence security Communist Party archives of these three nations in question. Again, this is a very complex situation that has developed. The Communist Party controlled these archives, controlled all of the government activities, controlled the activities of intelligence and military and security. Now we have a different government, a friendly government. But the access to those archives has not yet been provided to us. If they are friendly and we are going to bring them into NATO and defend them, then they owe us that information, pure and simple. They owe us that information. They owe us every opportunity to get and find that information wherever it may be. I regret to say we really have not had that kind of cooperation, even though we have had some very interesting meetings. Let me just conclude on this point. We should remember and not forget that these eastern bloc countries, when they were eastern bloc countries, were allies of the North Koreans, were allies of the North Vietnamese, and the Soviets, of course, during the cold war. They had a significant presence in both North Korea and in Vietnam. They were privy to information about Communist policies toward our own American POWs. That is very important. I want to repeat that. They were privy to a lot of information about our POWs in Vietnam, our POWs in Korea, and indeed some of the missing cold war losses. This information has not yet been shared with us. It is very important that we delve into this and find out whether any American POWs were transferred, either stopping there permanently or transferred through any of the capitals of these countries. I want to emphasize again, this is not meant to be a hostile statement. We met with those governments, and they were very cordial and very cooperative but somewhat standoffish by basically passing the buck by saying, Well, you know those were the Communist days, and I am not sure we can dig that out. Again, if we are asking Americans to shed their blood in the future to defend free nations, then asking them to dig into their archives a little bit is not asking too much. I want to emphasize again and appeal to leaders of the Czech Republic, Poland, and Hungary to follow through on commitments that were made during our visits and help us to search for American missing service personnel from the cold war, from Korea, and from Vietnam and urge my colleagues on behalf of the veterans organizations that I have mentioned, on behalf of all veterans throughout America and the families, most especially the families of those who are missing, to please join with me in continuing to push for more progress on this humanitarian issue. We can do that and, I think, make a very strong statement here on the floor by voting for this amendment. At this point I yield the floor for the purpose of allowing my colleague, Senator Hutchison, who has been a stalwart on this issue to speak. I am very grateful to her for her support. I yield the floor. Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I will be very brief in my remarks regarding this amendment. First of all, I want to compliment and commend the Senator from Texas, Senator Hutchison, for her cooperation and support as we worked together to craft this amendment. This is a very, very important amendment, which I will get into in a moment, regarding the cooperation of these new NATO nations--if they were to become NATO nations--that would require their full cooperation with the United States in order to obtain the fullest possible accounting of any military personnel missing from any of the wars, from World War II, Korea, Vietnam, to the cold war. This amendment is supported by a number of veterans organizations-- Vietnam Veterans of America, National Vietnam and Gulf War Veterans Coalition, MIA Families, Korean/Cold War Family Association, National League of POW/MIA families. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a brief statement in support of this amendment by each of those organizations be printed in the Record at this time.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 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. If I could just respond to the Senator from Delaware for a moment, I listened to his story about the personal episode in his family. I might say, we have found in the last 4 or 5 years, aircraft--I am almost certain that we located an aircraft in New Guinea and other areas where aircraft had been lost during World War II. I think it says a lot about our own Nation that we would still send teams out there in those jungles, searching for people who were lost. Maybe at some point, maybe--I know it was your relative, I did not hear, what relative?

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to 27 students from Hollis/Brookline High School for winning the right to represent New Hampshire in the ``We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution'' national competition in Washington, D.C. As the New Hampshire state champions, the Hollis/Brookline students will compete against more than 1200 students from across the United States in a three-day national competition May 2-4, 1998. Students will demonstrate their knowledge of the Constitution and its relevance to contemporary issues in front of simulated congressional committees composed of constitutional scholars, lawyers, journalists, and government leaders. The distinguished members of the Hollis/Brookline team are: Meghan Amber, Wayne Beuner, Randy Brown, Jonathon Davies, Meredith Edmunds, Jaima Elliott, Emily Gagne, Sara Godshall, Laura Hacker, Alex Harris, Nicola Huns, Craig Kimball, Sarah Kirby, Anna Klein, Brannon Klein, Maya Levine, Sara Liebling, Kass Litwin, Heidi Packard, Amy Rattin, Jared Rosenberg, Nadine Schneider, Carrie Spaulding, Kent Springfield, Anja Helene Stronen-Lien, Amy Tozier and Amanda Vormelker. Their teachers, Helen Melanson and Joel Mitchell, deserve special recognition for their role in preparing these students for this intense constitutional testing. I applaud them for their commitment to enriching the lives of these students. As a former high school civics teacher myself, I recognize the value of instilling an understanding of the Constitution in students. The ``We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution'' program provides an excellent opportunity for students to gain an informed perspective about the history and principles of our nation's constitutional government. I wish these young constitutional experts from Hollis/Brookline High School the best of luck in preparing for the national finals. It is an honor to have them represent New Hampshire, and I wish them luck as they prepare to be America's leaders in the twenty-first century. I am proud to represent them in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the North Haverhill, New Hampshire, Post #5245 of the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) on the occasion of their fiftieth anniversary. As a veteran and member of the VFW myself, I honor these men for their selfless commitment to their country and to their community. Since 1948, the original membership of 30 World War Two veterans has grown to 160 veterans of World Wars One and Two, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and the Gulf War. I would like to specially recognize the charter members that have been there from the beginning--William Fortier, Leo Fortier, Fred Robinson, Paul LaMott, Everett Jessman, Maurice Bigelow, Willis Applebee, Ernest Hartley, William Harris, Laurent Fournier, Clifford Sawyer and Leon Dargie. All have served our country valiantly, and now tirelessly serve the Upper Valley, devoting endless hours to their community. The extent of the Post's involvement is endless, helping not only veterans, but anyone to whom they can lend a helping hand. They are especially involved with the youth of the Upper Valley. Their youth programs projects stretch from donating American flags to schools and teaching proper flag etiquette, to sponsoring essay contests and awarding college scholarships. They also sponsor Cub Scout and Girl Scout troops and instruct youth on bicycle safety. In addition, members host meals at a local soup kitchen, visit nursing homes and the VA Hospital and also visit shut-ins. They transport the elderly to appointments, donate wheelchairs and walkers and distribute food baskets on Thanksgiving. For half of a century, these members have exemplified goodwill and concern for their neighbors, and their efforts will no doubt continue for the next fifty years. I congratulate Post #5245 for their steadfast service to the Upper Valley. New Hampshire and the United States are truly indebted to the North Haverhill Post #5245 of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and I am proud to represent them in the U.S. Senate.