Bob Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, Friday, September 19, 1997, has been designated this year by President Clinton and numerous State Governors as National POW/MIA Recognition Day. This is a special day for paying tribute to our missing service members and civilians involved with our Nation's past military conflicts. It is a day for reaffirming throughout the United States our national commitment to obtaining the fullest possible accounting for America's POW's and MIA's. It has been an honor and privilege for me, since my election to the Congress in 1984, to assist the POW/MIA families, our veterans, and their friends and supporters, with the many efforts that have been undertaken to try to achieve a proper accounting for so many of our Nation's bravest heroes still listed as missing. It has been a difficult and emotional task, complicated by on and off-again cooperation by foreign governments. As many of my colleagues know, I served as vice-chairman of the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs in 1992, and I currently serve as the U.S. chairman of the Vietnam War Working Group of the Joint United States-Russian Commission on POW's and MIA's. This past summer, I, along with Congressman Sam Johnson of Texas, himself a returned POW from North Vietnam, traveled to Russia, Poland, and the Czech Republic in our continuing efforts to open archives and interview people knowledgeable about the fate of American POW's. We both feel, as a result of our trip, that we have enhanced our Government's ability to further investigate POW/MIA leads. I have also continued my own efforts here in the Senate to ensure that U.S. Government records on this issue are declassified and made available to the public. I am pleased to report that I am making additional progress in that regard, specifically with respect to information from the Nixon administration that I hope will shed more light on our own Government's knowledge about POW's and MIA's when the Vietnam war ended in 1973. As a result of my direct involvement with this issue, I can report that, even though we have made some progress over the years, there is still much work to do. It is, therefore, my hope that this administration will take the opportunity National POW/MIA Recognition Day provides to rededicate itself to using all appropriate resources available to the U.S. Government to resolve the POW/MIA issue. I personally believe that public awareness is critical to ensuring that the United States vigorously presses Communist governments abroad, especially North Korea, China, Vietnam, and Laos, to give us the complete answers that we deserve on this humanitarian issue. Indeed, the support of the public has enabled us to continue to push forward with legislative initiatives in Congress that can help to ensure the POW/MIA issue is pursued as a top priority with the governments I just referenced. I want to assure my own constituents and the many concerned Americans who have contacted me through the years that I remain absolutely committed to doing everything I think is appropriate to resolve the fate of our missing soldiers. Mr. President, I thank the American people for remembering our unaccounted for POW's and MIA's on this special day.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Peter Wolf Toth who has completed a project to present each State with a handmade wooden totem pole that incorporates local and historical figures from all across the Nation. I commend his outstanding gift to our Nation. Peter came to the United States through extraordinary circumstances. He escaped with his mother from the Soviet takeover in Russian-occupied Hungary. Traveling through Budapest, Yugoslavia, and Austria, Peter eventually settled in Akron, OH. His interests led him to educate himself in American history, specifically with a focus on native American lore, tribal cultures, and contributions to our lifestyle today. Peter recently completed a project where he carved out enormous totem poles by hand and presented one to each of the fifty States to show his gratitude to our country. His totem pole to New Hampshire was presented in 1984 and it stands in Opechee Park in Laconia, NH. The dedication ceremony that September drew a crowd of over 3,000 people. Peter's immigration into this country, as well as his hard work, should stand as an example for all Americans. It is no doubt that he is worthy of great recognition and praise for his devotion to the United States. Mr. President, I want to pay great homage to Peter Wolf Toth for his outstanding commitment to the United States. We are indebted to his amazing gifts and talents that he chose to share with all of us.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I would like to comment briefly on yesterday's unanimous passage of S. 39, the International Dolphin Conservation Act after the Senate had adopted a compromise amendment. I joined with my colleagues in supporting this effort to bridge the gap between the two sides because I believe that it was the result of sincere movement by both sides, a true compromise. As originally written, S. 39 would have permitted tuna caught by chasing dolphins and encircling them in purse-seine nets to be labeled dolphin-safe. The compromise amendment adopted by the Senate yesterday preserves the existing dolphin-safe label until the Secretary of Commerce has the opportunity to review a study of the effects of encirclement on endangered dolphin populations. This means that the label change will take place no sooner than March 1997. I must admit that the need for such a study is not entirely clear to me. I think that any method of fishing for tuna that involves chasing schools of dolphins through miles of ocean and encircling them--in nets a mile wide and as deep as a football field is long--cannot honestly be described as safe for dolphins. I only hope that the studies that will be conducted will be anchored in common sense. If they are, I am confident that the label change will not take place. Unfortunately, common sense may take a back seat to pressures from foreign governments, the same pressures that gave rise to S. 39 in the first place. It's no secret that the countries that permit dolphin- deadly fishing would like to have access to the American tuna market-- the world's largest--even if it means that our consumer standards have to be gutted in the process. I regret that too many in Congress and in the administration have failed to resist this pressure and defend our country's laws. In that connection, I would like to associate myself with the remarks of Senator Boxer, a valued colleague but one with whom I do not typically find myself in agreement. Before the Senate voted on this issue, Senator Boxer said: ``American laws should be made by Americans * * * American laws should not be made by other countries.'' Senator Boxer has it exactly right. This issue has aroused the passionate interest of humane groups others concerned with dolphin welfare, but it should also be of concern to anyone concerned about the integrity of our governing institutions and the preservation of the sovereign right of the American people to make their laws through those institutions. I trust that we will have the opportunity to revisit that question. Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to say that Senator Boxer has done a tremendous job of standing up for what is right on this issue and I salute her efforts and those of the others who brought the sponsors of S. 39 to the table. Without Senator Boxer's steadfast efforts, this compromise and the opportunity to preserve the dolphin- safe label it provides would not have been possible.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, earlier this week, the White House and the Congress reached a historic agreement that will balance the budget by 2002. Today, I rise in support of the portion of the deal that provides tax cuts to American families and small businesses: the Taxpayer Relief Act, H.R. 2014. After enduring sixteen years without any tax relief, Americans will finally benefit from tax cuts that will affect many aspects of their lives. Under our tax package, not only will taxpayers immediately see their tax bill go down, but saving for retirement, paying for college, and investing for the future will be much easier. I am encouraged and pleased that the Republican-led Taxpayer Relief Act provides $95 billion in tax cuts over five years and represents an improved standard of living for taxpayers at every stage of life. This tax relief comes at a time when the nation's tax burden is at an all time high. Partly due to President Clinton's tax hike back in 1993, today's taxpayers face a combined federal, state, and local tax burden of nearly 50% of their income--more than the cost of food, clothing, and shelter combined. In fact, for every eight hours of work, the average taxpayer spends about three hours just to pay the tax collector. And too many families could not survive without two incomes just to make ends meet. We cannot let this situation continue. By letting hard-working Americans keep more of their own money, we allow them to preserve their family, prepare for their own future, and invest in the nation's economy. The future of the family. I can no longer stand by while families in New Hampshire lose more and more time together because they have to work longer and harder to send their pay to Washington. The Taxpayer Relief Act addresses this growing problem in several different ways. First, taxpayers with young children will get a $500 tax credit for every child. In 1999, a middle-income family in New Hampshire with two young children will save $1,000 with this credit! Second, the tax relief measure reduces the capital gains rate for taxpayers who invest for their future. If the same New Hampshire family realizes $2,000 in capital gains to help pay for college or buy a home, they will save an additional $100. It would also be easier for this family to sell their home, as the tax package exempts $500,000 of capital gains on the sale of a principal residence. Equally important, this tax cut benefits their grandparents since many senior citizens depend on capital gains as a primary source of retirement income. Since 56% of taxpayers with gains have incomes of less than $50,000, and the percentage of families who own stock has increased from 32% in 1989 to over 41% today, many Americans will welcome this revision. Our plan also offers relief to parents who face higher expenses as their children grow older. Families can save for higher education by taking advantage of the plan's education accounts, penalty-free withdrawals for education, or popular tax-free prepaid state tuition plans. When the student reaches college, parents receive a HOPE tax credit for tuition and related expenses for four years of college. In the first two years, for example, parents can receive a tax credit up to $1,500 to help pay for their child's education. These provisions help parents in New Hampshire face the challenge of saving and paying for higher education in order to invest in a brighter future for their children. Preparing for the future. Our savings rate is one of the lowest of all industrialized nations partly because too many Americans find it difficult to save for retirement and pay high taxes. Under our Taxpayer Relief Act, individuals planning for retirement will benefit from expanded Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs). Specifically, we created a new ``back-loaded'' IRA--contributions are not tax- deductible, but withdrawals upon retirement are tax-free if the account is held for at least five years. Once the IRA is established, penalty- free withdrawals are allowed for a first-time home purchase or for higher education expenses. In addition, thanks to the efforts of Senator Judd Gregg, the bill allows non-working spouses to contribute to an IRA whether or not the working spouse is already in an employer- sponsored retirement plan. As a result, a New Hampshire couple can make a yearly tax-deductible IRA contribution of $4,000, rather than just $2,000. After 35 years at a 7.5% rate of return, they will have saved a nice retirement nest egg totaling $617,000! Investing in the future. Fortunately, small businesses will finally get a well-deserved break under the Taxpayer Relief Act. Under the bill, the home office deduction is expanded to help people who work at home. In addition, the increase in the health insurance premium deduction for self-employed individuals is phased in more quickly, rising from 40% this year to 80% in 2006. And by 2007, the premium is fully deductible. Most important to many New Hampshire families I talk to, the estate tax changes also help small businesses. Now, parents who wish to pass on their small, family-owned business or farm to their children can do so knowing that the first $1.3 million will be excluded from the extremely high inheritance tax. Finally, the tax package addresses the need to encourage saving and investment by cutting the capital gains rate from 28% to 20% (and from 15% to 10% in the lower bracket) for sales after May 6, 1997. The current high rates discourage the risk taking and creativity necessary to achieve increased productivity and prosperity. A lower capital gains rate, however, will make it easier to free up capital to invest in research, technology and equipment; increase worker productivity; and ultimately create higher paying jobs. Without a doubt, this pro-growth initiative will enhance U.S. competitiveness. I wish I could report the same degree of satisfaction with the final version of the social spending component of this effort. When I voted for an earlier version of this portion of the package, I did so with the hope that the conference negotiations would result in its improvement. I regret that the social spending provisions produced as a result of negotiations with President Clinton failed to live up to that hope. The conference report on H.R. 2015 contained many valuable provisions. I am pleased that Medicare beneficiaries will have more choice about the type of health care delivery plan in which they will be enrolled, including--for 390,000 seniors--the option to open Medical Savings Accounts. I welcome the creation of a bipartisan commission to address Medicare's long-term problems. And I believe that the effort to reform Medicaid undertaken in H.R. 2015 is overdue. Unfortunately, however, H.R. 2015 fails sufficiently to move toward the fundamental, structural reforms in Medicare we all know will be required to ensure the retirement security of future generations. Furthermore, I had serious concerns about the fiscal and social damage we risk doing by retreating from welfare reform and by creating new entitlement, particularly a flawed child health entitlement which some--inside and outside of government--plan to use as the foundation of a government-run national health care system. Ultimately, these reservations dictated a vote against this portion of the legislation. I have been a strong advocate for a balanced budget, tax relief, and entitlement reform for the past thirteen years and I am elated that we have finally made it here. I support the tax cut portion of the Balanced Budget Act, which provides $95 billion in tax cuts for American families including a $500 per child tax credit, tuition tax credits, IRA expansion to include non-working spouses, a capital gains reduction to create jobs, and reductions in the inheritance tax. These initiatives are long overdue, and I am proud to be an early and vocal supporter of tax relief. However, I am concerned that the spending portion of the budget deal creates a new entitlement program, threatens to move us toward government-run health care, and significantly increases social spending which could negatively impact the Balanced Budget Agreement. Given that President Clinton submitted a budget earlier this year which would have added $200 billion to the deficit, the Republican-led Congress can take pride in this final agreement that implements the tax cuts fought for by our party for so long. The Tax Relief Act will help American families keep more of what they earn, save for their retirement, and promote job creation and economic growth. I support a balanced budget and look forward to voting to give New Hampshire families their first tax cut in sixteen years.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I want to thank the manager of this bill for that clarification. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a discussion with the bill manager on an amendment that I filed yesterday. Will the Senator from Alabama yield for a question? Mr. SHELBY: Yes, I will yield to the Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. As the Senator knows, I filed an amendment yesterday that I hope will not be necessary. The issue concerns truck weight limitations on interstate highways and potential sanctions on the States of New Hampshire and Maine. Last year's appropriations legislation for the Department of Transportation included an amendment sponsored by Senators Cohen, Snowe, Gregg, and myself which established a moratorium on the Department of Transportation's authority to withhold highway funds from New Hampshire and Maine because of their allowance of heavier trucks on Interstate 95. That moratorium is set to expire on September 1, 1997. Under section 127 of our surface transportation law, States may not allow trucks over 80,000 pounds on the Interstate System without risking the loss of highway funds, even though many State roads allow 100,000-pound trucks, as is the case in New Hampshire and Maine. While I do not wish to get into a policy discussion on truck weights, there is a safety argument to be made in keeping these heavier trucks on the Interstate System, which is built to higher standards. That debate should be appropriately reserved for ISTEA reauthorization, currently under way in the Environment and Public Works Committee. It is there that we will debate any proposed changes to Federal truck weight limits. Nevertheless, we are faced with the expiration of the sanctions moratorium on September 1 and the fact that the Environment and Public Works Committee has not yet dealt with this issue in ISTEA. It is for these reasons that I now seek assurances from the Transportation Department that sanctions would not be imposed before ISTEA is reauthorized and fiscal year 1998 apportionments are released. Is it the Senator's understanding that the Department of Transportation would not have the authority to withhold highway funds from New Hampshire and Maine for the remainder of this fiscal year or until such time as the highway program is reauthorized and fiscal year 1998 funds are apportioned to the States? Mr. SHELBY: Yes, that is correct. There would not be an opportunity for sanctions under section 127 of our surface transportation law until fiscal year 1998 highway funds are apportioned, which would not occur until Congress reauthorizes the surface transportation programs.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senator Brownback's amendment to the Commerce, Justice, and State appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998. This amendment prohibits the awarding of grants from the Advanced Technology Program [ATP] within the Department of Commerce to corporations with sales greater than $2.5 billion. This amendment offered by the Senator from Kansas is a good amendment that should enjoy bipartisan support. After all, I hear my colleagues on both sides of the aisle talking year after campaign year about eliminating corporate welfare. Therefore, I assume a vote to limit grants to the wealthiest corporations in the Nation should be an easy one. Let's be clear about what firms we are talking about. The companies that have been awarded the largest grant amounts are IBM, General Motors, General Electric, Ford, and Sun Microsystems, among others. Do these sound like corporations in need of one, two or three million dollar grants? To me, these profitable firms sound like companies that could certainly find private sector funding. And this belief is not without basis. In fact, the General Accounting Office [GAO] surveyed 89 grant recipients and 34 near-winners that applied for ATP funding between 1990 and 1993. Of the near-winners, half continued their research and development projects despite a lack of ATP funding. Among those who received grants, 42 percent said they would have continued their R&D without the ATP money. The Federal Government should not be in the business of providing corporate subsidies. However, we should fund basic science projects that do not have short-term profit-making potential, and would otherwise not be funded by the private sector. The Senator's amendment is a step toward reversing this trend toward funding applied research that ultimately produces handsome profits for these companies. Under his reasonable proposal, the most profitable firms, companies that realize more than $2.5 billion in sales, would not be eligible for ATP subsidies. While I would prefer to see these corporate subsidies eliminated from our budget, I would be pleased to know that Federal funding is not going to enormously profitable corporations. Defenders of the ATP corporate welfare program argue that these grants allow research that otherwise would not go forward. How do we know, when many of the grant recipients did not even seek private sector money before coming to the Federal Government? In fact, GAO found that 63 percent of the ATP applicants surveyed had not sought private sector funding before applying for a grant. Other opponents of this amendment are the same Senators who oppose the efforts of the Republicans to ease the tax burden on Americans. At the same time these Members deny taxpayers the chance to keep some of their own money, they turn around and give the hard-earned tax dollar to billion dollar corporations. However, after hearing so many Senators speak out against corporate welfare, I am confident that this amendment will be approved by a wide margin. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Roland and Claire Jutras of Peterborough, NH, the National 1997 Parents of the Year. The National Parents' Day Foundation bestowed the honor on the Jutrases after searching the Nation for the parents of the year. Roland Jutras came to town in 1972 to run the town of Peterborough's Recreation Department. His 25 years of service to the town's children has earned him much praise and esteem from the community around. Roland met Claire playing at the co-ed evening volleyball league in 1972. They were later married in 1975. Roland and Claire are active members of their community. Roland received the Peterborough Rotary Club Paul Harris Award in 1989, Peterborough Citizen of the Year in 1987, and he was VFW Man of the Year in 1981. Roland also served on the ConVal District School Board for 2 years and he taught at St. Peter's Church. Claire is involved in many community activities as well. She has been a Brownie leader for 3 years, a St. Peter's religious education teacher for 4 years, preschool teacher, recreation volunteer, and a member of a local sorority organization. Claire is also a full-time special education aide at Peterborough Elementary School and is known for her warm smile and generous heart to all of those people she has touched. Roland and Claire have strengthened their family with pride, dedication, and love, always first. The Jutras' four daughters have earned as much community recognition as their parents. Christine and Michelle are seniors at Norwich University, Veronica will be a sophomore at Holy Cross in Worcester, MA, in the fall, while Natalie will be a junior at St. Anselem College in Manchester, NH. The National Parents' Day Foundation was founded in 1994 after President Bill Clinton signed into law the creation of National Parents Day on the fourth Sunday of July each year. Every year the foundation looks for parents who are intact married couples with children, people of good reputation, couples who mirror in their lives behavior the ideals we want to see replicated, and people with strong religiously based moral values. Roland and Claire will join 13 other U.S. couples who were finalists for the award this week in a reception here on Capitol Hill. Mr. President, on Wednesday evening, I look forward to meeting the Jutrases here in a reception to honor this wonderful Granite State couple. Roland and Claire represent the very best in parenting and embody the finest in sacrificial and caring love for children. New Hampshire is fortunate to be blessed by their leadership and dedication. I applaud Roland and Claire Jutras for their outstanding and caring spirit for their community and family. I am proud to represent them in the U.S. Senate. Congratulations Roland and Claire.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Geofferey Ward, a Portsmouth High School senior, for attending the 50th annual American Legion Boys Nation. Geofferey was chosen to represent the Granite State at the national program. He was also one of several boys to attend American Legion Boys State at the New Hampshire Technical Institute in Concord this summer. These are certainly accomplishments of which he should be very proud, and I applaud him for his achievements. Boys State and Boys Nation are week-long programs that aim to teach young men to be responsible citizens by teaching them how the Government works. The students set up a legislature where they introduce and debate bills in order to learn the complexities of democracy. While learning about the ins and outs of the Government, he will also learn interpersonal skills and the importance of listening, understanding and working together. Geofferey enjoys politics and may pursue a career in a related field. I congratulate Geofferey on his outstanding accomplishments. I commend his hard work and perseverance and wish him luck at Boys Nation.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Stephanie A. Frank of Dover, NH, and Erick N. Viorritto of Manchester, NH, on being selected as the Granite State winners of the 1997 White House Presidential Scholars Program sponsored by General Motors and Saturn. Stephanie and Erick were chosen on the basis of academic and artistic success, leadership, and involvement in their school and community. Each student also selected the teacher who has had the most impact on his or her accomplishments. Stephanie and Erick, along with their parents and honored teachers, spent a week in Washington, and attended the Presidential Scholar Medallion ceremony hosted by President Clinton. Stephanie, a graduate of Dover High School in Dover, NH, brought her teacher Mr. Christopher Lawrence to accompany her on the trip, while Erick, a graduate of Manchester's West High School in Manchester, NH, brought his teacher Mr. Gaston P. Normand, Jr., for the festivities. Founded in 1964 by President Lyndon B. Johnson, the White House Presidential Scholars Program honors the Nation's most accomplished students. This year, 141 high school seniors were chosen from among 2,600 eligible candidates on the basis of academic and artistic success, leadership, and involvement in their school and community. As a former high school teacher myself, I commend Stephanie and Erick for their hard work and outstanding achievements. Congratulations to Stephanie and Erick on this distinguished honor. It is an honor to represent these outstanding students 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 town of Barrington, NH. On July 20, 1997, the people of Barrington will gather in celebration of the 275th anniversary of the town's charter. On May 10, 1722 Gov. Samuel Shute signed Barrington's charter on behalf of King George I, encouraging the settlement of a new plantation of 50 dwelling houses, a meeting house for public worship, a parsonage, and a school. However, when Barrington's first settlers crossed the 20 miles between the harbor town of Portsmouth and their new plots of white pine forest land, they found the terrain wrought with the tough, plow-bending granite which has come to make New Hampshire famous. Early accounts depict fields overrun with rattle snakes and forests brimming with less-than-hospitable native tribes. Nevertheless, in quintessential Yankee fashion, the people of Barrington cut out a tiny foothold for themselves. Together, they burned back the brush, felled the towering hardwoods, and quarried the granite using crude hand-held drills and chisels. By 1742, granite boulders had been hewn into foundations and apple orchards had been planted. By 1750, Barrington's lumber mills were providing the timber for ships' masts in England, posts and beams for homes in surrounding towns, and chord wood for firing the seacoast's early ironworks. Mr. President, on Sunday I will join with the people of Barrington on the steps of its landmark Calef's Country Store to commemorate this historic birthday. Since its rudimentary beginnings the town of Barrington has grown into a prosperous township of 6,600 people. Joining me on Sunday will be members of Barrington's volunteer fire department, Barrington's volunteer emergency medical service and Barrington's volunteer youth association. I am pleased to report the unwavering dedication to community is alive and well in Barrington after 275 years. Happy birthday, Barrington. Live Free or Die.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I appreciate the help of the Senator from Massachusetts on this matter. We have reached agreement. The intent here is to see to it that those who are collecting intelligence on POW/MIA matters both now and in the future would have the opportunity to vet that through the intelligence community, and we have accomplished that with the compromise language, and we accept that language on this side. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the Bingaman amendment. It would cut funding that is necessary for the space-based laser program. This program is making tremendous technical progress. DOD acknowledges that additional funds are required for this purpose and is working to identify those additional funds in the outyears. This has been one of the best managed programs in the history of U.S. ballistic missile defense efforts. You cannot often say that, that the program is on budget, on time, reliable, and even under severe funding constraints it has continued to make remarkable technical progress. It offers the best hope for the future of providing highly effective global boost phase defense against ballistic missiles of all ranges. There was an independent review team appointed by the directer of BMDO to study the future of the SBL Program that has recommended that this program transition to the development of a space technology demonstrator for launch in the year 2005. And the funding contained in this bill supports the recommendation. It does not violate the ABM Treaty, for those who may be concerned. It keeps our options open to deploy this system. I get very concerned, Mr. President, when year after year--and this the seventh straight year--there has been opposition expressed on the floor in spite of the full support of the committee on this program. This is a tremendously important program, and I think my colleagues need to understand that there is an expansion of the number of countries possessing ballistic missiles, not only nuclear but chemical and biological. These warheads present a serious challenge to the security of the United States. They are all over the world--North Korea, Iran, Iraq, just to name a few--China. They threaten our troops and they threaten our cities, and to take away a technology that can protect those cities, protect those troops in the field is outrageous. It is outrageous. It is immoral. I do not understand the intensity of the effort to do this year after year after year. As the number of countries with these ballistic missiles continues to increase and as the range of those missiles increases, the expansion in the number of targets to defend will dramatically increase. With this technology, we are able to get these missiles in their boost phase and make the debris from those missiles fall back on the aggressor or the firer of the missile. That is what this technology is all about. That is why it is so important, Mr. President. And to come down here year after year, time after time, and arbitrarily try to kill a program that has been on budget, on time, supported by the defense people and protecting our troops, protecting our cities is flat out irresponsible. There is absolutely no justification for it anywhere. I urge my colleagues to look very, very carefully at what they are doing here because if this vote were to prevail and this amendment were to be passed, it would do serious damage to our security and, frankly, put our cities at risk, our bases at risk and our troops at risk throughout the world.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, as a cosponsor of the amendment offered by Senator Chafee, I would like to explain why I believe that this amendment not only protects public health and the environment, but will also ensure that we will maintain a strong national defense. As my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee are aware, the original motivation of section 363 of the National Defense Authorization Act, as reported, grew out of a series of executive agency actions in the various regions of the country that needlessly limited or stopped ongoing training activities. In those instances, long-scheduled training and readiness efforts of active duty, reserve and national guard forces were stopped in their tracks, because of the rash and unjustified actions of overzealous Federal bureaucrats. Although the action taken by these low-level functionaries was within their powers, and met applicable public safety, welfare, and environmental statues, the timing and nature of the actions taken were neither justified nor appropriate given the lack of actual and immediate implications to human health and the environment. As a result of these highly unjustified actions, troops who had to travel hundreds and sometimes thousands of miles, at considerable cost to the taxpayers, were unable to conduct these critical training and readiness missions. The purpose of the original language offered in committee, would have allowed the Secretary of Defense to impose a 30-day moratorium on the application of administrative or enforcement actions that could have a significant adverse effect on military readiness or training activities. Although appreciating the justification for the language, there were some, including Senator Chafee, who were concerned about the impact that this language would have on existing public welfare, safety, and environmental statutes. In order to address this concern, Senator Chafee and I, along with members of the Armed Services Committee were able to fashion the compromise language that we are offering today, that will strike the proper balance in these situations. Under this language, if the Secretary of Defense discovers that an official of an Executive agency is proposing to take, or has taken an administration action that will result in a significant adverse effect on the training or readiness activities of the armed forces, the Secretary shall submit a written notification to the head of that agency, which will trigger a mandatory consultation between those two officials. In addition, the Secretary's notification will trigger an immediate moratorium on the application of the administrative action until 5 days after the notification, or until the head of the Executive agency and the Secretary are able to agree on an appropriate course of action, whichever is sooner. If the two officials are unable to agree on a course of action, then the ultimate decision will be elevated to the President. One significant concern over the committee reported language was that a 30-day moratorium was too stringent and could frustrate efforts to avoid immediate, actual, and irreparable damage to human health and the environment. Subsection (D)(2) of this amendment provides that the head of the Executive agency can waive the moratorium if a determination is made that the delay in the administrative action or proposed administrative action will pose an actual threat of imminent and substantial endangerment to public health and the environment. This language will not only strike an important balance between national defense and public welfare concerns, but it will also avoid a replication of past events undertaken by low-level bureaucrats. If the military training activity will pose an actual threat of imminent and substantial endangerment to public health and the environment, that decision will have to be taken by the head of the Executive agency. We believe that actions such as this, which will have a significant impact on our national security, should be taken by the top decision maker at the agency, who is in a better position to understand the full complexities of this decision, rather than some low-level government employee. I want to make one thing clear about this waiver however. The head of the Executive agency must meet a higher threshold of use of this provision than the tired and over-litigated test for the words imminent and substantial. The use of the words ``actual threat'' doesn't mean just a ``possible threat'' or a ``potential threat.'' Instead, it means that if the training or readiness activity is undertaken that it is ``highly likely'' or ``near certain'' that there will be an actual threat to public health and the environment. We must protect public health and the environment and we must ensure our national defense. When these issues come into conflict, we must take special efforts to balance these issues. Decisions of this nature should be made at the highest levels of our government, and because of this language, they will. I believe this is a very important amendment, and I appreciate the support of my colleagues for its adoption.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I would like to join my colleague, Senator Snowe, in recognizing the work that has been ongoing in the Air Force Reentry Vehicle Applications Program. As is the case of any technology program, procurement decisions require careful analysis of life-cycle costs and performance tradeoffs to ensure that military requirements are met with the funding constraints that face the Department of Defense.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I too am concerned that these technologies be advanced, and suggest that a review of the technology base of supplier for both the materials and the components, such as the carbon/carbon nosetips presently used on the Mark 21 reentry vehicle, be conducted.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the FY98 Defense Authorization bill reported by the Armed Services Committee. This is an excellent piece of legislation, and I want to commend the distinguished Chairman of the Committee, Senator Thurmond, for his tireless efforts to formulate a balanced, constructive defense bill. Mr. President, the bill before us would add $2.6 billion to the President's budget request for national defense. While I strongly support this increase, I want to emphasize that it will not address all of the deficiencies resulting from the Administration's underfunded defense program. In fact, even with this increase, defense spending in FY98 will be $3.3 billion below this year in real terms. However, in the current budget environment, this $2.6 billion increase was all that we were able to achieve. As we did last year, the Armed Services Committee spent a good deal of time evaluating our national security requirements and establishing a set of firm priorities to guide our consideration of defense programs for FY98. These priorities included, among other things: ensuring national security and the status of the United States as the preeminent military power; protecting the readiness of our Armed Forces; enhancing the quality of life of military personnel and their families; ensuring U.S. military superiority by continuing to fund a more robust, progressive modernization program for the future; accelerating the development and deployment of missile defense systems; and preserving the shipbuilding and submarine industrial bases. Mr. President, as I said, the Armed Services Committee established these priorities to guide our investment strategy in the FY98 authorization bill. I am pleased to report that the bill before us embodies these priorities and corrects a number of serious deficiencies contained in the Administration budget request. For the benefit of my colleagues, I would like to highlight some of the important measures contained in this bill. The authorization bill reported by the Armed Services Committee: provides a 2.8 percent pay raise for military personnel; increases by $41.5 million spending on research and development for counterproliferation, chemical and biological defense, and counter- terrorism programs; increases readiness funding by more than $1 billion in areas such as ammunition procurement, flying hours, force protection, cold weather gear, barracks renovation, and depot maintenance; adds $653 million for reserve force modernization programs; adds $720 million for an additional Arleigh Burke class destroyer; approves the Navy's proposed teaming arrangement for design and production of the New Attack Submarine; authorizes $345 million to accelerate the advance procurement and construction of the next nuclear aircraft carrier; and adds $90 million to procure an additional V-22 aircraft in FY98. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, I also want to take this opportunity to outline for my colleagues some of the important initiatives dealing with missile defense, nuclear forces, and Department of Energy programs. As my colleagues know, Secretary Cohen conducted an extensive analysis of all defense programs, including missile defense, as part of the Quadrennial Defense Review. This analysis confirmed what many of us have long argued--that the Administration's National Missile Defense program is grossly underfunded. In fact, Secretary Cohen determined that the NMD program was underfunded by some $2.3 billion over the future years defense plan, and by a total of $474 million in FY98 alone. This shortfall of $474 million for National Missile Defense in FY98 proved to be a very big challenge for the Committee to address in its deliberations. And I would be remiss if I did not say to my colleagues that it caused us to have to make some very difficult decisions as we weighed the merits and affordability of many requested programs. However, I believe that we formulated a very responsible and forward looking package of initiatives in the Strategic Subcommittee. These initiatives include: increasing funding for the Navy Upper Tier program by $80 million; adding $15 million for the Arrow interoperability program; providing an increase of $118 million for the space based laser program; adding $50 million for the Clementine 2 micro-satellite program; authorizing $80 million for the kinetic energy anti-satellite program; increasing funding for cruise missile defense programs by $32 million; prohibiting the retirement of certain strategic nuclear delivery systems in FY98 unless the START 2 Treaty enters force; providing $4 billion for weapons activities to maintain the reliability and safety of the enduring nuclear arsenal; and including $5.1 billion for defense environmental restoration and waste management activities. The bill also includes a provision requiring the Director of Central Intelligence to establish a cadre of experts within the Intelligence Community to work POW/MIA issues. The President has directed that a Special National Intelligence Estimate be prepared on the POW/MIA issue; however, there are no intelligence experts on these issues currently remaining in the Intelligence Community. This provision does not affect POW/MIA policy or relations with Vietnam. It merely provides the Director of Central Intelligence with total descretion to establish an Intelligence Cell within the community. Mr. President, these are but a few of the many important initiatives included in this bill. In a more general sense, I want to also offer some observations concerning the current state of our Armed Forces and the course that President Clinton has charted for defense in his second term. As my colleagues know, I have been critical of the Clinton Administration's penchant for involving our military forces in unorthodox, non-traditional operations. Without question, these peacekeeping and humanitarian relief operations are bankrupting the defense budget and undermining the readiness of America's Armed Forces. I have also been critical of the so-called Bottom Up Review that was conducted by the Clinton Administration four years ago to guide its defense program. Whether they admit it publicly or not, everyone realizes that this was nothing but a budget driven exercise to tailor our defense forces and strategy to meet a pre-established defense spending level. I had hoped that in its second term, the Clinton Administration would take a more honest and objective approach to defense programming, and base our national security policy on the threat rather than on budget requirements. Unfortunately, it appears this was wishful thinking. The Quadrennial Defense Review that was recently released falls into the same trap as the Bottom Up Review. Rather than identifying the threats confronting our security and formulating the force structure, end strength and strategy necessary to counter these threats, the QDR establishes a baseline for defense spending and tailors our defense program to fit that baseline. I want to make clear that I do not impugn the motives or patriotism of those who worked very hard in the Pentagon to formulate the QDR. They were doing the best they could to balance requirements and resources. But the truth is that the resources they were provided were inadequate to fund the requirements. As a result, the QDR fails to correct the deficiencies of the Bottom Up Review and it fails to provide a credible, threat based strategy for our defense program. Mr. President, it is also worth mentioning that the days of the so- called ``peace dividend'' and the days of Congressional windfalls for defense are over. In the past 3 years, Congress has added approximately $20 billion to the requested level for defense. But with the recently negotiated budget deal, Congress and the Administration are now locked into agreed-upon defense numbers. There will be no windfall in future years. In fact, any spending additions requested by members will have to be offset with commensurate spending reductions. From here on out, it will be a zero sum game. I hope my colleagues understand this situation because it will have a very profound effect on the Committee's ability to accommodate member interest requests in the future. We have cut defense to the bone. There is no real growth programmed in the future; only further reductions. We have made our bed, now we must lie in it. I want to end with a somber warning for my colleagues. It is very simple and straightforward. Contingency operations are bankrupting our defense budget. If we do not reign in the Clinton Administration and curtail its continuing commitments of U.S. military forces for non- military and humanitarian purposes, there will be no money to recapitalize our Armed Forces. There will be no money to purchase DDG- 51's, or F-22's, or F/A-18's, or Joint Strike Fighters, or Comanche helicopters, or V-22's, or satellites, or ground vehicles. If we continue to allow our Armed Forces to be used as a ``911'' emergency force for the United Nations, we will lose our combat readiness, and deplete our investment accounts. The Bosnia example is a particularly instructive, and particularly disturbing, example of this trend. When President Clinton first committed troops to Bosnia, he assured Congress that the scope of the operation would be limited and the cost of operation would be $1.6 billion. Yet, here we are today, with the price tag of the Bosnia operation having climbed to $7.3 billion and the Secretary of State talking about keeping troops in Bosnia beyond the June 1998 deadline, yet again. Mr. President, the Administration has asked for two additional rounds of Base Closures, arguing that these closures will enable us to save a few billion dollars. Under the most optimistic forecasts these closures will not even pay for the Bosnia mission. How on Earth can we justify putting America's communities through yet another two rounds of chaos, confusion, anxiety and economic disruption in order to pay the tab for a mission that a majority of them do not support? We have already had four rounds of base closures in seven years. Where does it end? Let me be frank. I absolutely oppose additional base closures at this time. In 1995, President Clinton completely destroyed the credibility of the Base Closure process by injecting subjective politics into an otherwise objective process. There was no question what the President's motivation was--pure electoral politics. But in the quest to gain more electoral votes, the President disrupted a very fragile consensus. That consensus, in support of shared sacrifice through and objective, transparent process, is now gone. And it is President Clinton who bears responsibility for that. I would hasten to add, however, that even if we were to ignore the politicization of the Base Closure process, the arguments in favor of more closures are specious. It has yet to be demonstrated that we have saved a single penny on the four previous rounds of closures. In fact, we continue to spend exorbitant amounts to close, realign, and remediate bases. While the Department assures us that we will save vast sums of money one day, that day doesn't seem to be anywhere in the near future. We are spending a lot more right now to close bases than we are recouping in operations and maintenance savings. Unless and until the President can convince Congress and the American people that politics have been eliminated from the process, and that previous closures are demonstrably producing savings, I will not support additional base closures. Undoubtedly, this issue will be debated further on the floor and conference, and I look forward to playing an active role in these discussions. Mr. President, I want to close by again thanking the distinguished Chairman of the Armed Services Committee for his outstanding leadership in formulating this bill. I know there has been a great deal of praise heaped upon the senior Senator from South Carolina recently in connection with his record for service in the Senate. It is richly deserved. He is a man of utmost integrity and a tremendous inspiration to all of us who aspire to have a lasting impact on this institution. I am proud to serve with him on the Armed Services Committee, and pleased to support this legislation. I thank the Chair, and yield the floor. U.S. Air Force Reentry Vehicle Applications Program

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Additionally, the Department of Defense compliance review group has previously reviewed the SBL readiness demonstrator and deemed such a program compliant with the ABM Treaty. So the Air Force and BMDO have signed a memorandum of agreement to proceed with the SBL program. The Air Force and BMDO endorsed the development of an SBL readiness demonstrator and have done the preliminary work on how to proceed with such a program, and the Air Force has said if such a program proceeds, they will establish this program management office at the Philips lab at Kirkland Air Force base in New Mexico. The bottom line is, a readiness demonstrator is the next logical step for SBL. It doesn't commit the United States to deployment or development of an operational SBL system, but it preserves the option for that decision after the year 2005. If the Bingaman amendment were to be agreed to, this option would be precluded and we would be left with a space-based laser program lacking focus and lacking any logical direction. It is one of those situations where if we do take the focus and take the direction away, it makes all the money we have spent in the past, all the $1 billion, wasted, down the drain, when we are now on the threshold of being able to see it all come to fruition and see the space-based laser program take its proper place in the defense arsenal of the United States. So I urge my colleagues tomorrow, when we vote, to oppose this amendment as we have done year after year after year, to oppose the amendment of the Senator from New Mexico and defeat the amendment, and allow the space-based laser program to continue. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, if we do not allow the space-based laser program to proceed, we are going to erode the Defense Department's expertise in laser technology. There are other laser programs in DOD. The SBL, the space-based laser, represents a significant proportion of DOD's corporate knowledge about lasers and all of DOD's knowledge about space-based lasers. All this knowledge, all of this technology will simply be thrown out the window if we gut this program. This program has strong bipartisan support. It has had it for over many years. The Armed Services Committee has increased funding for this program in each of the last two fiscal years. In fiscal year 1997, for example, the committee recommended and the Congress and the President approved an increase of $70 million. DOD acknowledges that the additional funding is necessary if the program is to continue making the technical progress that it is making. Therefore, the bill before the Senate today, the bill in its current form, the DOD bill, includes an increase of $118 million for that program. This amendment offered by the Senator from New Mexico will take that $118 billion out and basically stop the program in process. I must say, every year, year after year, in all the 7 years that I have been on the Armed Services Committee here in the Senate, somebody comes out and tries to cut this program. Every year I am standing up here defending it, trying to make people aware of the importance of this program. Let me explain why this specific funding level was chosen. The SBL program will complete its current development phase this year. The next logical step for a space-based laser is to develop and launch a technology readiness demonstrator. This is, in fact, the recommendation of an independent review team, the IRT, that was established by the director of the ballistic missile defense organization earlier this year to study the future of the SBL program. The IRT recommended proceeding with a space demonstrator in fiscal year 1998 that could be launched in the year 2005. The funding increase in the pending bill is the same amount as that recommended by BMDO, Ballistic Missile Defense Office's independent review team--no more, no less. Such an SBL technology demonstrator would be compliant with the ABM Treaty. For those who are concerned about that, it is treaty compliant. And both Secretary of Defense Cohen and officials from the National Security Council have confirmed that an SBL readiness demonstrator would be treaty compliant as long as it is not an operational system prototype. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the Bingaman amendment which would cut funding for the space-based laser program--not just cuts it, it devastates the program. In its markup of the DOD authorization bill, the committee increased the funding for the program by $118 million. During the committee's markup, the Senator from New Mexico did offer an amendment to delete the increase. This was defeated in committee on a bipartisan basis. It was not a party-line vote. It is my sincere hope, Mr. President, that the Senate will follow suit as the committee did and defeat this amendment today or tomorrow when we vote. Mr. President, let me explain why additional funds are needed for this very important program. The President's budget request included only $30 million for the space-based laser. This is insufficient funding for the program to continue making the technical progress that it has been making. The Department of Defense is currently considering ways to increase this level of funding in the outyears, but there is a major deficit now for the Fiscal Year 1998. This program, the space-based laser, is the last remaining space-based laser missile defense left. The last one. If we allow the program to die, then we will have wasted well over $1 billion in investment, literally wasted. We will not see the fruits of that investment and we will have given up the option of deploying the most effective national and theater boost phase missile defense system known to man. The space-based laser program has been one of the best managed programs in the history of our ballistic missile defense efforts. It is not always the case that we can stand here and say that a program has been well managed. For over 10 years it has continued to make remarkable technical progress while remaining on schedule and within cost. How many other programs in DOD, or, indeed, in the U.S. Government, can we say that about? Not too many. Mr. President, could I have order?

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President how much time remains on our side on this amendment?

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I take the floor today to introduce the Local Forest User Fairness Act with my colleague Senator Gregg. This legislation would allow residents of counties where U.S. Forest Service land is situated to recreate in the forest without paying a user fee. The introduction of this bill was prompted by the recent institution of recreational user fees in certain national forests across the country, one of those being the White Mountain National Forest in New Hampshire. While I am not opposed to user fees per se, I do have some concerns in this instance because of the potential for double taxation and inequitable treatment for local residents. Those areas where the Federal Government owns much of the land suffer from a diminished property tax base to fund schools and other necessary social needs. To address this inequity, Congress passed the Payments in Lieu of Taxes, or PILT, program in 1976 which partially reimburses local units of government for their loss of property tax revenue due to the U.S. Forest Service's ownership of local land. Unfortunately, this program has not been fully funded for a number of years. This bill provides that until the PILT program is fully funded to its authorized level, local residents recreating in the forest would be exempt from paying user fees. In New Hampshire, this would apply to all residents of Coos, Grafton, and Carroll Counties. For these areas, the shortfall in PILT payments for fiscal year 1996 was nearly $250,000, providing only 68 percent of what was owed to them. Because of this shortfall, county and municipal governments are forced to find much needed revenue elsewhere, including increased property taxes. It is simply unfair to charge these communities with using the White Mountains when they are already subsidizing the forest. I believe the Local Forest User Fairness Act provides for a reasonable, fair way of dealing with this inequity. Our proposed exemption would not be necessary, of course, if the Federal Government were to fully fund the PILT program and provide adequate funding for Forest Service management--initiatives that I strongly support. In conclusion, Mr. President, I want to commend my other New Hampshire colleague, Congressman Bass, for developing and introducing this legislation in the House. Together, I hope we can establish a more equitable situation for our constituents who live, work, and play in or near our national forests. I now ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.