Bob Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Yes.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I thank my colleague for those remarks. I just say to Senator Warner, on January 10, 1994, along the same vein, President Clinton himself made the following statement, only 4 years ago: Why should we now draw a new line through Europe just a little further east? Why should we now do something which could foreclose the best possible future for Europe? The best possible future would be a democratic Russia committed to the security of all of its European neighbors. The best possible future would be a democratic Ukraine, a democratic government in every one of the Newly Independent States of the former Soviet Union, all committed to market cooperation, to common security and to democratic ideals. We should not foreclose that possibility. That was the President of the United States, Bill Clinton, on January 10, 1994. I simply say to my colleagues, what has changed? What has changed?

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Thank you, Mr. President. I might add to the comments of the distinguished Senator from Virginia in the discussion of the distinguished Senator from New Mexico that we had had some testimony along the same lines in the strategic subcommittee. General Xavier indicated he felt, likewise, that the Duma would be less inclined to provide--they believe that if, in fact, NATO expansion were to continue, this could very well jeopardize the START II talks. I think it is also important to note--and I know the distinguished Senator made many visits to Russia, as I have in the past few years-- the worst part of this, I don't sense anger on the part of some of our Russian colleagues, but I do sense frustration, especially those who want to see Russia move to a democracy and stay there. Small ``d'' democrats in Russia really believe--and I think they are correct--that this is not going to help their cause. President Yeltsin has been steadfast and brave and courageous as he has tried to move, despite great odds and a lot of problems, especially inflation, to try to move Russia to the West and to democracy and to a good free market. I think this is going to hurt it, and I think hurt it needlessly, because there is absolutely, in this Senator's opinion, no urgency whatever to make this decision, which is the part I just cannot understand--why there is this sense of urgency. Only 2 short years ago, reading a quote from the President of the United States--actually 4 years ago, in which he gave a compelling reason not to have NATO expansion, and yet now it has all changed, and it didn't change that quickly.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. That is a good question.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I really would take issue with the comparison between the situation today we are talking about with the expansion of NATO and Yalta. We had a ground war, a terrible war that impacted almost every nation in Europe, Western and Eastern, that was costly, and at the end of it, with two sides converging, the Americans and the Russians converging on Europe, basically, I believe in a horrible mistake--I think the Senator would probably agree--the politicians sat down and carved up Europe and therein caused the problem that we faced. And from that came NATO and the cold war and everything else. This is not what we are talking about today. This is Russia today. This is a country that has had its ears pinned back pretty well as far as its conventional forces. It still has a ton of nuclear material and certainly nuclear weapons, tons of it, literally, that we are interested in working with them to get rid of. But I do not know what message it sends, not only to the American taxpayers but also to the Russians themselves, to say, on one hand, as the Senator is saying, that we would provide moneys to this empire, former evil empire, to take down their strategic systems--and we are doing that with Nunn-Lugar and other funds--and, on the other hand, spend as much as $250 billion to bring nations into an alliance to defend ourselves against that very same nation. Now, there is an inconsistency there somewhere, that sooner or later somebody will figure out that it doesn't make sense. I think we have to understand that. I say to my colleague from Delaware, I am about to wrap up. I know the Senator has a statement. I have been on the floor quite some time and I will yield in a moment. We are creating insiders and outsiders here. In my humble opinion, what we are going to do if we act on this this week is say to three nations, ``You guys are winners; we are picking you.'' You talk about Yalta; if there is a comparison, that is it. They picked winners and losers at Yalta. We are picking winners and losers. You three nations, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland, you are the good guys. You get the protection of NATO. Tomorrow, next year, or 3 years from now, depending on how this is resolved on the expansion vote here, depending on what amendments may pass, we will see this revisited again with other countries--whether it be Romania or some other country down the line, Slovenia, and on and on, Latvian countries. We will see this come up again and again. The same issue is going to have to be argued again and again and the same hard feelings. Again, going back to the position of the point of urgency, I just don't see what the urgency is to do that and to continue that kind of dialog and that kind of agitation. Basically, it is a permanent agitation that will go on for years and years and years. If at any time the Russians, the nationalists in Russia, the Zhirinovskys of the world were to assume power or even to look like they were going to assume power, we do what we have to do. Adding these three insiders creates more outsiders. That is the issue. This is a perpetual anguish that will be taken up year after year after year here on the Senate floor and will be debated nationally, and all the difficulties--and I think if the Senator would talk to some of the arms control people in the current administration, he might be surprised at some of the information they might give you on the QT as to how they feel about NATO expansion and what it might do to the strategic arms talks. I have talked to some of them, and it is interesting what they have to say. This will be disruptive for the alliance as a whole, and as member nations are encouraged or compelled to take sides, it will cause stress in the whole alliance. The end of the cold war, NATO faces internal issues, serious ones about its means and its end, whether Bosnia-type missions are appropriate. Is a Bosnia mission appropriate for NATO? Do we know that? We couldn't find unity in the Persian Gulf war when we had the threat from Saddam Hussein. We could not get unity. We saw evidence in the Libyan situation where the French Government refused to allow our aircraft to fly over their country. We have not had a big, rosy picture of unity even among NATO nations at all times, although the alliance has worked well on the whole. There are a lot of issues that need to be desperately looked at regarding the current NATO before we start exacerbating the problem by adding new nations. Enlargement, in my opinion, is a token, well intended, but a token and unimagined distraction from real problems. That is my concern. I get a little tired of the old cold-war dividing line reference and how we left the countries out in the cold and somehow we owe them. A lot of Americans died, a lot of Americans put on uniforms, a lot of taxpayers ponied up to the tune of trillions and trillions of dollars to help them get that freedom. They earned it. I am glad they have it. Not letting them in NATO is not going to do one thing to harm it at all. It may enhance it. In fact, in my humble opinion it will enhance it because we will draw the Russians, I believe, out toward the West and not to the East, which I believe in the long run protects their freedoms. In conclusion, this should not be a sentimental decision about our historic relationship with Europe. It ought to be a hard-nosed decision about extending a military guarantee to a precise piece of territory under current strategic circumstances. I think, again, it is about the next 50 years, not the last 50. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Yes.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Clearly, yes. It clearly had the capability to send an army into Western Europe if it so chose, if we had not stood up to stop it. I think the issue, though, of dividing lines--I believe the Senator used the term ``dividing line'' or ``artificial lines'' or ``demarcations in Europe,'' saying, ``See, I think it's the opposite.'' I think by doing this, we are creating artificial lines in Europe, and we are picking winners and losers. These three--why these three nations and not six, seven, eight others? And I think we are going to have a permanent sense of disruptions, if you will, now in Europe over the next several years as this debate comes up over and over and over again as to who is next and who would be the next country to go in. As far as going back to 1939 and what happened--we have 100,000 troops in Europe today. If we had 100,000 troops in 1939, Hitler may not have come into Poland with his panzer divisions. I think that is a very important point here. It is not that we are sitting there in a sterile vacuum in Europe with nothing there. We have NATO now. We have armed forces there. And, again, my objective here is to see to it that we create an environment that, hopefully, will see a peaceful relationship between the United States and Russia which will enhance the protection of these very nations that we talk about.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. The specific threat was the specific threat of the Soviet Union that was still there.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. There was a Soviet Union then.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Correct.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Yes.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Let me say to my colleague, I posed the question to you about urgency, and you answered it. And I commend you for that. I do not agree with your assessment of urgency. I think that, to me, ``urgency'' would be a military urgency, a perceived threat. It is not an urgent matter to make this decision today or tomorrow or within the next few months. It might be a matter that could, in your opinion, enhance the situation to prevent an emergency or an urgency, but I do not see it as that right now. You mentioned--the Senator from----

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. It is still going to take a commitment, whether you are in NATO or not, it is still going to take a commitment to defend Poland, period. You have to have a will to do that, whether you are in NATO or not. The point here is we have an opportunity, where the Russians have reached out to us ever so slightly, but as the Senator from Virginia has talked about in strategic weapons reduction, in trying to look at what Yeltsin has gone through, the market reforms--1000 percent inflation a few years ago down now to 8 percent. They have worked hard to try to make this thing work with a lot of strong leadership. I don't think this is the way to encourage them to continue to do that. This Senator, I guess much like Nixon going to China, is hardly one who has been soft on the Russians or the Soviet Union over the past several years of my public life, and certainly I have been in as strong opposition to them as anyone else. But also a strategist has to look at the real world, and I don't think we ought to be looking at just simple, cheap analogies here. We ought to be looking at the real world, and the real world is today, not what it was yesterday. Yesterday the real world was Stalin, was the cold war, was the ``evil empire,'' was expansionist tendencies, and was the NATO which came forth to block all of that. Today, we don't know what the future will bring; therefore, we do need NATO. But the question is, ``Do we need NATO expansion?''; not, ``Do we need NATO?'' Those are two different issues. Do we need NATO? Yes. Do we need NATO expansion in order to make this transition? I don't believe that we do. I think that is really the crux of this issue. There is no urgency. Again, what is the urgency? I say with the greatest respect to my colleague. What is the urgency? What now is the threat that is perceived, that you perceive to be, that makes this necessary to do today or tomorrow rather than to give the Russians some more time to make these reforms work, to perhaps get the START II agreement that the Senator from Virginia was talking about? What is the urgency? That is really the thrust of my involvement here. I will be happy to yield for a comment.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I thank my colleague for his comments. I in no way object or feel interrupted. I think this is a good way to debate the issue. It is much better than a series of monologues, I think, in regard to this issue. I would just say to my colleague, though, I am trying to accomplish, I think, the same thing that he is, which is that Poland or any other country not be a doormat for anyone else ever again. I think that really goes to the heart of the debate here; what is the best way to accomplish that? My point is--and I am a supporter of NATO, always was and still am-- but I believe that what we have here is a window of opportunity that allows us to try to pull the Russians to us. If the Russians right now were threatening Poland, I would say it is urgent--or were even talking about threatening Poland--it is urgent to move forward on this. We would still go to their defense, in my opinion, anyway. But that is an academic argument.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Go ahead.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Certainly I will.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. It sure does. The Senator knows that. He knows the Senator has worked on this issue tirelessly in the Armed Forces Committee and has visited Russia to see this. I don't think anybody could deny that in the very near future Russia is going to be one of the, if not the, strongest nations in that region of the world. The question is, Whose side is it going to be on? Is it going to be on the Iranians' side? Is it going to be an alliance with the Chinese Communists? Or is it going to be on our side? If it is on our side, why will the Poles care, or the Czechs, or the Hungarians, or anybody else? The point is they wouldn't. What we ought to be doing again is keeping the window open, using the advantages that we have to draw that out, to draw them this way. Senator Warner has mentioned how they have reached out to do that. We are taking down tremendous numbers of weapons that have been aimed at the United States for decades. But extending an alliance, which during the cold war the Soviet Union considered hostile, the countries that she doesn't threaten is basically kicking this former giant, like the Senator from Virginia said, poking them in the ribs. That is exactly what we are doing. God knows. I have stood on this floor many times and in the House Chamber before that and extolled the virtues of the United States against the cold war Soviet Union and voted trillions to defeat it. But let's not walk away from the victory. Let's not walk away from the victory. History shows that it is unwise to treat nations like that, and it is highly dangerous for countries in the middle, because these are the countries that are going to suffer if there is a confrontation that takes place between the United States and Russia again. It is the nations in the middle in Eastern Europe that are going to get the squeeze. That is where it is going to be fought. Those are the people who are going to suffer. We are talking about costs. The cost was in that poll question. I am not sure what we are paying for it. Maybe someone else does. You have estimates as high as $125 billion, some $250 billion. It is not the issue of cost per se. It is that nobody knows what the facts are. Nobody knows what we are dealing with. That is why there is this uncertainty. What if there is a threat and these nations were actually threatened? The question of cost would be irrelevant--I think. I think we would go to the defense of France, a current NATO member, and I would assume if these nations become members we would go to their defense if there was a threat. It would be irrelevant now as it was in the cold war, because we made the commitment if one is attacked, we are all attacked and we are going to do our part. But unfortunately, our part becomes the dominant part in NATO, and as current members shrink back from responsibility, this will increase our responsibility or our burden. There is no foreseeable conventional threat to any country in Europe, and no credible analysis disputes this. I challenge anyone to give me an analysis that shows how any nation in Europe today has a conventional threat. Is there a Russian army, a strong Russian army that has threatened France, Hungary, or the Czech Republic, or England, or anybody else? Where is it? If it isn't, then what is the urgency? What is the threat?

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Let me say, when I came into the room and prior to coming into the Chamber, I listened to some of the debate of my colleagues on the other side of this issue. Very interesting. I thought for a moment that I was in a time warp, that I was back in the 1950s and was somehow privy to the debate here. I heard terms like ``cold war.'' I heard terms like ``evil empire,'' ``Iron Curtain,'' and Stalin was mentioned, as was Yalta and the Soviet Union. Unless I am missing something--and I try to pay pretty close attention to current events--I don't see that same situation in the world today. I think Stalin is gone. It is my understanding that he is. The Iron Curtain is no longer there, which Churchill talked about. Yalta divided up Europe, unfortunately, and now we have these nations who have sought and got a well-deserved freedom. Now the Senate is considering whether to add these three nations--Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic--to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. That is the issue before us. The question is whether that is necessary or not in considering the situation right now in the world. I just say to my colleagues, what is the threat today to those three nations or any other nation that may be coming into NATO in the future? What is the specific threat? Is there still a cold war? Is there still an Iron Curtain? Is there a massive Soviet army poised at the ready on the borders of Poland or on the borders of Germany or on the borders of Hungary or Romania or the Czech Republic? I don't see any. Is Russia now an absolute to become a democratic nation, never to be a threat to the United States? No, absolutely not. That is the point of the discussion. What is the best way to try to bring that nation into the democratic fold, not to turn to the East, not to turn to Red China, not to turn to Iran and other nations that could very well be a serious threat to the United States before the end of the 21st century? But a few weeks ago when this matter first came up, it seemed to be a foregone conclusion that we were going to run this thing through with no debate, essentially. Everybody was feel-good, emotional. These nations had ``earned it.'' They are free and now they have earned the right to fall under the umbrella of NATO--25 percent of which is funded by the United States, I might add--and earned the right to become members of NATO. Then, after several of us had written a letter to the leaders and requested some time--we had a little difficulty getting it, but we did get the time to have a good debate, and I appreciate the fact that both Senator Daschle and Senator Lott responded to that request. However, unfortunately, there is still other information that is out there that we would like to have. For example, the NATO report, which is not due until perhaps late next month or early in June; it would be nice to have that. We don't have that. Again, we are now trapped in this urgency--this urgency. There is this huge threat looming out there to these three countries. Yet, I have not heard anybody tell me what that threat is. I would be happy to yield to anybody on the floor now or later who would be willing to stand up and tell me what the threat is to Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. Where is the threat that forces us to immediately, this week, vote on NATO expansion? Frankly, a growing number of us have come to the realization that expanding NATO is unwise. At worst it is unwise and unnecessary at best. It is time for a little thought. Some tried to get this thing to go through without any thought. I think that was the goal initially, to run this thing through before we had much time to think about it, analyze the thoughts, and before we had time to realize that there wasn't any threat, that this was emotional, feel-good politics. That is what this is. If NATO enlargement made sense, it would have gained strength as the debate began, not lost strength. It is losing strength. There are more Members now than there were several weeks ago who are opposed to NATO expansion. The more it was discussed, the more opposition there was. My suspicion has been that many of those clamoring for that speedy vote did so out of fear that the case for enlargement may not just bear the scrutiny that is deserves--and it does deserve a lot of scrutiny for a number of reasons, which we will be getting into, costs among others. But in discussions with constituents over the recess and colleagues over the past several weeks, my suspicion has been confirmed. When asked careful questions, the American people have serious reservations. I think initially--and I was one of them--when it first came up, the emotional response was, wow, they have gotten their freedom finally. We spent trillions to help them win it--trillions. We sacrificed American lives, millions of Americans in uniform, to help defeat the ``evil empire'' that Ronald Reagan spoke about. And it worked. But the question really is whether or not the so-called NATO umbrella makes sense right now. Now what are the people saying? Hot off the presses is a poll from Opinion Research of Princeton, a nationwide poll, just completed today. They ask the following question to people across the country: ``Congress is currently debating expanding the NATO military alliance to include Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary. Estimates of the cost to U.S. taxpayers from the first phase of expansion range from $400 million to $19 billion. Do you oppose or favor expanding NATO? Answer: Favor, 32 percent; opposed, 56 percent.'' By almost a 2-to-1 margin, when you indicate that we do not have a handle on the cost, people are opposed. These are facts. This is information that deserves to be part of the debate. This decision should not be based on polls. I will be the first one to agree with that. We should not be making a decision as important as the expansion of NATO based on polls. But it shows that when the American people understand and get information, they react accordingly. I think many members had the feeling that the American people were overwhelming in their support of this because it is an emotional feel- good thing to do. These nations suffered immensely under communism for a long, long time. And they earned their freedom. The question is: How do we preserve and continue to protect that freedom? The question is, Mr. President, do we look back at the last 50 years, or do we look ahead at the next 50 years in terms of protecting that freedom? Because that is the question we are talking about here today. We are not talking about Stalin and the evil empire and the cold war. We are talking about the next 50 years, and hopefully the next 150 or 250 years. That is what we are talking about. The best way to preserve and protect and defend these nations and their way of life is to have a Western Russia, a Russia that has moved into the West, a democratic Russia, and we ought to be doing everything in our power to see to it that that happens, and anything we do in any way to hinder that is a serious mistake, a mistake that we are going to pay for dearly down the road. It is a very shortsighted, a very, very shortsighted decision. With or without NATO, the United States can come to the defense of any European nation next week, tomorrow, next year, or 5 years from now. Should Europe ever be threatened by Russia, or by anybody else, we can expand NATO. We can do it quickly. But there is a lot to lose and very little to gain by expanding NATO now. We basically say to Russia: Don't worry about it. Don't worry about NATO expansion. It is OK. It is a defensive alliance. But it does not matter what we say. It matters what the Russians think. They have stated clearly and officially they oppose expansion. It has been said by others on the floor, and I agree that we should not set our foreign policy based on what the Russians say, I will be the first to admit that, but we ought to realize there is a lot going on inside Russia and there is no threat to these nations from Russia. So why not leave the window open a little bit longer? What is the urgency? What is the threat? Let me keep asking that question. Somebody rise on the Senate floor sometime during this debate, if not now, and tell me what the threat is. Tell me what the urgency is. There is no urgency. There is no threat. It is an emotional feel-good thing to do. They earned it. They are free. Let us put them under the umbrella of NATO and protect them. From what? We are still going to go to their defense if anything threatens them. Every person in the Senate knows it. The most important requirement for the Poles, the Czechs, and the Hungarians as far as their security is concerned is that America and Russia remain friends. That is the protection these nations need--that Russia and America become friends and remain friends. That is the issue here.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I'm reading the President's quote. ``The best possible future would be a democratic Russia committed to the security of all of its European neighbors. We should not foreclose it.'' That was the time he followed in President Bush's footsteps of supporting the Partnership for Peace, which I also support. Now something has intervened--perhaps the election of 1996--that caused him now to change his mind, and suddenly now there is this urgent need to have these three nations become part of NATO.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I think it has a lot ``to do with anything.'' The President made these statements at the NATO headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, and his point is that drawing a new line through Europe a little further east might jeopardize the relationship between the Russians and the United States and bringing the Russians into the democracy, into the West as a democratic nation. The Senator doesn't believe that is relevant to this?

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, this is National Victim Rights Week and today I am introducing a bill to amend section 991(a) of title 28, United States Code, to require certain members of the United States Sentencing Commission to be selected from among individuals who are victims of a crime of violence. Each year, Mr. President, about 40 million Americans are victimized by crime. Yet, all too often, the voices of those victims are lost in the criminal justice system. In fact, it often seems that the voices of those who commit crimes are heard with greater attentiveness by our criminal justice system than are the voices of the victims of crime. As President Reagan's Task Force on Victims of Crime stated in its 1982 report, ``the criminal justice system has lost its essential balance.'' One response to this problem has been S.J. Res. 44, a constitutional amendment to protect the rights of victims of crime, which has been introduced in this Congress by Senators Kyl and Feinstein. I am proud to be a cosponsor of that crime victims constitutional amendment. The bill that I am introducing today, Mr. President, is another response to the problem of the under representation of victims' rights in our criminal justice system. My bill, which my distinguished colleagues from North Carolina, Senators Faircloth and Helms, are cosponsoring, would reserve two of the seven seats on the United States Sentencing Commission for victims of violent crime. Mr. President, the United States Sentencing Commission is an independent entity within the judicial branch that establishes sentencing policies and practices for the Federal courts. This includes sentencing guidelines that prescribe the appropriate form and severity of punishment for offenders convicted of Federal crimes. The U.S. Sentencing Commission is composed of seven voting members who are appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, for six-year terms. The Commission also includes two non-voting members. Of the seven voting members of the Sentencing Commission, three must be Federal judges. Under my bill, two of the four seats on the Sentencing Commission that are not filled by Federal judges would be reserved for victims of a crime of violence or, in the case of a homicide, an immediate family member of such a victim. My bill utilizes the existing statutory definition of a crime of violence that is found in section 16 of title 18 of the United States Code. Mr. President, my bill preserves, to a large extent, the discretion of the President in making decisions about whom to nominate to seats on the Sentencing Commission. Under my bill, the President remains free to seek individuals who have professional expertise in the criminal justice field, so long as they also are victims of crime. Sadly, Mr. President, I do not believe that the President would have much difficulty identifying such qualified individuals. Mr. President, six of the seven voting seats on the Sentencing Commission are vacant. Let's give victims of crime a voice by requiring that two of those vacant seats must be filled by Americans who have been victimized by violent crime. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, this is National Victim Rights Week and today I am introducing a bill to amend section 991(a) of title 28, United States Code, to require certain members of the United States Sentencing Commission to be selected from among individuals who are victims of a crime of violence. Each year, Mr. President, about 40 million Americans are victimized by crime. Yet, all too often, the voices of those victims are lost in the criminal justice system. In fact, it often seems that the voices of those who commit crimes are heard with greater attentiveness by our criminal justice system than are the voices of the victims of crime. As President Reagan's Task Force on Victims of Crime stated in its 1982 report, ``the criminal justice system has lost its essential balance.'' One response to this problem has been S.J. Res. 44, a constitutional amendment to protect the rights of victims of crime, which has been introduced in this Congress by Senators Kyl and Feinstein. I am proud to be a cosponsor of that crime victims constitutional amendment. The bill that I am introducing today, Mr. President, is another response to the problem of the under representation of victims' rights in our criminal justice system. My bill, which my distinguished colleagues from North Carolina, Senators Faircloth and Helms, are cosponsoring, would reserve two of the seven seats on the United States Sentencing Commission for victims of violent crime. Mr. President, the United States Sentencing Commission is an independent entity within the judicial branch that establishes sentencing policies and practices for the Federal courts. This includes sentencing guidelines that prescribe the appropriate form and severity of punishment for offenders convicted of Federal crimes. The U.S. Sentencing Commission is composed of seven voting members who are appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, for six-year terms. The Commission also includes two non-voting members. Of the seven voting members of the Sentencing Commission, three must be Federal judges. Under my bill, two of the four seats on the Sentencing Commission that are not filled by Federal judges would be reserved for victims of a crime of violence or, in the case of a homicide, an immediate family member of such a victim. My bill utilizes the existing statutory definition of a crime of violence that is found in section 16 of title 18 of the United States Code. Mr. President, my bill preserves, to a large extent, the discretion of the President in making decisions about whom to nominate to seats on the Sentencing Commission. Under my bill, the President remains free to seek individuals who have professional expertise in the criminal justice field, so long as they also are victims of crime. Sadly, Mr. President, I do not believe that the President would have much difficulty identifying such qualified individuals. Mr. President, six of the seven voting seats on the Sentencing Commission are vacant. Let's give victims of crime a voice by requiring that two of those vacant seats must be filled by Americans who have been victimized by violent crime. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be printed in the Record. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Vicki Donovan for being named the 1998 New Hampshire Teacher of the Year. Vicki is a fourth grade teacher at Belmont Elementary School in Belmont, New Hampshire, and is being recognized for her excellence in teaching and leadership in innovative curriculum reform. As a teacher for over 15 years, Vicki has proven her dedication to her students and her community, going far beyond her classroom duties. As a member of the Belmont Elementary Language Arts Curriculum Committee, Vicki facilitated a pilot program in their new language arts curriculum. She is involved in Belmont Elementary School's extracurricular activities, and has always displayed an avid interest in the lives and well-being of her students. She is a member of the newly formed Health Fair Committee that involves school staff and local health care officials in providing resources and information to students and families. She is an elected member of the Government Study Committee that has done exhaustive work in attempting to restructure and improve the Belmont town government, and she is involved with the Youth and Education Committee of the Belmont Civic Pride Organization. This is just a sampling of Vicki's professional and civic involvements; her contributions to Belmont Elementary School and the Town of Belmont are immeasurable. Vicki's own educational record proves the value that she places in learning. She has continued to take professional courses throughout her teaching career, and in 1996 completed her Masters degree in Education. She has supported future teachers by supervising student teachers, and helped improve herself and other teachers through her participation at professional workshops. She has previously been recognized in ``Who's Who Among America's Teachers'' and with the Academy of Applied Science and Central New Hampshire Educational Collaborative Award. Mr. President, as a former teacher myself, I recognize the challenges, responsibilities and dedication involved in teaching. Teachers are entrusted with the enormous responsibility of preparing our youth to be active and responsible citizens. I am very honored to have Vicki Donovan as a teacher in the Granite State, and it is with great pride that I represent her in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Commander Richard A. Searfoss, mission specialist Richard M. Linnehan and payload specialist Jay Clark Buckey for their participation in the April 16, 1998, Neurolab mission STS-90. These men are on the forefront of science, bravely pioneering the new frontier of space in an effort to investigate the effects of weightlessness on the brain, central nervous system, and sensory organs. After graduating from Portsmouth Senior High School in New Hampshire, Rick Searfoss attended the United States Air Force Academy where he was awarded the Harmon, Fairchild, Price and Tober Awards as the top overall, academic, engineering and aeronautical engineering graduate in the Class of 1978. When Commander Searfoss was selected for the astronaut program, he was a flight instructor at the U.S. Naval Test Pilot School where he was named the Tactical Air Command F-111 Instructor Pilot of the Year in 1985. Having logged over 4200 hours flying time in 56 different types of aircraft, there can be no doubt about Commander Searfoss' courage or ability. Richard M. Linnehan, a graduate of the University of New Hampshire, is a distinguished astronaut and veterinarian. After entering into private veterinary practice and further study of animal medicine and comparative pathology, Dr. Linnehan was commissioned as a Captain in the U.S. Army Veterinary Corps. He served as chief clinical veterinarian for the Navy's Marine Mammal Project at the Naval Ocean Systems Center in San Diego. Dr. Linnehan has been at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) since 1992, where he has worked in the Shuttle Avionics Integration Laboratory and in the Astronaut Office Mission Development Branch. He was a member of the international crew of the STS-78 mission in 1996, the longest space shuttle flight to date. Jay Clark Buckey, currently a NASA payload specialist and Associate Professor of Medicine at Dartmouth Medical School in Hanover, New Hampshire, has a distinguished record in aerospace medicine. Dr. Buckey has over twenty publications to his credit in the areas of space physiology, cardiovascular regulation and echocardiographic techniques. He is a former executive board member of the American Society for Gravitational and Space Biology, as well as a member of the Aerospace Medicine Association and American College of Physicians. His accomplishments at NASA include performing as co-investigator and project manager for the Spacelab Life Sciences-1 experiment ``Cardiovascular Adaptation to Zero-Gravity,'' for which he received two NASA Certificates of Recognition for software developed. WMUR-TV of Manchester and the Christa McAuliffe Planetarium of Concord are cooperating to offer a live interactive question-and-answer session with the New Hampshire astronauts on April 24, 1998, that will be shown in the Planetarium and relayed to students in the astronauts' hometowns of Portsmouth, Pelham and Hanover. Students will beam questions up to the astronauts and have the answers beamed back to them, giving the students a window into life aboard the space shuttle and an opportunity to speak with real live heroes. Risking their own lives to determine the effects of space travel, these men exhibit bravery that should inspire us all. Mr. President, I want to congratulate Commander Richard A. Searfoss, mission specialist Richard M. Linnehan, and payload specialist Jay Clark Buckey for their outstanding work. 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 Dr. John R. Kreick as he retires from Sanders after a distinguished 28-year career. I commend and admire his dedication and commitment to the defense industry, the community and the employees of Sanders. John joined Sanders in 1969, after receiving his doctorate in theoretical physics as a research physicist. He proceeded to manage and direct the development and production of infrared countermeasure systems that are today deployed on U.S. and allied helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft around the world. John moved up to technical director for the Sanders Defense and Information Systems Division in 1983 and was then promoted to vice president and chief engineer for the division that same year. He was named vice president of the company's airborne countermeasures product line in the Electronic Warfare Division in 1984 and was named President in 1988. John is nationally recognized as a leader in the electronic warfare field. He was honored in 1995 by Aviation Week magazine with the Aerospace Laurels Award and he holds a gold medal award from the Electronic Warfare Association. As Chairman of the U.S. Senate Strategic Forces Subcommittee, I have witnessed firsthand John's contributions to our national defense and how his efforts have helped protect American lives. Our rights to ``life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'' are safer today because of John's leadership. I have had the pleasure of John's friendship and mutual respect for the past 13 years. I wish John, Carole and his family much happiness in his retirement and I know he will enjoy his free time skiing mid-week in the White Mountains. John Kreick, best wishes and Godspeed. It is an honor to represent you in the U.S. Senate.