Bob Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, first of all, I will comment on the remarks made by the distinguished Senator from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, during the time that I was in the chair regarding the terrible tragedy of the floods in North Dakota, Minnesota, and the West. He did an outstanding presentation in terms of the extreme acts of heroism that have taken place in that region of the country. One of the great things about America and the American people is the capacity that they have to reach back in times of great crisis--whether it be war, flood, earthquake, or whatever --and help their neighbors. Certainly, Senator Dorgan captured in great detail and with a great personal touch that terrible tragedy. Of course, our hearts and prayers are with them as they go through this terrible time.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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. President, earlier this week I introduced a piece of legislation that no doubt will create some discussion, if not controversy, around the country. It involves the term limits for judges--Federal judges. This is something that, of course, would change the Constitution, so it would be a constitutional amendment. For over 200 years we have had lifetime appointments for judges, so I did not expect to have 100 Senators and all Members of the House, and everybody writing in, all over America, supporting this proposal, as soon as I introduced the proposal. However, I do hope, as people think about it and carefully consider it, they begin to realize how important I think this change to our Constitution would be. I think, frankly, Jefferson and Hamilton would support the amendment if they were here today, because if they could look back on history and see what has happened in the Federal Judiciary, I think they would agree with me it is time we put term limits on judges. Senator Shelby of Alabama has joined me in this effort. We call it Senate Joint Resolution 26. It is a constitutional amendment for term limits for judges. When I introduced the amendment a couple of days ago I did not have the opportunity, because of debate on the Chemical Weapons Convention, I did not have the opportunity to make a few remarks. I want to take this time to do that. Mr. President, the Framers of our Constitution intended that the judicial branch, which was created by article III in the Constitution, would have a limited role. That was their strong belief, that the role be limited, and that they be an equal partner in the three parts of our Government. They believed in the necessity of judicial restraint, and they recognized, and said so, the danger of judicial activism. Now, in Federalist No. 48, James Madison wrote that to combine the judicial power with executive and legislative authority would be the very definition of tyranny. Madison's own words--``The very definition of tyranny.'' To repeat, to combine the judicial power with executive and judicial authority would be the very definition of tyranny. Thomas Jefferson said, ``The very notion that the Supreme Court should have the final word on constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine, to consider the judge as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions.'' He also said, ``It is one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy,'' meaning government of the select few. Very interesting that Jefferson and Madison, of all people, would be saying that. It is interesting to look at the debate as the Constitution was written. Some people like to decide what they think the intent of the Founding Fathers was as we look at these court decisions that have been made over the past couple hundred years, but it is interesting to look at what they said. Sometimes what they said, what they actually said, the Founding Fathers, and what other people think they meant are not one and the same and are totally different. Another founder, in Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton, argued that the judicial branch ``will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution. Courts have neither force nor will but merely judgment, and can take no active resolution whatever.'' That was Hamilton. Even as he advocated the ratification of the Constitution, and he was one of the strongest advocates as the Federalist Papers prove, he also issued a warning. The courts, he said, must declare the sense of the law. If they should be disposed--they being the justices, the judges-- to exercise will, will, instead of judgment, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body. So, what a judge's personal view is, what his or her pleasure is in terms of a decision is irrelevant, is not the issue. It is what the best judgment in terms of the interpretation of the Constitution is. Mr. President, 200 years after Alexander Hamilton issued this warning, it is abundantly clear that the abuse of judicial power that he feared has become a reality. If Hamilton were here today, I believe he would be the first to recognize it. Instead of applying law as they find it in a neutral manner, which is a judge's role, exercising what Hamilton called their judgment, activist judges are in effect substituting their own policy views, in what Hamilton called their will, for the policies established by the people through their elected representatives in the political branches of the Government. Now, Mr. President, I have been in the Congress for 13 years and I have thought a lot about this. Thirteen years ago I thought about introducing an amendment to do this, but I did not. I sat back and said, Maybe this will change, maybe I am wrong. Maybe Hamilton was wrong. Maybe it is not as bad as I think. The truth of the matter is, it is worse than I thought. Finally, the last 2 or 3 weeks I finally made up my mind that the time has come, and I think there is a lot of proof to show and to demonstrate that the time has come. Let me give some examples, and this is not meant in any way to impugn the integrity of the three justices that I will mention. They were fine individuals who acted as they saw fit to interpret the Constitution. I want to make a point here. Justices Brennan, Marshall, and Blackmun have all taken their personal opposition to the death penalty and read it into the Constitution. Now, the Founding Fathers discussed capital punishment as they wrote the Constitution. They mentioned capital punishment in the Constitution. The death penalty is explicitly mentioned and its constitutionality is unquestionable in the due process clauses of both the 5th and 14th amendments to the Constitution. Yet, these three Justices rendered decisions time and time again because of their personal opposition to the death penalty. Whatever anyone's view is of the death penalty is not relevant when a matter comes before the Court, if the intent of the Founders and the Constitution itself says that the death penalty is constitutional. What a personal view is--for or against it--is irrelevant. Yet, decisions were made because of their personal opposition to the death penalty. That is judicial activism. Evidently taking their cue from Supreme Court Justices who feel free to ignore the plain meaning of the Constitution, judges on the Federal courts of appeals have also engaged in what amounts to legislating from the bench. More examples: Two U.S. courts of appeals--the ninth and the second circuits--have discovered in the post-Civil War 14th amendment a heretofore unknown constitutional right to physician-assisted suicide. They have just discovered this. Now, that is a pretty bizarre reading of the 14th amendment that simply cannot be justified by the language, it cannot be justified by the meaning, and it cannot be justified even by the history of the constitutional provisions in question. Yet, the ninth and second circuits, two U.S. courts of appeals, have discovered that, now, in this post-Civil War 14th amendment, we now have a constitutional right to physician-assisted suicide. Where does it say that in the Constitution? It doesn't matter to these judges whether it says it or not. Likewise, Federal district judges have repeatedly abused their authority by blocking the implementation of entirely constitutional measures enacted through State ballot referenda simply because they disagree with the policy judgments of the voters. Now, again, that is not the role of a Federal judge. Just since 1996, a single Federal district judge, who had been an activist with the ACLU before going on the bench, blocked the implementation of the California civil rights initiative. However you feel about the initiative, for or against, isn't the issue. The California voters passed it in the State. Earlier this month, in reversing the judge's order, the U.S. Court of Appeals made the compelling comment that ``A system which permits one judge to block, with a stroke of a pen, what 4,736,180 State residents voted to enact as law, tests the integrity of our constitutional democracy.'' Who said that, because a judge is appointed to a court of the Federal Government, they are omnipotent, that they are flawless, that they are perfect? I don't recall that in the Constitution. I don't recall that in the discussions of the Founders. Judges are human beings, and they can be wrong. Consider the Dred Scott case in 1857, if you think judges are perfect. There will be some out there, probably from the American Bar Association, who will notify me over the weekend, or on Monday, that they are, because I am sure they are opposed to this amendment. But in 1857, the Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney was sitting on the Court when a black former slave by the name of Dred Scott tried to bring a case before the Supreme Court for his freedom. Taney wrote the deciding majority decision, and he said Dred Scott couldn't sue in Federal Court because he was ``property,'' not a human being. Now, was that Justice right in that decision? No, he was not right, but he did it and there was no recourse because he was a lifetime appointee. There are many more examples, Mr. President, of activist judges who have taken control of prisons and school districts. There was the famous Kansas City case, where a judge raised the taxes of the city of Kansas City to pay for school busing. Activist judges have ordered tax increases, and they have created new rules to protect criminal defendants that result in killers, rapists, and other violent criminals being turned loose to continue to prey on society. Almost every time you hear about some horrible murder, a violent crime against another member of our society, almost every time, if you read below the headline, you will find that this person was out on parole, or was released by a judge and given a second chance. He probably had a difficult childhood, so we have to give him another chance to kill or rape somebody else, or beat somebody else up, or abuse some child. We have to give him a third chance and a fourth chance. Time and time and time again, over the last 30, 40 years, these judges have put these animals back on the street to prey on us and prey on us and prey on us. But they are perfect, these judges--lifetime, no touch; you can't do anything about it. It is time, Mr. President, that we stop it. Former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese estimates that over 100,000 criminal cases each year cannot be successfully prosecuted because of these court-created rules. You can't even prosecute some of these people because of these rules. Judicial activism has become such a severe problem that one of the leaders of the House, Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, has even suggested that we ought to consider using the constitutional power of impeachment to remove activist Federal judges from office. Now, I understand Congressman DeLay's concern. It is a justifiable concern, but I think there is a better way to do this, which is to limit their terms--limit their terms. That way, after a Federal judge has served 10 years--and that is what my amendment does, limit the term to 10 years--if the President wants to reappoint a judge who does some of these horrible things I have talked about, and that person can get through the Senate confirmation process, good luck. But at least we would have had the opportunity, as the elected representatives of the American people, to say, hold on, this person has made decisions that are ridiculous and we are not going to tolerate it. The term limits for judges amendment would end the life tenure for judges on the district court, circuit courts, and the Supreme Court-- all three levels of the Federal judiciary. They would be nominated by the President, and with the advice and consent of the Senate they would be appointed for 10-year terms. They could be reappointed. The good thing about this proposal, Mr. President, is that no President of the United States would have the opportunity to reappoint a judge because, as we all know, the President's term is limited to two terms, 8 years. He or she could also serve up to an additional 2 years of a President who left office, if that person were the Vice President. So the maximum they could serve would be 9 years and 364 days. Therefore, that same President would not have the opportunity to reappoint a judge. Now, my amendment does not remove current judges from office--we do have a grandfather clause--but it would get things started, and we would begin to have this opportunity to see some change. Activist judges are routinely violating the separation of powers by usurping legislative and executive powers. This is a widespread abuse of judicial authority, and it is serious enough to warrant a constitutional response. Term limits for judges would establish a check on the power of activist judges, and no longer could they abuse their authority with impunity. Under the term limits for judges amendment, judges who used their offices by imposing their own policy views, instead of interpreting the laws in good faith, could be passed over for new terms by the President, or rejected for reappointment by the Senate if the President persisted in offering the name up. The term limits for judges amendment would make the President and the Senate more accountable to the people for their judicial selections. Now, you are going to hear the argument--and probably many listening to me now are already thinking it--that ``this is just going to interject politics; politics is now going to be in all the court decisions, and all judges are going to make decisions based on politics so they can be reappointed.'' Stop and think about that argument. If a judge is good and if a judge is honest and has integrity and makes a decision in his or her mind based on what is right, under the Constitution, if that's the case--and I would think that all of us would like to think that every judge fits that mold--but if that's the case, then, why would a judge make a different decision if that judge knew they were only going to be there for 10 years or life? What difference does it make? The point is, if they are good and they think it is a right decision under the law, then you make your decision whether you are going to be there 1 day or 100 years. What difference does it make? The opposite has happened, Mr. President. What has happened now is that judges, knowing that they can't be touched, knowing that they have a lifetime appointment, are now making decisions that are political. They are imposing their will upon the American people, rather than actually judging the Constitution and interpreting the Constitution as the Founding Fathers suggested. With all due respect to the criticism, the modern-day judiciary is too independent and too unaccountable to the taxpayers and to the people who pay their salaries and pay for their courthouses all over America. They are insulated by life tenure and free, for all intents and purposes, from any threat of impeachment. You have to commit a high crime to be removed from office as a Federal judge; we all know that. Very few judges in history have had that happen. These activist judges, because of almost impunity, feel free to impose their political will on all of us, without having to answer to anybody. I believe that judges appointed for 10-year terms would be far more likely to follow that law rather than imposing their political will. The best way to go for a judge serving a 10-year term, who would like to serve another 10, would be to follow the law and not his or her own political agenda. Follow the law. That is what we put you on the bench to do, to follow the law. That applies to a conservative judge as well as a liberal judge. No conservative agenda, no liberal agenda. Follow the law. If you follow the law, you will get reappointed. If you don't follow the law and you follow your agenda, you don't. It is interesting, when you talk to those who oppose this amendment, they are very aggressive in saying, ``Well, these judges are fine people and you are impugning the integrity of judges.'' There will always be--unless Congress changes it--nine slots on the Supreme Court. The world is not going to come to an end if one judge leaves and another takes his or her place. We are not irreplaceable. So that is not a valid argument. It is very bogus. If one judge leaves--or if it is the Supreme Court, one Justice leaves--another judge or Justice takes his or her place. So what? It doesn't have to be the same person for life making these decisions. So, Mr. President, I just want to notify my colleagues that I welcome their support. I don't expect the door to be beaten down over the next few days. But I am going to be very, very aggressive and very, very persistent in taking this case to the American people that it is time for a change in our Constitution. No one wants to amend the Constitution unless it is absolutely necessary. But I think if every American citizen would look at what has happened with some of these outrageous judicial decisions by activist judges who have gone far beyond what the intent of the Constitution was, they would recognize that it is time for a change. Hamilton said it, Madison said it, and Jefferson said it; three pretty distinguished Founding Fathers, if I do say so myself. They warned us. I read for you their quotes. We know how they felt. I think it is time that we pursue this. I intend to take this case to the American people because I have seen polls on this that indicate that over 85 percent of the American people support term limits for judges. We have term limits for the Presidents. A lot of people favor trying to pass term limits for Members of Congress. Why not term limits for judges? Why does the world come to an end, and why does constitutional democracy of the United States of America come to an end because we don't have lifetime judges? That is ridiculous. The argument is silly. The Founding Fathers warned us on the possibility of this. And some will say, ``OK. Why didn't they put in the Constitution that we have term limits?'' Because they could not possibly imagine what judges would have done in the past 200 years. But I guarantee that if Hamilton, Jefferson, and Madison could vote today they would be voting for this amendment, and they would be supporting this amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Also, Mr. President, I want to comment on a piece of legislation that two of my colleagues, Senator McCain, and the Senator from Texas, Senator Hutchison, introduced regarding the prevention of the Government shutdown. We went through this game, as you know, last year, and wound up having the Government shut down and innocent people, who were doing a good job in their capacity working for the Government, were caught in this whipsaw of conflict between the Congress and the President. Senator Hutchison and Senator McCain have brought forth this amendment, this idea, which essentially will see that that does not happen. I am a bit surprised, given the amount of criticism that we took from the President on the Government shutdown--he gave us most of the blame, although he, I think, deserves equal credit, if you will--at the opposition, stated opposition to this amendment by the President. I hope the President could support a proposal which eliminates the threat of a Government shutdown as we work toward getting a budget agreement. Basically, it locks in place spending at last year's appropriation levels until we do it, and not shut down the Federal Government. I hope the President will reconsider that and endorse this proposal which I believe will be attached to the supplemental, and see that we do not have a Government shutdown again, and that Congress and the President get together and do what the American people want them to do, which is come to a budget agreement that balances the budget, that really balances the budget by the year 2002--no smoke and mirrors--and that we get entitlement reform, we get some tax relief for the American people, and do it all. If there is gridlock because we do not get that agreement, then the people who are trying to run the Federal Government, from passing out the Social Security checks to immigration, visas and so forth, that we do not get those people again caught in that conflict. I commend my colleagues for that and am pleased to be a supporter of it.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, it is not my intention to use the full 30 minutes, I say to any colleague who may be waiting or intending to speak.

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, the leader has asked me to announce for the information of all Senators that this cloture vote on the motion to proceed will occur on Tuesday, April 29. I now ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived and the vote occur at 2:15 on Tuesday, April 29.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I further ask unanimous consent that if cloture is invoked on Tuesday, immediately following the cloture vote there be 1 hour of debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking member, or their designees, with the vote occurring on the motion to proceed following the conclusion or yielding back of time.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until the hour of 2 p.m. on Monday, April 28. I further ask unanimous consent that on Monday, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted, and there then be a period of morning business until the hour of 3:30 p.m., with Senators to speak for up to 5 minutes each, and further, immediately following morning business, the Senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 543, the Volunteer Protection Act.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now turn to the consideration of S. 543 regarding protections to volunteers.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I object on behalf of my colleagues on the Democratic side.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee for his tremendous leadership on this matter. He has been steadfast. I have been in a number--several hours and days--of meetings with him as he has tried very hard to get this treaty into a position where it could be acceptable to some of us--to all of us. But in this case, Mr. President, I have to maintain my opposition to this convention. Contrary to the assertions of its proponents, this treaty will not advance our national interests, and as a Member of the U.S. Senate, I must put the national and sovereignty interests above all others when it comes to votes here on the Senate floor. This is a flawed accord that will undermine our security and create a massive, unfunded regulatory burden on U.S. companies. And the Senate should reject it. Let me make clear, I do not object to the goal of eliminating chemical weapons, although those of us who have taken a position in opposition to this treaty will be accused of that, and have been. In fact, as a member of the Armed Services Committee, I have consistently supported funding for our Nation's chemical demilitarization program. Certainly, we all support the goal of eliminating chemical weapons. But this treaty will not accomplish that goal. Sometimes we forget that fact as we debate these issues that have a great-sounding name. It does not even come close. For the benefit of my colleagues, I want to highlight some of the most egregious problems with this treaty. First of all, it is not a global treaty. Its advocates would have you believe that it is. It is not global. In fact, many nations believed to have active chemical weapons programs, such as Iraq, Libya, North Korea, and Syria, have not even signed on to the treaty and they are not bound by any provisions. Additionally, other confirmed or suspected chemical weapons nations, such as India, Iran, Pakistan, and Russia, have signed the treaty but do not seem very likely to ratify it or even comply with it. For the life of me, I cannot understand how anyone could possibly stand here on the floor of the U.S. Senate and say this is a global treaty if the most heinous anti-American regimes on the face of the Earth are not even a party to it. They are going to be making chemical weapons, and nobody can do anything about it. That is like saying we have a global treaty outlawing terrorism, but Iran, North Korea, Syria, and Lebanon are not a part of it. Why not have another treaty and outlaw terrorism? Well intended; great goal. Why not just pass a treaty and we will outlaw it? That will be the end of it. It is absurd, not to mention patently false, to allege that this Chemical Weapons Convention is a global treaty. Iraq used chemical weapons on its own citizens in the last decade--on its own people. How can we have a global treaty banning chemical weapons without Iraq? Could somebody please answer that question for me? It is not global. And we are not banning chemical weapons in Iraq. We are inspecting the devil out of Iraq and we still do not know what they are doing and what they can and cannot do. Mr. President, not only is this treaty not global, it is not verifiable according to the U.S. intelligence community, not according to Senator Smith, but the U.S. intelligence community. In testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee, former Director of Central Intelligence, James Woolsey stated: The chemical weapons problem is so difficult from an intelligence perspective that I cannot state that we have high confidence in our ability to detect noncompliance, especially on a small scale. This is not exactly a ringing endorsement for this treaty, particularly when it is coming from a person who is representing an administration that supports it and that is bringing it here to the Senate. Let us be honest, there is no way we are going to be able to verify compliance, and everybody on this floor knows it. The proponents, as well as the opponents, know that. The United Nations Special Commission on Iraq was established following the gulf war to oversee the dismantling of Iraq's chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs. There have been over 1,000 inspectors searching every nook and cranny in Iraq for the past 5 years, yet we continue to uncover new evidence and new revelations regarding Iraq's programs to develop weapons of mass destruction. I say to my colleagues on the floor, now that you have seen all these inspections, you all feel very comfortable, I am sure. Now you have the full knowledge that Iraq does not have any chemical weapons or any biological weapons or any nuclear weapons. Everybody feels real comfortable with that. We have inspected them, so everybody is certain. Right. Iraq is the most heavily monitored and inspected country on Earth. We have more access to Iraq than the chemical weapons treaty will ever provide for any country. If we cannot determine after 5 years just how large and sophisticated Iraq's chemical weapons program is, how on Earth are we going to be able to verify compliance for the dozens and dozens of countries supposedly bound by this treaty? The answer is simple. We cannot. We are not going to be able to do it. We will move into classified session later on, tomorrow, to more fully examine the intelligence community's assessment. I urge my colleagues to come to that session and listen to the facts from our intelligence community. Noncompliance is not something to take lightly. Without adherence by all parties, no treaty is worth the paper it is written on--never has been, never will be. But we cannot verify this treaty. We know for a fact that some of its signatories have routinely and repeatedly violated other treaties in the past. So they have a track record. Russia has the world's largest chemical weapons arsenal. The former Soviet Union routinely violated its arms control obligations whenever it was convenient, whenever it was in their best interest. Russia remains in violation of the Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention and the CFE treaty. Thus, it is clear that the cold war pattern of noncompliance did not end when the Soviet Union ended. Russia has also made clear that it has no intention of ratifying the chemical weapons treaty or complying with its provisions unless the United States provides a massive aid package to pay for destruction of its arsenal. Mr. President, where I come from in New Hampshire, this is called blackmail. That is what it is. And I object to it. We are already committed to spending $12 billion to eliminate our own chemical weapons arsenal. Are we supposed to foot the bill for Russia's as well now? Let us not forget we are already giving Russia billions of dollars in ransom for the START I and START II treaties, even though they have yet to ratify START II. With the hard-line Communists and nationalists gaining 33 percent of Parliament seats in the recent Russian elections, can anyone actually believe that this situation is likely to improve? I do not think so. Russia is not implementing the 1990 bilateral destruction agreement in which it pledged to substantially reduce its chemical weapons arsenal. The DIA stated Russia is moving so slowly that no meaningful reduction of its arsenal is likely to occur in the next decade. These are facts that the proponents do not want you to hear, Mr. President. The DIA has expressed skepticism regarding the veracity of Russia's data declarations. It appears highly likely that Russia has grossly underreported its chemical weapons arsenal. Finally, it has been widely reported in the international publications that Russia is developing new binary weapons that are highly lethal, yet contained none of the chemicals--none of the chemicals--listed on the treaty's schedules. If this is true, Russia will be capable of circumventing this treaty in a very significant and, frankly, destabilizing way. We will be considering this issue in more detail during the closed session, but I want to say here and now that this is a very, very big problem and it ought to be looked at very closely. It gives me no pleasure to take the floor of the Senate and raise these troubling issues. I would like to be for this treaty. I wish it banned all chemical weapons. But the fact of the matter is, it does not, and I have a constitutional responsibility to look carefully at these issues and act in a manner that I believe advances our national security. This treaty is deeply flawed--deeply flawed. No amount of public relations spin, no amount of pressure from the White House or from anybody else can change that issue. Certainly it is not going to change this Senator's mind. I know that many of my colleagues think that since the cold war is over arms control issues do not matter anymore. I know many Members who would just as soon focus on issues that seem to be drawing more attention in the polls. But as the stewards of national security, we do not have that luxury. We cannot afford to sweep these issues under the rug for the convenience of political expediency. Mr. President, in addition to these important national security considerations, I want to highlight for my colleagues the enormous burden that this treaty will place on U.S. businesses. Under the treaty, there would be two basic types of inspections: routine and challenge. Routine inspections are to be directed at sites producing chemicals that present the greatest risk of diversion to weapons uses. A nation could be subject to up to 20 routine inspections per year, and a specific site up to two routine inspections. Challenge inspections would occur by request by a party to the treaty and can take place with very little advance notice. There is no limit to the number of challenge inspections that can take place. The United States also, Mr. President, will be obligated to pay 25 percent of the operating expenses of this organization. Does that sound familiar? Think of the United Nations and other international organizations where we wind up footing most of the bill. Membership on the Executive Council is determined by a rotating regional formula, with the majority of seats allocated to third world countries. The United States would not necessarily be represented on the council at all times and there is no U.S. veto, as there is in the U.N. Security Council. This represents a new open-ended entitlement for another United Nations- style bureaucracy. I cannot believe that we are going to agree to pay 25 percent of the cost when we are having so much difficulty injecting fiscal discipline into the existing foreign aid bureaucracy which Senator Helms has been trying to change for years. Why should we pay such a grossly disproportionate percentage when Russia, who has the world's largest stockpile, pays 5.6 percent--while we pay the 25 percent? It is estimated that somewhere between 3,000 and 8,000 companies, perhaps more, will be affected by this treaty--3,000 to 8,000 U.S. companies. The treaty creates a massive program of reporting requirements for companies, companies that produce or use regulated chemicals. I would ask my colleagues, do you really think the rogue nations, the North Koreas, the Libyas, the Irans, or the Iraqs, and others, are going to be subject to this? Do you really think they care that we are harassing our own companies? They are probably getting a good laugh out of it, Mr. President. The individual companies are required to assume all costs associated with this compliance, including filings, escort and administration of routine inspections, challenge inspections, and in some circumstances, American businesses may even be required to shut down production during the inspection period. Failure to comply with the regulations could result in a company being fined up to $50,000 per incident--per incident. The Defense Department has estimated the cost imposed on a company with a large facility could be as high as $500,000 per inspection, while small businesses should expect inspections to cost between $10,000 and $20,000, all on U.S. businesses on something that does not ban chemical weapons in other countries. Each international inspection team will be accompanied by representatives of the U.S. Government. According to the administration, it is possible the representatives of the Environmental Protection Agency and OSHA could also serve as escorts to come into your business and have a good look at what we you are doing--maybe something very personal, very private, something you would not want your competitors to have. But under the treaty, the EPA can walk right in, have access to the whole facility, perhaps even take a few samples, a few products. Who knows--take some records. It is clear, Mr. President, that this treaty and the accompanying implementing legislation that the administration has requested represents a massive, unfunded mandate on U.S. businesses. It is staggering. I cannot believe that this Senate is prepared to do this injustice to businesses here in America and, frankly, injustice to ourselves as a nation. At a time when your constituents are crying out for relief from onerous and burdensome regulations, here we go again. The problem is, other nations who get to inspect our facilities have a lot more to gain than we do by inspecting theirs. The limited military- related intelligence that we may gain is far outweighed by the industrial and commercial intelligence that other nations will derive from our companies. That is why nations like Iran are signing on to this treaty, because they want that information. They will have access to that information, if not directly, certainly indirectly even if they are not one of the inspectors. Most chemical manufacturers have not considered the effect of this treaty. Frankly, I am disappointed in some of those manufacturers because they have not thought it through. But they will be back, Mr. President. If we pass this, they will be back and they will be back with tears in their eyes because they are going to be very, very sorry that they supported this treaty. In fact, I know of one example where an individual called my office purporting to represent the CMA in support of the treaty. When questioned on the details of the treaty and the implications for U.S. businesses, the individual became frustrated, claimed ignorance, and stated that the CMA told him to make the calls. He admitted not knowing much about the treaty and quickly ended the call. That is pretty sad, Mr. President. If that is the kind of expertise being brought to bear in this lobbying campaign we are faced with, I think it raises more serious questions as to the merit and true nature of this endorsement by CMA. Additionally, while CMA's support is an important factor to consider, it is important to recognize that CMA does not even represent a majority of the businesses affected by the treaty. According to the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, 60 percent of the companies affected by the treaty are not CMA members. In fact, most of these non-CMA companies are smaller businesses who are most likely to be harmed by the increased regulatory burden. They have the most to lose. Yet, they are the ones that are overlooked by the treaty's proponents. Mr. President, since last fall, when the Clinton administration abruptly requested that the Senate defer consideration of the treaty, I have worked very closely with my colleagues in the Senate, including Senator Kyl and Senator Helms and others. I have attended numerous meetings with the President's National Security Adviser to explore possible conditions to protect U.S. national security, and, to their credit, the administration and others did work hard to address many of those concerns, and many have been addressed. But there are still some that I just cannot, in good faith, allow to go unchallenged. In the end, we are not able to agree on all of these issues. That is the nature of democracy. We discuss issues, debate policy, find common ground, and compromise where we can. We compromised 28 times. It is important to understand, though, that reasonable people can and do disagree on the merits of this treaty. I want to make it very clear that I have no problem with any of my colleagues in terms of how they arrived at their votes. That is their vote, and I respect that, I recognize that. In fact, it is healthy. While I strongly oppose this treaty, I don't impugn anyone's motives or character for taking an opposing viewpoint. Having said that, it is regrettable that those of us deeply troubled by the lack of participation in this treaty by Iran, Syria, Libya, and North Korea, and by the inherent unverifiability of the treaty, by the fact that nations such as Iran will gain access to sensitive data on our chemical defenses. Now, people have said that is not going to happen. Well, we will see. If this treaty passes, we will see, because they can be part of the inspection team and can have access to that information. Anyway, we are accused of being somehow in favor of chemical weapons because we take this position. It seems that when those of us who are conservatives want to stand by our principles, we are ``crazy people'' or something. But when you are liberal and you stand by your principles, you are thoughtful and considerate and compassionate. Well, maybe I am missing something somewhere. It is very easy for the media and the advocates of the treaty to demagog this issue. Some in the media have demagoged it. Some in the media in my own State are demagoging me and the treaty. That is their prerogative. But they are not here on the Senate floor--I am. Some in the media in my State may not like that fact, but I am here as an elected representative for the State of New Hampshire. I am sworn to uphold the Constitution and to defend the national security interests of the United States. Yes, if there is a treaty violating those, I am going to be opposed to it. While I wholeheartedly support the objective of banning chemical weapons, this doesn't ban chemical weapons. If somebody can stand up here and tell me how we are going to get access to all of Iraq and be certain that we are not going to have chemical weapons there, and all of Libya and North Korea, and can prove that to me, I will support the treaty. That is why we have this amendment, this provision on rogue nations. I don't believe this requires that the Senate rubber stamp any treaty dealing with chemical weapons. We have some very respected people, including four former Secretaries of Defense--that was testified to here before--who oppose this treaty. In the medical world, the wrong medicine can kill a patient even if it is prescribed with the best of intentions. The same holds true with national security. I have no doubt that the advocates of CWC believe that it will cure the plague of chemical weapons. But that is the wrong medicine and it won't work. I want to conclude my remarks by summarizing some of the more important arguments against this treaty. First, it is not global. Second, it is not effectively verifiable. Third, there are no technical means to detect undeclared stockpiles of chemical agents or weapons. Many of those who have signed the treaty are either unlikely to ratify it or to comply. Does anybody really believe that Iran will be a responsible party to this treaty? When is the last time we had access to all of the countryside in Iran and all of the industry and buildings in Iran? Why should we believe that this treaty is going to make us do that? Article X of the treaty will require us to share detailed information on our own chemical weapons defenses with all other signatories to the treaty, good and bad signatories to the treaty, friends and enemies. Thousands of U.S. businesses, many of them vulnerable small businesses, will be exposed to costly annual reporting requirements that they can't afford. Direct costs to U.S. industry are estimated to be over $200 million a year. It goes on and on and on, Mr. President. It is just incredible. Challenge inspections, which basically you could not do under our Constitution, are unlimited in number and may violate the fourth amendment, which guarantees the rights of individuals and their property against unreasonable search and seizure. Mr. President, it is clear that this treaty falls short of achieving its objectives and its goals. In fact, it doesn't even come close. As we will see later in the classified session, the stakes are high. We have little to gain and a great deal to lose. I urge my colleagues to reject this treaty. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Thank you very much, I say to Senator Helms.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Evelyn Marconi of Portsmouth, New Hampshire, for being honored with the Lifetime Achievement Award by the Rotary Club of Portsmouth. Evelyn has been my friend for more than a decade. I can think of no one more deserving of the recognition she is receiving by the Portsmouth Rotary Club. She has given her life to public and community service. Evelyn has served on the Portsmouth City Council for 10 years, four of those years as assistant mayor. In 1989 she was nominated for the prestigious Norris Cotton Republican of The Year Award. Evelyn has also been a cornerstone of business in Portsmouth and is known to everyone as she owns and operates the landmark Geno's Coffee Shop. In 1980 former U.S. Senator Gordon Humphrey recognized Evelyn's business leadership and appointed her as a delegate to the Small Business Conference where she participated in the Women in Business and Capital Formation and Retention. She also was a delegate to the New Hampshire Constitutional Convention. Evelyn's community involvements range from organizing fundraisers to keeping the local Pierce Island Pool open for the children, to being a member of several foundations, committees and executive boards and serving as the first woman president of the Navy League of the United States. Among her neighbors Evelyn is known as a compassionate and concerned person who makes chicken soup for the sick, helps out with babysitting and works to secure anonymous donations of food or clothing for the underprivileged. Evelyn has been known to go out in a blizzard to deliver food to shut-ins when the city's ``meals on wheels'' was canceled due to bad weather. Evelyn is always willing to take responsibility, whether to organize rides to the cancer treatment center for local patients, giving rides on election day to any voter, chairing committees or helping people in need. Whatever she commits to, she always does an outstanding job. Mr. President, Evelyn has dedicated her time, talent and energy to serving the residents of Portsmouth in an exemplary way. I am proud to know Evelyn, and to honor her outstanding community commitment, which is so important to the future and prosperity of Portsmouth. We are indeed indebted to Evelyn for her efforts in business, public service and community dedication. Congratulations to my friend, Evelyn Marconi, for this distinguished recognition. I am honored to represent her in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Jane McCaffery, a teacher at Lincoln Street School and Main Street School in Exeter, NH, on receiving the Continental Cablevision's 1997 National Educator Award. As a former teacher myself, I commend her outstanding accomplishment and well-deserved honor. Continental Cablevision designed the Educator Award program in 1989 to encourage teachers to use Cable in the Classroom, a cable industry initiative which provides schools with free cable connections and access to more than 500 hours of commercial-free educational programming each month. Jane was chosen for this distinguished honor from among educators in all of the communities that Continental Cablevision serves in New Hampshire. Under the direction of Jane, Exeter elementary students, teachers and their work are showcased in ``Booktalk,'' an ambitious weekly cable TV program. The program encourages students to read and invites families to participate in activities related to their children's reading. It also raises community awareness about the elementary curriculum. Jane and an Australian crocodile puppet explore one curriculum theme each week and feature a reading by teachers, students or guests, ideas for families to further pursue the learning theme, and many creative presentations. New Hampshire has always been fortunate to have many talented teachers, but Jane McCaffery is certainly a role model among the teachers of the Granite State. I am proud of her commitment to education and congratulate her superb achievement. It is an honor to represent her in the U.S. Senate. [At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.]

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, Senator Reid joins me to ask that changes to the Rules of Procedure for the Select Committee on Ethics, which were adopted February 23, 1978, and amended by the full committee on March 18, 1997, be printed in the Congressional Record. The material follows: Rule 9, Procedures for Handling Committee Sensitive and Classified Materials, and Rule 14, Procedures for Waivers, of the Supplementary Procedural Rules are amended as follows: Rule 9: (c) Procedures for Handling Committee Sensitive and Classified Documents: (1) Committee Sensitive documents and materials shall be stored in the Committee's offices, with appropriate safeguards for maintaining the security of such documents or materials. Classified documents and materials shall be further segregated in the Committee's offices in secure filing safes. Removal from the Committee's offices of such documents or materials is prohibited, except as necessary for use in, or preparation for, interviews or Committee meetings, including the taking of testimony, or as otherwise specifically approved by the staff director or by outside counsel designated by the Chairman and Vice Chairman. (2) Each member of the Committee shall have access to all materials in the Committee's possession. The staffs of members shall not have access to Committee Sensitive or classified documents and materials without the specific approval in each instance of the Chairman and Vice Chairman, acting jointly. Members of the Committee may examine such materials in the Committee's offices. If necessary, requested materials may be hand-delivered by a member of the Committee staff to a member of the Committee, or to a staff person specifically designated by the member, for the member's or designated staff person's examination. A member of the Committee who has possession of Committee Sensitive documents or materials shall take appropriate safeguards for maintaining the security of such documents or materials in the possession of the member or his or her designated staff person. (3) Committee Sensitive documents that are provided to a Member of the Senate in connection with a complaint that has been filed against the Member shall be hand-delivered to the Member or to the Member's Chief of Staff or Administrative Assistant. Committee Sensitive documents that are provided to a Member of the Senate who is the subject of a preliminary inquiry, an initial review, or an investigation, shall be hand delivered to the Member or to his or her specifically designated representative. (4) Any Member of the Senate who is not a member of the Committee and who seeks access to any Committee Sensitive or classified documents or materials, other than documents or materials which are matters of public record, shall request access in writing. The Committee shall decide by majority vote whether to make documents or materials available. If access is granted, the Member shall not disclose the information except as authorized by the Committee. (5) Whenever the Committee makes Committee Sensitive or classified documents or materials available to any Member of the Senate who is not a member of the Committee, or to a staff person of a Committee member in response to a specific request to the Chairman and Vice Chairman, a written record shall be made identifying the Member of the Senate requesting such documents or materials and describing what was made available and to whom. Rule 14: (c) Ruling: The Committee shall rule on a waiver request by recorded vote, with a majority of those voting affirming the decision. With respect to an individual's request for a waiver in connection with the acceptance or reporting the value of gifts on the occasion of the individual's marriage, however, the Chairman and the Vice Chairman, acting jointly, may rule on the waiver request.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R. 1003, the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act of 1997. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of S. 304, the Senate companion bill to H.R. 1003. As a cosponsor, I was especially gratified to learn of the overwhelming bipartisan vote of 398 to 16 by which H.R. 1003 passed the House of Representatives on April 10, 1997. With its resounding votes to pass both the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act and H.R. 1122, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997, the House of Representatives has taken two major actions aimed at restoring respect for the sanctity of human life in our great Nation. I trust that in the weeks ahead, the Senate will join the House by passing both of these bills by large majorities and sending them to the President. Mr. President, before he passed away last November, Joseph Cardinal Bernadin left a moving testimony to the sanctity of life. ``I am at the end of my earthly life,'' Chicago's Cardinal wrote in a letter addressed to the U.S. Supreme Court. ``Our legal and ethical tradition has held consistently that suicide, assisted-suicide, and euthanasia are wrong because they involve a direct attack on innocent human life,'' Cardinal Bernadin continued. ``Creating a new `right' to assisted suicide,'' the Cardinal concluded, ``will . . . send a false signal that a less than perfect life is not worth living.'' Mr. President, by enacting H.R. 1003, the Congress will be moving to defend the sanctity of human life by preventing the use of Federal funds and facilities to provide and promote assisted suicide. This is indeed a worthy goal and I am honored to be a part of this effort.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, today I am introducing what I believe to be a very sensible piece of legislation which will allow a number of members of the clergy of all faiths to participate in the Social Security Program. Before 1968 a minister was exempt from Social Security coverage unless he or she chose to elect that coverage, and in 1968 ministers were covered by Social Security unless they filed an irrevocable exemption from the IRS on the grounds that they were opposed on basic religious principles to participate in any public insurance program. So a member of the clergy who is eligible for this exemption is an ``individual who is duly ordained, commissioned, or licensed member of a church, or a member of a religious order which has not taken a vow of poverty.'' About 260,000 ministers are affected by this exclusion. This legislation which I have offered would simply permit ministers and the few members of religious orders who have not taken a vow of poverty to secure that coverage. Modestly paid clergy would be among those most likely to need Social Security benefits when they retire. But earlier in their careers many chose not to participate in the program. They had good intentions. They were doing it on principle. But they didn't fully understand the ramifications of the exemption. Since 1968--once in 1977 and another time in 1986--ministers were given a temporary opportunity to revoke their exemption from Social Security; that is, they would have the opportunity to have a window whereby they could come back under the Social Security System. This was brought to my attention by the distinguished bishop in Manchester, NH, Reverend Bishop O'Neil. He brought this matter to my attention--that there are a number of hardships for individuals who may or may not have any retirement income as a result of this. So this legislation simply provides another open season, a 2-year period whereby those who are clergy who may wish now to be under the Social Security System may take advantage of this opportunity to revoke their exemption. That is all the bill does, and I think it is fair in that again these are very principled members of the cloth who have decided now that they would like to have the opportunity to get into the program. So it is a 2-year open season during which the members of the clergy could opt into the system. The application for benefits must be filed before the clergy member can become entitled to benefits, and those who choose coverage would be subject to self-employment taxes. And their earnings would be credited for Social Security and for Medicare purposes. And, of course, no one who is at retirement age now would be allowed in. These would be people who are not yet at the retirement age. Based on the experience in 1986 and the trends in the number of clergy since then, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that maybe as many as 1,500 to 1,600 members of the clergy would take advantage of the open season and enroll in Social Security. That is based on past performance. That is what happened in 1986. The bill was scored by the Congressional Budget Office. I have had it scored. It is a short-time revenue raiser because people would be paying into the system but, of course, it is going to ultimately be like any other Social Security beneficiary in the sense that we will be paying out more than comes in. This legislation has the endorsement of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. It is an issue of fairness. I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this legislation which I would like to see passed this year so that we could begin the open season process so that members of the clergy could opt in now to the Social Security System. I hope that many of my colleagues will join me as quickly as possible in cosponsoring the legislation so that we can get it out of the Finance Committee and here on the floor so that we can begin to correct this inadequacy, this unfairness where many members of the clergy are affected.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I might be recognized in morning business for no more than 5 minutes.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, today I am introducing what I believe to be a very sensible piece of legislation which will allow a number of members of the clergy of all faiths to participate in the Social Security Program. Before 1968 a minister was exempt from Social Security coverage unless he or she chose to elect that coverage, and in 1968 ministers were covered by Social Security unless they filed an irrevocable exemption from the IRS on the grounds that they were opposed on basic religious principles to participate in any public insurance program. So a member of the clergy who is eligible for this exemption is an ``individual who is duly ordained, commissioned, or licensed member of a church, or a member of a religious order which has not taken a vow of poverty.'' About 260,000 ministers are affected by this exclusion. This legislation which I have offered would simply permit ministers and the few members of religious orders who have not taken a vow of poverty to secure that coverage. Modestly paid clergy would be among those most likely to need Social Security benefits when they retire. But earlier in their careers many chose not to participate in the program. They had good intentions. They were doing it on principle. But they didn't fully understand the ramifications of the exemption. Since 1968--once in 1977 and another time in 1986--ministers were given a temporary opportunity to revoke their exemption from Social Security; that is, they would have the opportunity to have a window whereby they could come back under the Social Security System. This was brought to my attention by the distinguished bishop in Manchester, NH, Reverend Bishop O'Neil. He brought this matter to my attention--that there are a number of hardships for individuals who may or may not have any retirement income as a result of this. So this legislation simply provides another open season, a 2-year period whereby those who are clergy who may wish now to be under the Social Security System may take advantage of this opportunity to revoke their exemption. That is all the bill does, and I think it is fair in that again these are very principled members of the cloth who have decided now that they would like to have the opportunity to get into the program. So it is a 2-year open season during which the members of the clergy could opt into the system. The application for benefits must be filed before the clergy member can become entitled to benefits, and those who choose coverage would be subject to self-employment taxes. And their earnings would be credited for Social Security and for Medicare purposes. And, of course, no one who is at retirement age now would be allowed in. These would be people who are not yet at the retirement age. Based on the experience in 1986 and the trends in the number of clergy since then, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that maybe as many as 1,500 to 1,600 members of the clergy would take advantage of the open season and enroll in Social Security. That is based on past performance. That is what happened in 1986. The bill was scored by the Congressional Budget Office. I have had it scored. It is a short-time revenue raiser because people would be paying into the system but, of course, it is going to ultimately be like any other Social Security beneficiary in the sense that we will be paying out more than comes in. This legislation has the endorsement of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. It is an issue of fairness. I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this legislation which I would like to see passed this year so that we could begin the open season process so that members of the clergy could opt in now to the Social Security System. I hope that many of my colleagues will join me as quickly as possible in cosponsoring the legislation so that we can get it out of the Finance Committee and here on the floor so that we can begin to correct this inadequacy, this unfairness where many members of the clergy are affected.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

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 10 a.m. on Monday, April 14. I further ask unanimous consent that on Monday, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted, and there then be a period for the transaction of morning business until the hour of 12 noon, with Senators to speak for up to 5 minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator Coverdell, or his designee, 60 minutes; Senator Daschle, or his designee, 30 minutes; Senator Durbin, 10 minutes; Senator Conrad, 20 minutes; Senator Hagel, 20 minutes. I further ask unanimous consent that at 12 noon on Monday, the Senate resume consideration of S. 104, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, the leader has asked me to state for the information of all Senators that the Senate will not be in session on Friday and will reconvene on Monday. As announced earlier, there will be no rollcall votes occurring during Monday's session of the Senate. All Senators should be aware that rollcall votes will occur early on Tuesday, April 15, beginning at 9 a.m.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 11, which was received from the House.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Senate Concurrent Resolution 20, submitted earlier today by Senators Brownback, Robb, Helms, and Biden.