Bob Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the memory of the late Peace Corps volunteer Nancy Jean Coutu, as a special memorial site at Elm Brook Park in West Hopkinton will be dedicated to her memory on June 15, 1997 at 1 p.m. Nancy was an American hero. She was personally involved in educating children and helping people with disabilities help themselves. She brought joy to the lives of everyone she touched during her two summers when she worked for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at the park. The Elm Brook Park was special to her, and she helped the many staff members make it much more accessible to persons with disabilities. Nancy, a 1993 graduate from the University of New Hampshire, was murdered by native tribesmen in Madagascar on April 9, 1996, after serving almost 2 years as a volunteer member working in a parks and wildlife program for the U.S. Peace Corps. She had lived in a mud hut teaching the 300 villagers how to grow vegetables, and building a school, hospital, and roads in the island country off the east coast of Africa. More than 140,00 Americans have served in the Peace Crops since it was founded in 1961. Tragically 15 have been killed, in all corners of the world while promoting the spirt of voluntarism. Mr. President, Nancy truly exemplified the spirt of voluntarism. I join with her family and friends, in expressing hope that the dedication of a memorial to honor her will inspire that spirit in others, and bring attention to the remarkable service of all public service volunteers.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Matthew Elmer Treamer, a teacher at Lancaster School in Lancaster NH and Chris Demers, a teacher at Dr. H.O. Smith School in Hudson NH, on receiving the 1996 Presidential Award in Mathematics and Science Training. Matthew and Chris will spend the week of June 10-14 in Washington, DC, for a series of events to commemorate their distinguished selection. As a former teacher myself, I commend their outstanding accomplishment and well-deserved honor. The Presidential Awards for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Training Program, administered by the National Science Foundation (NSF), is designed to recognize and reward outstanding teachers who serve as models for their colleagues. Matthew and Chris have been leaders in the areas of increased visibility and rewards. This award recognizes their distinguished leadership, and encourages high quality teachers to enter and remain in the teaching field. New Hampshire has always been fortunate to have many talented teachers, but Matthew and Chris are certainly role models among the teachers of the Granite State. I am proud of their dedication to the education of New Hampshire children and congratulate them on this magnificent achievement. It is an honor 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 Vincent Marconi Jr., a Portsmouth Senior High School student, on winning the first place in the State-level competition of the 10th annual National Peace Essay Contest sponsored by the United States Institute of Peace. This is certainly an accomplishment of which he should be very proud and I salute him for his achievement. The contest, which is open to students in all American high schools, is designed to encourage serious and realistic thinking about issues of international conflict resolution. Vincent was asked to write an essay on managing and implementing peace agreements. Vincent will receive a $750 college scholarship and will compete for national awards of up to $5,000. Vincent has also been invited to represent the Granite State in a special program for State-level winners in Washington, DC. I congratulate Vincent Marconi Jr. on his outstanding accomplishments. I commend his hard work and perseverance and wish him luck in competition for national awards.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, today the Senate is debating an aptly titled bill, the Family Friendly Workplace Act. The working families of today face more challenges than their parents and grandparents could have imagined. In addition to providing for their children, parents want to balance the other demands on their time-- parent-teacher conferences, little league games, doctor appointments, car pools--but have little flexibility. The family friendly workplace will give employees the opportunity to adjust their work hours to take advantage of paid time off during the workday. It is a short, simple bill that would extend to the private sector the same benefits already enjoyed by public employees for almost 20 years. First, it will allow hourly workers the ability to bank extra time which could be taken as paid time off. Second, the measure will give employees and employers the ability to work out a flexible scheduling arrangement. Sound simple enough? Surprisingly, these common-sense practices are now prohibited under current law. The only explanation I can find for the opposition to this proposal is the flurry of misinformation that surrounds this debate. For instance, I have received a few letters in my office from Washington labor organizations, which reveal their unfortunate misunderstanding of this bill. One letter states, ``S. 4 contains no penalty to punish employers who force workers to take compensatory time off if the workers want, instead, to receive premium pay at the time-and-a-half rate, after they work in excess of 40 hours during a week.'' This claim is false. Not only are these options 100 percent voluntary for the employee, but, in addition to protections that already exist under the Fair Labor Standards Act [FLSA], S. 4 establishes further prohibitions against employee coercion in the voluntary acceptance of comptime. Intimidation is outlawed. Another letter I received argues that ``the enactment of a less effective FLSA would jeopardize worker safety and health as employees are forced to accept excessively long and hazardous overtime assignments without pay fearing loss of future employment opportunities * * *'' This claim is untrue. Let me repeat--these options are 100 percent voluntary for the employee. I am also confused by arguments my colleagues have made against this measure. One amendment the opponents may offer would expand the Family and Medical Leave Act to grant workers up to 24 hours of unpaid leave to participate in their child's school activities. They point to a poll that found that 86 percent of the American public favor legislation that would allow workers unpaid leave to attend parent-teacher conferences. Did the poll ask Americans if they would like paid leave for these educational purposes? I also find this amendment puzzling since the first argument I hear from labor groups is that workers cannot afford to take compensatory time off since they rely on their overtime pay. I agree that many workers would not take the comptime option because they prefer additional pay. But if extra pay is their first priority, why would they be so anxious to take unpaid leave? Furthermore, opponents cite the position of various women's organizations in Washington who have come out against this bill. Like many inside-the-beltway groups, they seem to have fallen out of step with the average working woman, since several studies contradict their opposition. For example, a study conducted by the Employment Policy Foundation reveals that women are far more eager to trade income for leisure--among women earning $750 a week, women are more than twice as likely as men to choose ``fewer hours for less pay.'' Second, a recent poll by Money magazine found that 66 percent of the American people would rather have their overtime in the form of time off, rather than cash wages, and 82 percent said they support the Republican-backed comptime bills. Also worth noting is the endorsement of the Family Friendly Workplace Act by Working Woman and Working Mother magazines. Even more perplexing is the President's failure to recognize the special needs of working women by refusing to allow comptime in exchange for overtime pay. While overtime pay is invaluable to many workers, nearly three out of four workers reporting overtime pay are men. In fact, overtime pay is most commonly reported in industries which are heavily dominated by men--manufacturing (73%), mining and construction (95%), and transportation (88%). Of the small number of women who work in mining and construction, only 5 percent worked overtime in 1996, while 95 percent of men did. The President's commitment to defeating this proposal will disproportionately harm women. While these polls and statistics are helpful and revealing, I need go no further than my home State to be convinced of the value of the Family Friendly Workplace Act. One engineering firm in New Hampshire, for instance, uses a complicated formula to allow employees every other Friday off. But the complexity of their current system is exactly why they would prefer the passage of S. 4. If there is any doubt that this flextime is appealing to employees, this company, like many in the highly competitive technology industry, advertises their existing flexible week as an incentive when seeking out technical expertise. Any Senator who represents an area like the Northeast, which has a large technology presence, can understand how competitive the recruiting can be. The flex week is so appealing to potential employees, firms highlight it in their ads in an effort to outbid their competitors. Because of the false claims, inconsistency, and bias against women, I reject the arguments against the Family Friendly Workplace Act. It is time that these options are enjoyed by all American workers, not just Federal employees. I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this commonsense legislation, and vote to invoke cloture. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Henry P. Johnson of Meriden, NH, retired plant manager of Dorr Woolen Co., for his exceptional service as a volunteer executive in Krasnador, Russia. Henry worked on a volunteer mission with the International Executive Service Corps, a nonprofit organization that sends retired Americans to assist businesses and private enterprises in the developing world and the new emerging democracies of Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Henry helped provide technical and managerial leadership to improve the lives of the citizens of Krasnador, Russia. He assisted Kubantex, a textile company, to set up a business and marketing plans. Henry was an ``international volunteer'' for our Nation and has represented our strong democratic beliefs and practices of a free-market economy. His spectacular display of voluntarism provided active assistance for people in need and helped to build strong ties of respect and trust between America and Russia. Henry's mission will help to end the cycle of dependency on foreign assistance, by fostering private sector involvement in international development. I commend Henry for his dedicated service and I am proud to represent him in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues in paying tribute to the distinguished President pro tempore of the Senate, the senior Senator from South Carolina, Senator Strom Thurmond. Senator Thurmond was born at the dawn of the 20th century, on December 5, 1902, at Edgefield, SC. He has lived nearly every day of this tumultuous century. Mr. President, I take particular interest and pride in Senator Thurmond's early career. After graduating from Clemson University in 1923, Senator Thurmond embarked on 6 years of service as a public school teacher and athletic coach. Mr. President, that is how I began my own career after my own graduation from college. Senator Thurmond subsequently served as his home county's superintendent of education from 1929 to 1933. Having studied law at night under the tutelage of his father, Senator Thurmond became a member of the South Carolina Bar in 1930. He was a city attorney and county attorney from 1930 to 1938. In 1933, Strom Thurmond was elected State senator, an office that he held until 1938. He next served as a South Carolina circuit judge from 1938 to 1946. It has been my honor, Mr. President, to have served on the Armed Services Committee with Senator Thurmond since I was elected to the Senate in 1990 and, for the past more than two years, under his able leadership as chairman. Given that connection, I want to call special attention to Senator Thurmond's heroic service in World War II. Mr. President, in June, 1944, Strom Thurmond volunteered to participate in D-day by parachuting into France, but was told that he was too old. Instead, then-Judge Thurmond, age 41, participated in the Normandy Invasion by landing with members of the 325th Glider Infantry Regiment, 82d Airborne Division. Ultimately, Strom Thurmond was awarded 5 battle stars and 18 decorations, medals, and awards, including the Legion of Merit with oak leaf cluster, the Bronze Star Medal with ``V,'' the Purple Heart, the Belgian Order of the Crown, and the French Croix de Guerre. After World War II, Mr. President, Strom Thurmond served as the Governor of South Carolina from 1947 to 1951. He was the States' rights Democratic nominee for President in 1948. He carried 4 States, receiving 39 electoral votes. Following his service as Governor of his beloved state, Strom Thurmond practiced law in Aiken, SC, from 1951 to 1955. Mr. President, Strom Thurmond was elected to the U.S. Senate as a write-in candidate in 1954. He resigned in 1956, in the words of his official biography, in order ``to place the office in a primary, pursuant to a promise to the people during the 1954 campaign.'' Subsequently, of course, Mr. President, Strom Thurmond was elected to the Senate in 1956, and reelected in 1960, 1966, 1972, 1978, 1984, 1990, and 1996. He has spoken of retirement after his current term, which will end after Senator Thurmond's 100th birthday on December 2, 2002. I am sure that I am not alone when I say that I hope that he will reconsider. Mr. President, it has been my honor and privilege to serve in the U.S. Senate with Senator Strom Thurmond for the past more than 6 years. I respect him, I admire him, and I value his friendship. I look forward to continuing to serve with him, under his leadership as President pro tempore of the Senate and as the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, for many years to come. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the New Hampshire delegates who represented the Granite State at the National Summit on Volunteerism in Philadelphia from April 27 through April 29. The 3-day summit focused on the challenges facing our Nation's children and youth, and encouraged Americans to dedicate their time and talents to communities and children. It was organized on the suggestion that America's young people have access to five fundamental resources. These resources include an ongoing relationship with an adult, safe places during nonschool hours to learn, a healthy start, a skill through effective education, and the opportunity to give back through community service. I would like today to honor the individuals from my State who gave their time and energy so our children can remain safe and strong. They are: Amy McGlashan of New Hampshire College and University Council, Daniel Forbes of St. Anselm College, Carlos Agudelo of the ALPHA Alliance, Regis Lemaire of the Office of Youth Services, David Fish of the United Parcel Service, Darlene E. Schmidt of CFX Bank, Joshua Morse of Southern New Hampshire Services, JoAnn St. Pierre of the Voluntary Action Center, Ann Puglielli of St. Anselm College, Richard Shannon of New Hampshire Catholic Charities, Susan Gilbert of Manchester, Suzanne Carbon of the Grafton County Family Court, Catie Doucette of the White Mountain School, Ed Farrell of the White Mountain School, Dick Fowler of the Division of Children and Youth Services, Katie Kelley of the Pathfinders Program, Theresa Kennett of Kennett High School, Bruce Labs of Woodsville High School, Sara Lang of Woodsville High School, Mike Purcell of White Mountain Mental Health, Lynn Wheeler of Nighswander, Lord and Martin, Debbie Tasker of the Dover Adult Learning Center, Bernie Mucci of Tyco International Ltd., Elise Klysa of the Timberland Corp., Ron Borelli of Aavid Thermal Technologies Inc., Karen Brown of Channel 9 News, Chris Gallagher of the Corporation for National Service, Sidney Swartz of the Timberland Corp., and Ken Freitas of the Timberland Corp. Each and every delegate from the State of New Hampshire has achieved success in effective citizen service. They are experienced in creating opportunities for others to contribute to solutions, and have a record of getting things done. Above all, they are trusted by others in their community and for that they can be very proud. The summit proved to be beneficial. The representatives from New Hampshire combined their efforts with delegates from Delaware. They came up with creative plans to bring adults and college students into Manchester's public schools together to help establish a mentoring program. The New Hampshire delegates will meet again in the summer to review this proposal and the other ideas they collected and decide how to use them. I commend the New Hampshire delegates on their willingness to help make the Granite State a better place to live, and to ignite the spirit of volunteerism to provide a strong foundation for America's youth. New Hampshire is fortunate to be blessed by their leadership and dedication. I applaud them for their outstanding work, and am proud to represent all of them in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise to voice my concerns about the budget resolution we debate here today. Since the announcement of a budget deal earlier this month, I have carefully examined the plan, contemplated its effect on our economy and the future of our children, and pondered the advice of many. I have also observed the floor debate and statements of my colleagues, and have heard the views of many of my constituents in New Hampshire. After much deliberation, I must oppose this budget. While I do not support the resolution, I would like to commend my colleagues who have worked so hard to try to craft a good plan. I appreciate their efforts and the difficult discussions they have endured. Most importantly, I realize that negotiating with the White House is no easy task. However, my concerns about the deficit, the exploding growth of entitlements, and the huge tax burden on Americans, far outweigh the temptation of a politically appealing agreement with the President. History has taught us that the most politically expedient solution is not always good for Americans. What happened to the Republican Congress that came into town in 1995, ready to attack the problems in our economy that had been ignored for decades? Where is the spirit of dedication that accompanied our success and the commitment to our principles that led to our win? Where are those voices that denounced Washington's business as usual? I cannot answer these questions, but I do know that we should not disappoint the voters who trusted us. For a minute, allow me to set aside the rhetoric that surrounds this debate and look at the facts. Fact 1: Under the plan, the era of big government is not over. This budget deal proposes to spend $5 billion more than even President Clinton requested for fiscal year 1998. In fact, spending for 1998 increases about $70 billion from 1997--a bigger increase than any budget passed by Democrat-controlled Congresses in recent years. Over 5 years, this plan spends $189 billion more than Congress proposed in last year's budget resolution. The so-called savings that have been celebrated by proponents are just reductions from the inflation-adjusted baseline that rises each year. Fact 2: All the pain is in the out-years. Since Congress revisits the budget resolution every year, we cannot count on anything past 1998 and we have no assurance that the cuts in spending will ever be achieved in 2001 and 2002. At the very least, we must cease the fairy tale rhetoric about savings that will be achieved over the next decade. Fact 3: The deficit goes up! While the deficit for this year is projected to be $67 billion, under this plan, it is estimated to grow to $90 billion for the next 2 years and then drop slightly to $83 billion in 2000. Not until 2001, does the deficit drop to below today's level. If we can reduce the deficit from $53 billion in 2001 to 0 in 2002, why can't we reduce it by $53 billion this year? Furthermore, the deficit reduction is due, in large part, to suspicious economic assumptions. Overnight, the Congressional Budget Office discovered a $225 billion ``fiscal dividend'' of new tax revenues that may or may not be realized in the out-years. Fact 4: The tax cuts will not provide noticeable relief. While we must vote on the spending increases now, we have but a skeleton of a commitment on tax relief for Americans--legislation which won't be discussed until next month. Since we have already promised away $35 billion for the President's education credit, the tax writing committees are left with very little room to accommodate the equally important capital gains tax reductions, death tax reform, the $500 per child tax credit, expansion of individual retirement accounts [IRA's] and other relief provisions. For instance, $100 billion would not even cover the full $500 credit. These restrictions will produce scaled- down, phased-in, and barely noticeable adjustments. Fact 5: The proposal contains no real entitlement reform. This budget proposes $115 billion in Medicare savings, but does absolutely nothing to fundamentally restructure the ailing program. In fact, the biggest reform is an accounting change that we condemned as a ``gimmick'' just last year--and rightly so. Worse yet, the plan wipes out many of the real reforms we enacted in last year's welfare reform legislation by restoring welfare payments to legal immigrants and expanding Food Stamp work slots. Fact 6: The budget deal protects additional money for Presidential priorities, but no programs are terminated. While the resolution guarantees that spending will go up for programs such as Head Start and bilingual education, there is not one word about reforming or eliminating arts funding, AmeriCorps, or corporate welfare programs. Since total discretionary spending increases in this legislation, I hold out little hope that wasteful spending programs will be tackled this year. A legitimate balanced budget plan should shrink the size of Government, reduce the deficit, and reform entitlement programs. The budget must be accompanied by a credible tax package that includes complete repeal of the estate tax; a 50 percent cut in the capital gains tax rate; an immediate $500 per child tax credit available to all, regardless of income; and creation of an ``IRA-Plus'' plan. These tax cuts should be financed by reducing spending, not increasing other taxes. Although this plan contains many serious flaws, it is my hope that we can renegotiate a plan that meets but one condition: it must be a good deal for Americans. In its current form, I cannot, in good conscience, support this budget resolution.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the New Hampshire delegates who represented the Granite State at the National Summit on Voluntarism in Philadelphia from April 27 through April 29. The 3-day summit focused on the challenges facing our Nation's children and youth, and encouraged Americans to dedicate their time and talents to communities and children. It was organized on the suggestion that America's young people have access to five fundamental resources. These resources include an ongoing relationship with an adult, safe places during nonschool hours to learn, a healthy start, a skill through effective education, and the opportunity to give back through community service. I would like today to honor the individuals from my state who gave their time and energy so our children can remain safe and strong. They are: Amy McGlashan of New Hampshire College and University Council, Daniel Forbes of St. Anselm College, Carlos Agudelo of the ALPHA Alliance, Regis Lemaire of the Office of Youth Services, David Fish of the United Parcel Service, Darlene E. Schmidt of CFX Bank, Joshua Morse of Southern New Hampshire Services, JoAnn St. Pierre of the Voluntary Action Center, Ann Puglielli of St. Anselm College, Richard Shannon of New Hampshire Catholic Charities, Susan Gilbert of Manchester, Suzanne Carbon of the Grafton County Family Court, Catie Doucette of the White Mountain School, Ed Farrell of the White Mountain School, Dick Fowler of the Division of Children and Youth Services, Katie Kelley of the Pathfinders Program, Theresa Kennett of Kennett High School, Bruce Labs of Woodsville High School, Sara Lang of Woodsville High School, Mike Purcell of White Mountain Mental Health, Lynn Wheeler of Nighswander, Lord & Martin, Debbie Tasker of the Dover Adult Learning Center, Bernie Mucci of Tyco International Ltd., Elise Klysa of the Timberland Corp., Ron Borelli of Aavid Thermal Technologies Inc., Karen Brown of Channel 9 News, Chris Gallagher of the Corporation for National Service, Sidney Swartz of the Timberland Corp., and Ken Freitas of the Timberland Corp. Each and every delegate from the State of New Hampshire has achieved success in effective citizen service. They are experienced in creating opportunities for others to contribute to solutions, and have a record of getting things done. Above all, they are trusted by others in their community and for that they can be very proud. The summit proved to be beneficial. The representatives from New Hampshire combined their efforts with delegates from Delaware. They came up with creative plans to bring adults and college students into Manchester's public schools together to help establish a mentoring program. The New Hampshire delegates will meet again in the summer to review this proposal and the other ideas they collected and decide how to use them. I commend the New Hampshire delegates on their willingness to help make the Granite State a better place to live, and to ignite the spirit of voluntarism to provide a strong foundation for America's youth. New Hampshire is fortunate to be blessed by their leadership and dedication. I applaud them for their outstanding work, and am proud to represent all of them in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1122, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997. Mr. President, it has been nearly 2 years since I first introduced the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in the Senate. At that time, only my distinguished colleague, Senator Gramm of Texas, joined me as an original cosponsor. We have come a long, long way since that time. We are not there yet, but we have made tremendous progress. When the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act first passed the Senate on December 7, 1995, it did so with the support of 54 Senators. When the Senate voted on whether to override President Clinton's veto of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act on September 26, 1996, 57 Senators voted in favor of the bill. Today, we believe that we have at least 62 Senators who are prepared to vote for this legislation. We remain several votes short of the 67 votes that we will need to override President Clinton's promised veto of this bill, but we are getting closer. I am hopeful that in the wake of yesterday's dramatic announcement that the American Medical Association has endorsed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997, we will get there. Mr. President, one of the principal reasons why we are making so much progress in the Senate toward our goal of outlawing partial-birth abortion is that more and more Senators are realizing that the opposition to this bill in the last Congress was built on a foundation of lies. When I use the word ``lies,'' Mr. President, I am using the very word that one of the Nation's leading abortion industry lobbyists--Ron Fitzsimmons--used when he publicly admitted earlier this year that he ``lied through [his] teeth'' when he helped orchestrate the campaign against the partial-birth abortion ban legislation in the last Congress. In an interview published in the New York Times on February 27, 1997, and in an article published in the American Medical News on March 3, 1997, Mr. Fitzsimmons made the surprisingly candid admission that he had ``lied'' when he claimed that partial-birth abortions are rare. In those same interviews, Mr. Fitzsimmons also conceded that he ``lied'' when he claimed that partial-birth abortions are performed only on women whose lives are endangered or whose unborn children are severely disabled. ``It made me physically ill,'' Mr. Fitzsimmons told his interviewer. ``I told my wife the next day, `I can't do this again.''' In seeking to justify his veto of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act last year, the New York Times points out, ``President Clinton echoed the argument of Mr. Fitzsimmons.'' In other words, in justifying his veto, Mr. Clinton relied on the same statements of ``fact'' that have now been conceded by a key leader of the abortion industry to be ``lies.'' The truth, Mr. Fitzsimmons told the New York Times, is that ``[i]n the vast majority of cases, the [partial-birth abortion] procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 or more weeks along.'' And, as Mr. Fitzsimmons told the American Medical News, ``[t]he abortion-rights folks know it, the anti-abortion folks know it, and so, probably, does everybody else.'' Except, Mr. Fitzsimmons might have added, for President Clinton, who still promises to veto this bill even though the reasons he gave to justify his previous veto have turned out to be ``lies.'' Mr. President, following Mr. Fitzsimmons's startling revelations, on March 4, 1997, the Washington Post ran an unusually blunt editorial entitled ``Lies and Late-Term Abortions.'' After recounting Mr. Fitzsimmons' lies and his candid admissions that he lied, the Post editorial drew the following conclusion: Mr. Fitzsimmons's revelation is a sharp blow to the credibility of his allies. These late-term abortions are extremely difficult to justify, if they can be justified at all. Usually pro-choice legislators such as Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Representatives Richard Gephardt and Susan Molinari voted for the ban last year. Opponents of the ban fought hard, even demanding a roll call vote on their motion to ban charts describing the procedure from the House floor. They lost. And they lost by wide margins when the House and Senate voted for the ban. They probably will lose again this year when the ban is reconsidered. And this time, Mr. Clinton will be hard-pressed to justify a veto on the basis of the misinformation on which he rested his case last time. There you have it, Mr. President. One of the abortion industry's most prominent leaders has admitted that the case against the partial-birth abortion ban was based on ``lies.'' Not my word, his word--``lies.'' The New York Times points out that in attempting to justify his veto of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, President Clinton ``echoed'' those lies. And the Washington Post points out, in a great understatement, that President Clinton will be ``hard-pressed'' to base another veto on Mr. Fitzsimmons's and his friends' ``misinformation.'' Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist George Will drew the following conclusion in an opinion article published on April 24, 1997, in the Washington Post: The accusation that President Clinton cares deeply about nothing is refuted by his tenacious and guileful battle to prevent any meaningful limits on the form of infanticide known as partial-birth abortion. However, that battle proves that his professed desire to make abortion ``rare'' applies only to the fourth trimester of pregnancies. Mr. President, even though President Clinton seems bound and determined not to take another look at his stand on partial-birth abortion even in the face of Mr. Fitzsimmons's stunning admissions, I urge my colleagues who voted against this bill in the last Congress to do just that--take another look. Many, if not most, of you voted against this bill because you believed Mr. Fitzsimmons and his friends when they told you that partial-birth abortions are rare and they are only done on women facing grave physical threats or whose unborn children are hopelessly deformed. I urge you to take another look, reconsider your position, and on reconsideration, support us. Partial- birth abortions aren't ``rare''--they're common--and they are done, in the overwhelming majority of cases, on perfectly healthy women with perfectly healthy unborn children. Mr. President, aside from the Fitzsimmons revelations, I believe that another reason why the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act continues to attract greater and greater support in the Senate is that Senators are coming to realize that this issue really transcends abortion. Indeed, as one Senator who did not vote for this bill the first time, but supported us on the veto override last year, Senator Moynihan, put it, partial-birth abortion is ``too close to infanticide.'' That was a starkly truthful way to put it, Mr. President, and it took courage for Senator Moynihan to say it. I commend him for it. Mr. President, another Senator who did not support this bill the first time around, but who also joined us on the veto override vote, Senator Specter, also believes that partial-birth abortion is more like infanticide than it is abortion. Listen to what Senator Specter had to say on the Senate floor on September 26, 1996. ``In my legal judgment,'' Senator Specter said, ``the medical act or acts of commission or omission in interfering with, or not facilitating the completion of a live birth after a child is partially out of the mother's womb constitute infanticide.'' ``The line of the law is drawn, in my legal judgment,'' Senator Specter concluded, ``when the child is partially out of the womb of the mother. It is no longer abortion; it is infanticide.'' Once again, Mr. President, those are strong words and they are truthful words. Senator Specter is a pro-choice Senator, and it took courage for him to support this bill. But he did so, again, Mr. President, because he recognized that partial-birth abortion is more like infanticide than it is abortion. So, Mr. President, we are steadily picking up more and more support in the Senate because, as I have argued here today, more and more Senators are realizing that the case against this bill was built on a foundation of what are now conceded to have been ``lies.'' We are also picking up greater and greater support because more and more Senators are realizing that this issue transcends abortion--that the tiny little human being whom we are talking about is a partially born baby who is just inches from drawing her first breath. To those Senators who are still considering joining the ever- increasing majority of Senators who support the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, let me address a few more comments to you. Perhaps the Nation's most respected and revered doctor--``America's Doctor''--is the former Surgeon General of the United States, C. Everett Koop. I am particularly proud of Dr. Koop because he is a part-time resident of my home State of New Hampshire. This is what Dr. Koop has to say: ``Partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to protect a mother's health or future fertility. On the contrary, this procedure can pose a significant threat to both her immediate health and future fertility.'' We all know that Dr. Koop is not a man who uses words lightly. On the contrary, Dr. Koop is a doctor who chooses his words with care and precision. Listen to those words again: ``Partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to protect a mother's health or future fertility.'' Now, of course, Mr. President, as I mentioned earlier, even the American Medical Association, which is pro-choice on abortion, has endorsed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. So, my colleagues, if you are worried about protecting women, listen to the words of Dr. Koop and listen to the American Medical Association. They are for the Partial- Birth Abortion Ban Act because partial-birth abortion is never necessary to protect a woman's health. Finally, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues who are still undecided about this bill to look at it in light of our beloved Nation's history. We all know those beautiful and majestic words that Thomas Jefferson wrote for our Declaration of Independence: ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.'' Mr. President, one does not have to agree with my view that human life begins at conception to see that a living baby who is in the process of being born has, in Jefferson's words, been endowed by her creator with the unalienable right to life. Can anyone seriously doubt where that great American, Thomas Jefferson, would stand on that question? Mr. President, another of America's greatest leaders, Abraham Lincoln, made one of the most dramatic and prophetic statements of his life in a speech that he delivered on June 16, 1858. In that speech, Abraham Lincoln said ``I believe this government cannot endure permanently, half slave and half free.'' Today, Mr. President, as we debate this Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in this great Capitol of the Union that Lincoln saved, I would say this: The moral foundation of this Government cannot endure permanently when even the half born are not free to live. Can anyone, Mr. President, really doubt where that moral giant, Abraham Lincoln, would have stood on the question before us here today? Mr. President, let us rise to the moral level to which our Nation's history calls us. Let us recognize the unalienable, God-given right to life of the partially born. Let us protect the partially born from a brutal death. Let us be worthy of the Nation that Jefferson helped create and that Lincoln surely saved. Let us pass the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act with a two-thirds' majority in the Senate and then dare President Clinton to turn his back on the moral legacy of Jefferson and Lincoln.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the Hollis/Brookline High School math team members who recently took first place in the small school division at the New Hampshire State Mathematics Contest. As a former teacher myself, I commend their teamwork and talent which helped the 14-member squad oust 48 other teams for the State title and top the 19-team NH-SMASH league. Math team adviser Vina Duffy also deserves special recognition for giving the team an organized and supporting approach to math. She encouraged the students' interest and animated the diverse group to strengthen their aptitude. The team had no formal practice, and had only worksheets to prepare them for the meets. Their congeniality and confidence grew with the number of wins they achieved. I would like to honor math team members: Karl Athony, Dave Clark, Tyler Dumont, Michel Franklin, Mary Fries, Jason Glastetter, Jason Kerouac, Eric Larose, Bert Lue, James Robson, Jared Rosenberg, Steve Watkins, and Matt White. Mr. President, I want to congratulate these outstanding young minds for their excellent performance and team-spirit and 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 congratulate Alex Henlin, a Bishop Guertin High School senior, on winning the American Legion's National Oratorical Contest. This is certainly an accomplishment of which he should be very proud and I salute him for his achievement. Alex, 18, resides in Dracut, MA. He is president of his senior class and plans to study government next fall at Georgetown University. He was one of the State's representatives to the American Legion's 1996 Boys' Nation conference in Washington. His speech, ``A More Perfect Union,'' reported the U.S. Constitution as being a versatile, living document able to address unforseen circumstances. Alex warned that amendments should not be created to address trivial issues. As a former history teacher, I admire and commend Alex's commitment to our Nation's most precious document. Alex brought home an $18,000 college scholarship in addition to a $2,000 scholarship he received from the State contest. The national contest was hosted by Indiana University and Purdue University in Indianapolis. I congragulate Alex Henlin on his outstanding accomplishments. I commend his hard work and perserverance and wish him luck at Georgetown in the fall semester.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President. I rise today to pay tribute to Mrs. Dorothy McGettigan Callaghan of Rochester, NH, for receiving New Hampshire's Mother of the Year Award. Dorothy has strengthened her family with pride, dedication, and love, always putting the interests of her children first. She was raised with eight brothers and sisters, on a large farm in Wilton. Dorothy received her B.A. and her master of education degrees from Keene State College in Keene, NH. She has taught school in Rochester for 27 years and coached many youth sport teams. She is an active member of local school committees. Dorothy is also a eucharistic minister and has been honored as Rochester's Citizen of the Year and Teacher of the Year. Her courageous fight against leukemia has created more volunteer opportunities, including Daffodil Days for the Cancer Society, the Jimmy Fund Marathon for the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, as well as making bandannas for cancer patients. She has turned a personal battle into a way to help others in unfortunate situations Dorothy was chosen for her contributions and dedication to her community and family in accordance with the national mission of American Mothers, Inc. Dorothy is the mother of seven children and grandmother of six grandchildren. She has been married 33 years to Frank Callaghan. . I commend Dorothy Callaghan for her long career of excellence as a mother and as a teacher who believes that children are individuals and should be treated that way. New Hampshire is fortunate to be blessed by her leadership and dedication. I applaud Dorothy Callaghan for her outstanding work with the children of New Hampshire and am proud to represent her in the U.S. Senate. Congratulations Dorothy.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Gary Hodson, postal carrier of Somersworth, on being named the Citizen of the Year by the Greater Somersworth Chamber of Commerce. I commend his outstanding community commitment and congratulate him on this well-deserved honor. Gary's community involvements are numerous but his special dedication was directed to youth. Gary serves as director of youth education at Holy Trinity Church and volunteers teaching on evenings and weekends. He is president of the baseball, football, and hockey boosters. Gary is known to many as always willing to take responsibility to make his community a better place to live and raise children. He puts forth his time and energy to help the youth of the community. Whatever he commits to, he always gets the job done. Gary has dedicated his time, talent, and energy to serving the residents of Somersworth in an exemplary way. I am proud to honor Gary Hodson's outstanding community commitment, which is so important to the youth and their future. We are indeed indebted to him for his efforts. Congratulations to Dan for this distinguished recognition. I am honored to represent him in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I thank my distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania for his very kind remarks, and want to join many of my colleagues in applauding his efforts on this issue the way that he has pursued this, I think in fairness and in looking for every opportunity to proceed along this course which basically, as we all know, is the taking of innocent life. And Senator Santorum has stood up for those innocent children, time and time again on the floor. I do know what it feels like to do that, but you know, when you look back in the great debates of history--and this is one of the great debates of history; it will be so judged, I will say to my colleagues-- it will be judged up there with the debate on slavery and other great moral issues of our time, which some say we ought not to be debating here on the floor. But the truth of the matter is, this is a very appropriate place to debate these kinds of things. Slavery was wrong. It was morally wrong. And people stood up against the popular tide at the time and opposed it. Because they did, slavery was ended. I sincerely hope--and I know that there has been enough rhetoric said on all sides of this issue to make everybody tired of it, I am sure. And I do not intend to be loud. I like to try to be as quiet and unassuming, but firm, as I can. As I sat here listening this afternoon, and also as I have listened to so much of it on the monitor over the last day, I could not help but wonder what those who have been the victims of abortion would say if they could vote. They cannot. Some of our constituents who disagree with us or agree with us, whatever the case may be, have the opportunity to so judge you at election time, but not--not--the victims that we are talking about in this debate, which is somewhat ironic to say the least. And I know that I have seen pictures from both sides of the debate presented from those children who were born because a young woman had another opportunity to have a child and also from those children who were born because a young woman did not have an abortion. So I have seen the pictures. But, Mr. President, I go beyond pictures. I had the opportunity about a year-and-a-half ago to be at an event where a young woman--I will not use her name--but she was aborted in the eighth month by her mother, and she survived. And she was a 22- year-old young woman who had a slight disability as a result of the procedure. Other than that, she had nothing wrong with her. The abortion that this young child was the victim of was purely for convenience. Now, that is not the debate here--and I do not mean that it is on the Daschle amendment--but she was aborted. And to listen to her, Mr. President, stand before an audience of probably 800 to 1,000 people, say, No. 1, ``I forgive my mother. And she is my mother,'' she said, and, No. 2, listening to her sing ``Amazing Grace''--now, if you want something to tear at your heartstrings, endure that. I have. But that is nothing as to what this young woman endured. I remember her testifying here before congressional committees where she was taunted by Members of Congress. We all know that story. And I bring that up to simply make the point that these are innocent children, the most innocent of society, unborn, but still children. I remember engaging in a dialog with one of my colleagues earlier on this issue--and it is a tough issue; there is no question about it--but this person--and I will not mention the name; it is not necessary; the record speaks for itself--but this person indicated that they felt that they looked at the issue and did not feel there was viability in these young months, therefore, there was not life. And I guess I would simply respond by saying: I started at conception. If there is anybody out here that did not, I would like to hear from them. But I started at conception. I do not know of any way to get where I am now without starting at conception. Now, if there is a way, I would like somebody to tell me what it is. The truth of the matter is, no matter how you define these terms--you can say ``fetus,'' you can talk about ``viability,'' and ``medical procedure'' and ``abortion,'' you can talk about all these words--but it boils down to children, innocent, unborn children. And in the case of partial-birth abortion, I might make the point, as Senator Moynihan has done, that it is probably children, born children, and borders on infanticide. Senator Moynihan is a very respected individual in this body, and one who does, by his own admission, call himself pro-choice, and I believe, unless he has changed his mind--I do not think he has--supports the ban on the partial-birth abortions. So, Mr. President, I would just like to preface my remarks by, again, making the point that we are talking about real children here, children who have no say, no opportunity to be heard. And, again, I would just ask my colleagues to reflect, as we have these next few votes on this issue, to think about that. They cannot vote against us. They cannot vote for us. They cannot criticize us. They cannot say anything. And they will never get the opportunity. And you know, I cannot help but wonder. I think about this a lot. I do not know. There are some 20 million-plus children that have been aborted, not partial-birth abortions. But let us just take partial-birth abortions. We know there have been thousands who have been aborted through this process. So let us focus on that group. How many children in that group may have grown up to be a President of the United States, a Senator, a doctor who maybe finds the cure for cancer, a teacher who perhaps saves a dozen, 15, 20 children during the course of his or her teaching career, saving these children from going astray, a clergyman who saves a soul? How many people, how many people would there be in that group? We will never know. We will never know. That is the issue, Mr. President. I hope as we continue this debate-- and I know it is tough--I hope we can separate all of this rhetoric and all of the harsh words and the hard feelings, just put that aside and think about what we are really thinking about here, an unborn child-- yes, created at conception, at some point along the way, denied the access to life, to being born. That is the issue. Now, I know how hard my colleague from South Dakota has struggled with this issue because we have talked, and I respect him very much and he knows that. I had to think long and hard and very carefully about what the Senator proposed to do. He is my friend. I cannot understand the amendment. I want to make some points about this amendment that I think perhaps the Senator has not thought about--I do not know if that is true or not. There have been a lot of things said out here, and it is probably unlikely there is something he has not thought about. I believe this amendment, as presented by the Senator from South Dakota, represents, even though it is not intended, an extremist position on this issue, on the abortion issue, because the Daschle substitute amendment explicitly permits abortions even in the 7th, 8th, and 9th month of pregnancy, so long as the abortion claims, ``Continuation of the pregnancy would risk grievous injury to the mother.'' Think about that, Mr. President. Babies in the 7th, 8th, and 9th month have already developed to the point where they can survive. In fact, babies can survive even earlier than that, survive in the sense that I mean survive outside the body of their mother. They can survive independently. Then let me ask this question, for anybody who may be undecided, and there probably are not many, if any. If you have a child that can live independently of the mother, why abort it? Why not deliver the baby alive? By definition, abortion means taking the life of a child. Why do we have to do that? Why do we have to take the life of a child? I am not a doctor and I do not pretend to be, but I do listen to medical advice and medical comments. I listen to the point of view of a group called the Physicians Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth, an organization of 600 doctors nationwide who have been providing an enormous public service by working to get the true medical facts out about partial- birth abortions. In a statement they issued on May 12 of this year, they said, as follows: ``If maternal conditions require the emptying of the womb''--and these are not my words; these are the words of physicians--``If maternal conditions require the emptying of the womb postviability, the standard would be to induce labor and deliver the child. By definition, the postviable child delivered early is simply a premature baby. Senator Daschle's legislation never addresses the reason why it may ever be necessary to kill a premature baby, including those in the process of being born,'' as is the case in partial-birth abortion, ``in order to preserve the health of the woman.'' The Catholic Diocese in Sioux Falls, SD, Reverend Carlson, made a statement saying, ``The substitute bill allows abortions, including partial-birth abortion procedures in the last weeks of pregnancy, because in the case of certain serious illnesses a physician may have to `terminate' a pregnancy after viability to save the mother, yet in such cases a physician can simply deliver the child. Nothing in the medical literature indicates a need to abort or kill a child in such cases.'' See, that is the issue here. By definition, you are saying ``viability.'' Viability by definition means that the child can survive outside the body of the mother. Then why kill the child? Mr. President, let me repeat the latter part of the statement that was made by these physicians. The Daschle legislation never addresses the reason why it may ever be necessary to kill a premature baby, including those in the process of being born in order to preserve the health of a woman. It does not address that. That is the flaw, the main flaw, as I see it, in the amendment, as well-intended as it is. I remember having a debate with one of my colleagues a couple of years ago when I was out managing this same bill. It was very interesting, and I ask Members to reflect for a moment. We all know in the partial-birth-abortion procedure, first of all, it does not always happen in the 7th, 8th, and 9th month. Sometimes it happens earlier than that, and, of course, the Daschle amendment would not protect those children. I remember in the debate having a very interesting dialog with one of my colleagues in which I pointed out that in order to ensure the opportunity to take a child's life through partial-birth abortion, you have to turn the child in the womb and deliver the child breach, or feet first, and in the process, stop the child's head from coming into the world. Now, my colleague that I was debating said, ``That is fine. That child is not born yet because the head is still in the birth canal.'' I said, ``OK, I do not agree, but fine. Let me turn it around. What happens if the child comes into the birth canal head first and only 10 percent of the body comes into the world, for example, just the head?'' And the answer was, ``That is life, that is life.'' So now what we have done is define a certain part of the baby's body as being life and another part of the baby's body as not. There is no logic here. There is absolutely no logic here. I am not trying to sensationalize this. These are facts. You turn the child around because if the baby is born head first, you cannot use the needle and destroy the child. So 10 percent in the world, head first, it is a child according to the critics; 90 percent in the world, feet first, it is not. Does anybody really believe that? Does anybody really in here, never mind up here, in here, does anybody believe that? If you believe that, you ought to vote against the partial-birth abortion ban; you ought to vote for Daschle if you really believe that. Why is it necessary, ever, to kill a premature baby? That question has not been answered yet in this debate, including those in the process of being born in order to preserve the health of a woman. How does it help the health of a woman to restrain a child from coming the rest of the way through the birth canal--that is what a partial-birth abortion is, restraining a child from coming into the world so you can kill it. That is the purpose. As Senator Moynihan said, it is bordering on infanticide. Indeed, it probably is infanticide. This is not abortion. It is probably misnamed. It is killing a child in the hands of the doctor. Nothing impersonal about this one. There are many impersonal ways to commit abortions. We all know, we have all heard about them. Nothing impersonal about this one. You are holding the child in your hand when you do it. With all the problems we have in the world and in our country--you name it, race problems, poverty problems, problems of protecting ourselves and national defense, anything, all the problems we have, infrastructure--do we really want to spend time doing this to our children? Do we? In May 1997, in the Washington Post, and again on the Senate floor, Senator Daschle said every effort should be made to save the baby. I know he means that. But with all due respect, the amendment is trying to have it both ways. It does not focus on the baby, it focuses only on the mother. How can you say you are for saving a baby when your amendment explicitly authorizes an abortionist to kill a baby? The assertion is that the Daschle amendment somehow requires doctors to try to save the life of the viable baby that they are aborting. Yet, the language to this effect, which includes a wide open health exception, appears on page 4 of his amendment in the nonbinding findings. I say you put this in the nonbinding findings, but you do not have it in the main language of the amendment. This language would not have the force of law. It would, if it were in the main bill, in the amendment, but it is not. It is in the language. So if we want to truly write some protection for the viable fetus into this proposed criminal statute, we could put it in the statute itself, not in the nonbinding finding section and certainly not with a wide open health exception. We all know and respect and support, I believe, the principle of self-defense. If the health of the mother is a problem and the life of a mother is a threat, try to save both. What is wrong with that? Why do we say we are going to say something is viable and then kill it? If you say it is viable, if you make the admission, which this amendment does, that this child is viable any time after the sixth month, if it is viable, then when you abort it you are killing it because you said it is viable by your own definition. This is really a pretty logical debate here, Mr. President. Sometimes we get off on other tangents. After viability, doctors can terminate the pregnancy without killing the baby. It happens all the time. They can do this by delivering the baby by cesarean section or directly through the birth canal. Sometimes they must do that in order to protect both the mother and the child. That is not an abortion. It is a premature delivery. It happens every day in America. There is no reason why it cannot happen here. Dr. Harlan Giles, a professor of high-risk obstetrics and perinatology at the Medical College of Pennsylvania, performs abortions by a variety of procedures before viability, and in sworn testimony before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio in November 1995, Giles had this to say about abortions after viability. This is a doctor who performs them: [After 23 weeks] I do not think there are any maternal conditions that I am aware of that mandate ending the pregnancy that also require that the fetus be dead or that the fetal life be terminated. In my experience for 20 years, one can deliver these fetuses either vaginally, or by cesarean section for that matter, depending on the choice of the parents with informed consent . . . But there's no reason these fetuses cannot be delivered intact vaginally after . . . labor, if you will, and be at least assessed at birth and given the benefit of the doubt. That is the doctor's own words who perform abortions. Mr. President, the question that I ask to the proponents of the Daschle amendment is the same one I have been asking over and over and over again, year after year, on this issue, with those who support partial-birth abortion on demand. And it is on demand and we know that. I repeat the question in a moment. We know that because of the statements made by an individual who performed them, and I stood on the Senate floor a year and a half ago or 2 years ago, and took flak from every direction, from my opponents on the other side of this issue, accusing me of making that up, that it was only a few hundred abortions a year this way, done in this manner, when, in fact, we now know it is thousands, and that they admitted they lied. But to the individual's credit, he told the truth now. But the question is, why is it necessary to kill a partially born baby? Will somebody come out on the floor of the Senate and answer me that question, when you have a baby in the birth canal, 90 percent born but for the head, somebody give me one reason why we have to take that baby's life in order to protect the mother's life or health when you literally restrain that child from coming the rest of the way out of the birth canal. Nobody has been able to tell me that. Why not just deliver the baby alive. And I will tell you why, Mr. President, because you have a problem when the baby is alive, don't you? And you know what another real dark secret is here? And they do not talk about it much. Do you know what happens oftentimes? You get the baby in the position, the abortionist is prepared with the needle, the head is still in the birth canal and, whoops, the baby comes out. You look around and you do it. That is not abortion, Mr. President. Do not let anybody tell you it is. That is killing an innocent child, a live, born child, and it happens. That is the dirty dark secret, one of them, about partial- birth abortion. Why not just deliver the baby. Her body, her shoulders are already out of the womb and in the birth canal. Why not just complete the delivery? Why kill her before completing the delivery? Unfortunately, that is what this amendment will allow. Why propose an amendment that explicitly authorizes abortions to kill viable children? That is not saving lives. And I know what the intent here is by the Senator, but we are killing viable children in seventh, eighth, and ninth months of pregnancy. We are protecting the mother but why not protect the child, too? It is not necessarily one against the other. In his May 2, Washington Post opinion article Senator Daschle cited certain conditions for termination of pregnancy such as hypertension, kidney failure, coma, breast cancer, et cetera. However, what was not said was why the Senator and the supporters of the amendment believe that it would ever be necessary to kill that viable baby because of the medical conditions that he cites. Think about it. Why would you have to kill the child for any of those reasons: hypertension, kidney failure, coma, breast cancer. Remove the child alive. It can be done. It is done every day. Once again, let me point out that physicians, not Senators, physicians, across America address these complicated pregnancies day in and day out and they do it by delivering babies. This amendment, even though it is not intended to do that, would give abortionists the legal authority now under law to perform abortions in these cases whenever they want to without any consideration to the law. Before the Senate closes debate, and I know we are getting close--for the benefit of my colleagues, I am shortly going to yield--before the Senate closes debate on this amendment, I hope that we will have an answer to the question that I have posed. I would really sincerely like to hear the answer as to why this child must be terminated, killed, taken dead from the womb of the mother when, in fact, you could perhaps save both? I have one final point. Those proponents of this amendment assert that it would provide some limitation on postviability abortions because it includes what they say is a narrow health exception. The Senator's amendment says that postviability abortions are permitted if an abortionist certifies that a woman is threatened with some ``risk,'' no matter how remote, of a ``grievous injury'' to her health. Unfortunately, the ``grievous injury'' exception does not protect one single viable unborn child, not one. Not one. And if the intent of the authors of the amendment and the proponents of the amendment is to save lives, babies' lives, the amendment does not do it. If it is the intent to save mothers' lives at all costs, I think it does do that and I support that part of it, saving mothers' lives, but it does not do anything to save a baby's life. Dr. Warren Hern, a leading third-trimester abortionist, who has written a major treatise on the subject of the ``grievous injury'' exception, in an interview published on May 14, yesterday, in the Bergen County Record, said: I will certify that any pregnancy is a threat to a woman's life and could cause grievous injury to her physical health. In other words, no matter what the grievous injury it is the health exception that the abortionist will use. That is not what the Senator from South Dakota intends but is the result of this amendment. Any doctor who wishes to do it can do it. So we have a leading third-trimester abortionist who basically says, hey, pass that thing. Then I can kill all kinds of babies and not have to worry about a thing. Just pass it. He is an expert, and he is saying this will allow him to perform an abortion on a viable child any time he wants to. So you could not ask for more compelling testimony, in my opinion, that this amendment, the Daschle amendment is a prescription for abortion on demand even after viability, and it is the main reason that it should be defeated and that we should pass the ban on partial- birth abortions as prescribed by the bill introduced and supported by the Senator from Pennsylvania. I yield the floor. Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I further ask consent that Members have until 10 a.m. to file second-degree amendments to S. 4.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today it stand in adjournment until the hour of 9:15 a.m. on Thursday, May 15. I further ask consent that on Thursday, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted and the Senate then immediately resume consideration of S. 4, as under the previous order.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the resolution of ratification reported by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I want to specifically commend the distinguished chairman, Senator Helms, for his outstanding leadership in moving this resolution promptly and responsibly. I also want to commend the Foreign Relations Committee for including condition No. 9, which would require the administration to submit any agreement that would multilateralize the ABM Treaty to the Senate for advice and consent. This is an extremely important issue, Mr. President, and this provision ensures that the Senate retains its constitutional prerogatives to advise and consent on international treaties. By way of background, there is an existing statutory requirement, with precedent, that any substantive change to an international treaty must be submitted to the Senate for advice and consent, as prescribed under the Constitution. The Clinton administration has spent the better part of the past 4 years negotiating changes to the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile [ABM] Treaty. Foremost among these changes are a demarcation agreement that would restrict the performance of certain theater defense programs, and a multilateralization agreement that would expand the ABM Treaty to include the Republics of the former Soviet Union. It is this multilateralization agreement that condition No. 9 would address. Mr. President, condition No. 9 has become necessary because the administration refuses to submit the multilateralization agreement to the Senate for advice and consent. They have rightly conceded that both a demarcation agreement and the CFE flank limits agreement are substantive changes requiring approval of the Senate, but they adamantly refuse to submit multilateralization for approval. The administration asserts that the executive branch alone has the authority to recognize nations and determine the successor states on treaties whose participants no longer exist. They also argue that multilateralization is merely a clarification, not a substantive change to the ABM Treaty. It is a very significant change that will fundamentally alter both the nature of the treaty and the obligations of its parties. It is most certainly a substantive change, and as such, it must be submitted to the Senate for advice and consent. Mr. President, let me elaborate on exactly why a multilateralization agreement would represent a substantive change. The ABM Treaty was signed by the United States and the Soviet Union. It was premised on the policy of mutual assured destruction and it codified the bipolar strategic reality of the cold war. All negotiations on compliance and all discussions concerning amendments to the treaty were to be bilateral in nature, with any decisions being approved by each side. The negotiating ratio was 1 to 1, the United States versus the Soviet Union. However, one of these two parties has now ceased to exist. There is no longer a Soviet Union. If the treaty is multilateralized, and thereby expanded to include multiple parties on the former Soviet side, it will dramatically change this negotiating ratio, both theoretically and practically. Instead of the 1-to-1 ratio that the treaty was premised on, it will become at a minimum a 1-to-4 ratio, of the United States versus Russia, Khazakstan, Ukraine, and Belarus, and perhaps even a 1-to-15 ratio of the United States versus all 15 of the former Soviet Republics. We just don't know and the administration isn't saying. Under a multilaterlization agreement, each of these former Soviet Republics would have an equal say in negotiations, even though they clearly would have unequal rights and unequal equipment holdings. For instance, only the United States and Russia would be permitted to field an ABM system, but other nations would be free to deploy ABM radars and other related components of a system. Further, while the ABM Treaty prohibits defense of the territory of a nation, the term territory is being redefined to mean the combined territories of all former Soviet Republics who choose to join the treaty. What does this mean? It means that instead of the treaty applying to the territory of an individual nation, it applies to a number of nations, unevenly and in a manner that is very detrimental to the United States. For example, Russia could legally establish new early warning radars on the territory of other States, well beyond the periphery of Russia, while the United States is restricted to its own borders. Compounding this inequity, the territory and borders of the so-called former Soviet Union could change over time because the multilateralization agreement allows the admission of additional republics even after entry into force. The bottom line, Mr. President, is multilateralization would by definition and practice create a fundamental asymmetry in the ABM Treaty. Rather than having two parties with equal offensive strategic forces and defensive capabilities, this agreement would create a tremendous imbalance. For us to negotiate any changes to the treaty, such as an agreement to permit multiple sites or to change the location, we would now need to convince all the participating Republics of the former Soviet Union rather than just one. In essence, each of those countries would be able to veto our position at any time. And they would individually leverage the vote in the Standing Consultative Commission for more foreign aid, or trade recognition, or concessions on a variety of issues. Whenever we finally met any single Republic's demands, another could instantly leverage similar concessions. When would it end? Never. This scenario is very troubling. It is troubling there are people in the Senate who would be willing to accede to that kind of situation. At the very least, it will cause huge complications in our process for negotiating changes to the treaty. There can be no question, an agreement to multilateralize the ABM Treaty is a substantive change to the ABM Treaty, plain and simple. It must be submitted for advice and consent. Condition 9 merely says that before the CFE Flank Limits Agreement can take effect, the President must certify that he will submit the ABM Treaty multilateralization agreement to the Senate for advice and consent. Nothing in this condition will require any renegotiation of any provision of the CFE Flank Limits Agreement or, for that matter, require any renegotiation of any provision of the ABM Treaty multilateralization agreement. This condition will not affect any other country or any other treaty or the cause of strategic stability in any respect. That is a fact. Contrary to the parochial appeals of the administration, it is not going to kill NATO expansion. It will not kill START II. And it will not kill the CFE Treaty. In fact, all the President has to do is send us a letter this afternoon certifying he will submit the agreement to the Senate for advice and consent and we will be done with it. Case closed. I am pleased the Senate has seen fit, thanks to the tremendous leadership of Chairman Helms, to adopt this very important condition. Senator Helms, as he does so many times and often on the floor of the Senate and in private meetings on issues, stands sometimes alone. I am proud to be standing with him on this very important issue, and I think future generations will thank him for his leadership when we get to the point where this treaty does take effect. People will be thanking him for his leadership on the multilateralization issue. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the late Ignazio M. ``Carlo'' Carluccio who passed away on April 22, 1997, 3 months to the day after celebrating his 100th birthday in Hampton, NH, with his entire family and his close friends. I had the great honor and privilege to meet Mr. Carluccio on October 29, 1996, at his home in North Salisbury Beach, MA, just across the border from Seabrook, NH. I was attending a function at a lobster pound owned by Bruce Brown, a long-time mutual friend of both Mr. Carluccio and myself. While in the area, I wanted to pay my respects to Mr. Carluccio, especially since his grandson Dino has worked in my office for the last decade. When I met Mr. Carluccio in his home, he was in excellent health, witty, and sharp as a tack. Indeed, it was hard to believe at the time that he would shortly be celebrating his 100th birthday. During my visit with him, I was fascinated to learn many details of his truly remarkable life, some of which I would like to share with my colleagues and the American people today. Ignazio Carluccio was born in the small town of Benevento, Italy, in 1897. He was the son of Antonio Carluccio, and the grandson of Ignazio Carluccio. He had one brother and four sisters, three of whom still reside in southern Italy. His grandfather was the proprietor of the Gran Caffe dell'Unione, the most popular gathering place in the center of Benevento with regular outdoor musical entertainment. It was this experience as a young boy, growing up around his grandfather's cafe, that would eventually shape and inspire Mr. Carluccio's future in America as a talented musician and a proprietor of his own small business in a similar small community far away from his homeland. Before leaving Italy in 1921 for America, young Ignazio Carluccio learned to play the violin at a conservatory in Milan, and would often perform his own solo concerts in the beautiful parks along the bay of Naples. At that point, Ignazio's family had moved from Benevento to Naples, where his father now operated his own local cafe. I am told that there are still a few people in Naples who remember his violin performances. Ignazio Carluccio loved the challenges that life presented, and he knew a lot about taking risks. Whether it was simply entering the local bicycle races along the treacherous, yet scenic Amalfi Coast between Naples and Sorrento, or his service during World War I in an Italian aviation division, Mr. Carluccio was not deterred by the physical harm he encountered. He recovered only to take an even greater risk--the monumental adventure of leaving everything behind except for his violin and a few family mementos and heading for America, never turning back in the eight decades that followed. Earlier this year, Mr. Carluccio reflected on those first few years following his arrival in Boston on a passenger ship from Naples. He said, ``Early on, I could not speak English, but I made it. It was a heckuva time.'' Mr. Carluccio was persistent and determined following his arrival in America--he worked as a haberdasher and became the first concert violinist for the People's Symphony in Boston. He selected a middle name for himself, something uncommon in his native Italy, but not in his new country. He chose ``Mario'' because he wanted to be known as ``I.M. Carluccio'' which sounded like ``I am Carluccio.'' How clever for someone trying to master the English language, Mr. President. He met his wife, Alphonsine Giguere, backstage during one of his performances, and married her in 1928. In 1934, following the passing of his father-in-law, he took over the drugstore his father-in-law had operated in Leominster, MA, since 1903, earned a degree in pharmacy, and practiced pharmacy for the next six decades until his retirement in 1985. At its peak, Giguere Drug Stores encompassed three shops and represented the largest prescription business in Worcester County, MA. When you were sick and needed medicine, everyone knew that you needed to go see Mr. Carluccio at Giguere's. The original corner store was also complete with soda fountains, booths, and peanut machines, and even had musical entertainment performed on the store's roof at one point. It was the local hangout for everyone from school children to local politicians to State police officials. Mr. Carluccio surely must have been proud of the tradition he had carried on from his own grandfather's popular cafe in Benevento, Italy. Mr. President, I.M. Carluccio lived the American dream to the fullest. He worked hard, starting at 5 a.m. in his store each morning, finishing late at night, teaching violin on the side to students in the community, putting his five children through college, and simultaneously sending money on a regular basis back to his siblings in Italy. And if that was not enough, Mr. President, he even reminded me last fall that, although he was approaching age 50 during World War II, he wrote a letter at the time to the Secretary of what was then known as our War Department offering his services. What devotion, Mr. President. I.M. Carluccio cherished his family and his close friends, and he enjoyed his classic cars, his homemade spaghetti sauce, his violin music, and his favorite cigars--the simple things for a man who lived such a rich, enduring, and multifaceted life. He was a true gentleman to all who knew him. He accomplished so much that we can only hope that, perhaps, he was able to reflect back with pride, in his own quiet, dignified way, as he puffed his final cigars earlier this year. He has left a wonderful legacy which continues to inspire all those who have known him. When I met him last fall I, too, was inspired, not only by his longevity, but by his selfless devotion through the years to his Nation, the communities in which he made his home, and to his entire family--three sons, two daughters, nine grandchildren, seven great- grandchildren, nephews, and nieces. Let me say also say here that I am proud that Mr. Carluccio's three grandchildren who carry the Carluccio name--Carlo, Dino, and Mario--are all constituents of mine from New Hampshire. I am honored to represent them in the U.S. Senate. Mr. President, I hope Mr. Carluccio's legacy will inspire all those who hear of it today. I am proud to do my part through this statement to ensure that the life of Mr. Carluccio is properly recognized as part of our American history. The story of this great Italian-American centenarian has already been recognized on many occasions at the State and local level, and through the countless birthday greetings Mr. Carluccio received through the years from Presidents, Senators, Congressmen, and State and local politicians. But it is appropriate and deserving that today, we make Mr. Carluccio's life story part of the official, permanent Record of the U.S. Congress. God bless Mr. Carluccio and his entire family. Mr. President, I ask that a proclamation by Massachusetts Gov. William F. Weld issued earlier this year in honor of Mr. Carluccio's 100th birthday and a statement submitted to Fitchburg State College honoring Mr. Carluccio as one of ``100 Who Made a Difference'' be printed in the Record. The proclamation and statement follows: A Proclamation By His Excellency Governor William F. Weld--1997 Whereas, Ignazio M. Carluccio was born on January 22, 1897, in Benevento, Italy; and Whereas, after moving to the United States in 1921, Mr. Carluccio found a new home in the Commonwealth and married Alphonsine Giguere in 1928; and Whereas, a talented violinist, Ignazio Carluccio has shared his musical inspiration with many through performance and instruction; and Whereas, in 1934, Ignazio Carluccio succeeded his father- in-law as owner and operator of the family business, Giguere's Drug Store, in Leominster, Massachusetts; and Whereas, having earned the tremendous respect of his community, Ignazio Carluccio received an award from the Eli Lilly Pharmaceutical Company in 1976, in recognition of the outstanding community health service provided by Gigurere's Drug Store; and Whereas, as Ignazio Carluccio celebrates his One Hundredth Birthday, it is fitting to pay tribute to this fine individual who has touched the lives of many throughout the Commonwealth; now, therefore, I, William F. Weld, Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, do hereby proclaim January 22nd, 1997, to be Ignazio Carluccio Day and urge all the citizens of the Commonwealth to take cognizance of this event and participate fittingly in its observance. 100 Who Made A Difference ignazio m. carluccio Mr. Carluccio has been an integral part of this community since 1928 when he married Alphonsine A. Giguere. He was a concert violinist and teacher of the violin in this and the surrounding area, but he later became a pharmacist and took over the operation and ownership of Giguere Drug to continue the family business that his father-in-law started in 1903. He dedicated his life to his family and business and to serving the public. In the 1950's and 60's his corner drugstore was known as the most complete prescription department in Worcester County. In 1976, the Eli Lilly Pharmaceutical Company presented Mr. Carluccio and his company an award in recognition of outstanding Community Health Service. In 1983, Giguere Drug Stores was recognized for 80 years of service, and I.M. Carluccio was still managing and serving the public from his corner drugstore. At this point, his original business had expanded into a small 3-store chain. Mr. Carluccio had a special recipe of old-fashioned customer service and modern health care products. Customers idolized him. Today, he is still a celebrity for anyone who knows him, sees him, and remembers the days of yesteryear. This man is a tribute to his community!

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, could I have order, please. The Senate is not in order.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Like the previous amendment offered by my colleague from Washington, Senator Gorton, this is a very reasonable amendment. It simply requires the courts, when they make an award under IDEA, to take into consideration what impact that award will have on all of the students in the district or in the particular classrooms. For example, we have cases where a $1,000 IDEA program or plan, educational plan costs $13,000 or $14,000 in legal fees. There are millions of dollars in legal fees spent in all 50 States, all over America, that are taken out of the classroom. These are dollars that you cannot use for teachers, you cannot use for computers, you cannot use for textbooks or, frankly, for infrastructure or schools or buildings. The issue here is whether or not you want to have these dollars go to the students or go to the lawyers. That is the simple issue. This is a very reasonable amendment. There is nothing unreasonable about it. I think the process here where we say we cannot amend a bill to strengthen it, to make a better bill is a bad process and one for which I wish we had not set the precedent. I urge my colleagues to think about it because at some point in the not too distant future you are going to have another piece of legislation coming through here, and you are going to be on the other side. You are going to want to offer an amendment and you are going to have to say to yourself, well, when I had the opportunity before, I opposed that opportunity for another colleague. Sure, I can offer the amendment but the deal by the leadership is to oppose the amendment because we have a deal. The answer is very simple. You can vote for my amendment and take dollars out of the pockets of lawyers and put them into the classroom for the students or you can oppose my amendment and favor the lawyers. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the bill be considered read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill appear at this point in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 48, S. 670.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. For the information of all Senators, tomorrow the Senate will resume consideration of S. 4, the Family Friendly Workplace Act, with a vote on the motion to invoke cloture to occur at approximately 10 a.m. Following that vote, there will then be a period for morning business until the hour of 11 a.m., to allow a number of Senators the opportunity to speak. By previous order, the Senate will then resume consideration of H.R. 1122, the partial-birth abortion ban bill, with Senator Feinstein recognized to offer an amendment. Debate on the Feinstein amendment will last until approximately 2 p.m., when a vote on or in relation to the Feinstein amendment will occur. Following disposition of the Feinstein amendment, Senator Daschle will be recognized to offer his amendment, and under the consent agreement there will be 5 hours of debate in order. Therefore, Members can expect rollcall votes throughout Thursday's session of the Senate. Again, I appreciate Senators adjusting their schedules to accommodate floor action while we work through these important issues prior to the Memorial Day recess.