Bob Smith

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Service Corps of Retired Executives Chapter No. 38. This year, Chapter 38 celebrates 30 years of service to the Laconia area. As a former small business owner myself, I am proud to extend my warmest congratulations to this outstanding business advocacy organization on this momentous occasion. SCORE is a volunteer program sponsored by the Small Business Administration which helps New Hampshire's small businesses to establish themselves, expand, and create jobs in our communities. It is a nationwide service organization with 13,000 volunteers. There are 383 locally organized and self-administered chapters, all of which work in or near their home communities and offer their services at no charge. SCORE has been helping American small businesses to prosper since 1964. SCORE matches volunteers with small businesses that need expert advice. They share management skills and technical advice with prospective and present small business owners. Their in-depth counseling and training helps business owners identify management problems and find solutions. Most of SCORE's volunteers are retired executives, but some are still employed full time. New Hampshire Chapter 38's 24 active members have worked tirelessly, handling one of the largest caseloads in the state. One member, Horace Walsh, for example, has been with Chapter 38 for 25 years. This outstanding record of service is the epitome of the Granite State community spirit and entrepreneurship. SCORE is an excellent example of community service at its finest. It gives people the opportunity to share their expertise with others, that they may find the same measure of success. Such service allows executives to give back to the community that supported them. By helping small businesses grow, they are contributing to the growth of their local economy and providing more opportunities for the community. New Hampshire is fortunate to have an organization like SCORE helping small businesses. I commend SCORE and each one of their committed and dedicated volunteers for their tremendous community service as they celebrate their 30th anniversary.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I thank the chairman, Senator Chafee, for his very kind remarks. It has been a pleasure to work with Chairman Chafee on not only this issue, but Superfund and other environmental issues throughout the last 2 years--actually, longer, but 2 years under his chairmanship. I also thank Senator Baucus for his good work on this. I compliment Senator Kempthorne, who has done an outstanding job in shepherding this legislation to this point. Everyone wants clean, safe water for drinking and bathing. But the ability to provide this necessary commodity at an affordable price has been a real challenge in recent years. I think we have gotten to this point because of the numerous problems encountered with the 1986 act. Many local governments and drinking water systems around the country, some of which are in New Hampshire as well as other States, have been struggling to comply with this long list of regulations while maintaining reasonable water rates. The legislation before us will help to address this problem. The folks who live in these communities do not want to drink dirty water, but they want to be able to do what they have to do and have the reasonable opportunity to do it. So when we talk about the issue of unfunded Federal mandates, the Safe Drinking Water Act is regarded by State and local governments as the king of those unfunded mandates. So to address it, the bill now authorizes $1 billion a year in a Federal grant to establish State revolving loan funds. This is the first time for this. These funds will be allocated to the States on an annual basis, which can then be loaned or granted to municipalities for drinking water projects. There are two provisions of this program that I believe deserve special recognition: First, the States can use up to 30 percent of the SRF to provide direct grants to the most advantaged communities. And, second, States can transfer funds between this new drinking water SRF and the existing wastewater treatment SRF. So these two provisions go a long way in providing our States flexibility and the communities the flexibility they need to maximize their resources with the environmental concerns that are of the most immediate nature. Also, the issue of radon is one that I have long been involved in, and there is still considerable debate about the amount of risk posed by low-level exposure to radon. But according to the American Water Works Association, capital costs alone could reach $12 billion nationwide. And from a relative risk standpoint, we should consider the fact that radon in drinking water contributes less than 5 percent to the total amount of radon exposure. So given these statistics, I believe we chose a responsible course in addressing the radon issue. The bill directs EPA to set a new standard based on risk assessment conducted by the National Academy of Sciences and also would allow for an alternative, less stringent standard equivalent to outdoor air levels. Certainly no one would want to have all the wells, or 90 percent of the wells, in particular States ruled undrinkable because of standards like that. It would just cause chaos. This is a reasonable solution that will both protect public health and save money. Finally, I thank the managers for also including the provision to establish five small-system technology centers across the country to develop and test new technologies for the smallest of systems. One of these centers, I hope, may be established at the University of New Hampshire, which has an extensive background in this area and will be a huge asset to the New England region. So I am pleased today that we are at the point that this bill will become law, that the President of the United States has indicated he will sign it, and that it has broad-based support, bipartisan support, and support among hundreds of communities throughout the United States. Also, I thank my staff assistant Christine Russell for her hard work and help on this issue throughout the year. With that I yield back any time I have, Mr. President.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from New York could make that 10 minutes?

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise in very strong support of the welfare reform bill, H.R. 3734, that is before the Senate at this time. This is historic legislation that the Senate later will be passing by an overwhelming majority--a bipartisan majority, I might add. There will be some who will be voting for this today because they are caught up in the wave of welfare reform and there will be others of us who will be voting for it because we caused the wave. But it really does not matter because the result will be the same. This Republican Congress has gotten it done. After all the years and years of talk, we have finally gotten it done. We sent the President two bills. He vetoed both of them. This is the third attempt. He now says he will sign it. The Senator from New York has already quoted President Franklin Roosevelt who, in 1935, talked about what welfare, or in those days they called it relief, does to a society and does to a family. It does destroy the human spirit and it is a violation of the traditions of America, as Franklin Roosevelt correctly said in 1935. Mr. President, in terms of welfare, we did declare a war on poverty, and poverty won. That is the problem. This program has not worked. When something does not work, we have to try something new. It does not mean we say we have all the answers, but it does mean we have to try. In 1965, per capita welfare spending was $197. By 1993, per capita welfare spending was $1,255. That is a 600-percent increase. For all this increased spending, have we seen a corresponding drop in poverty? No, we have not. In 1965, 17 percent of Americans lived in poverty. In 1993 it is a little over 15 percent, barely a change. So we need to try something new, which is why this Republican Party has fought so hard to make these changes. This is historic because it ends a 60-year status of welfare as a Federal cash entitlement. As a result, once this bill becomes law, no person will be able to choose welfare as a way of life. And no person will be entitled to cash benefits from the Federal Government simply because he or she chooses not to work. It is amazing some of my colleagues can defend this failed system, where people who make $18,000 or $19,000 a year, working hard with their bare hands to make just enough money to put food on their tables and pay taxes, we should ask those people to continue paying forever for somebody who won't work. Won't--not can't, won't. Because that is what welfare is all about. Yes, there are some who cannot and they are not going to slip through the net. It is the ones who won't work. Yet, time after time after time, speaker after speaker after speaker in this body has defended this system, saying people who work hard for a living, trying to put food on the table, trying to pay their mortgages, trying to get their kids through college, working hard, paying their taxes--honest, hard- working Americans--should continue to pay for people who won't work. We are changing it. That is why this is historic. The President, in announcing he was going to sign this bill, kind of apologized for signing it, if you listen to his remarks. But again, the result is the same. He is going to sign it. We will get the results. So I give him credit for signing it. It took him a little while to get there, but he is there. As the Senator from Texas said a few moments ago, ask yourself this question. Would we have welfare reform, would we have workfare today, were it not for people in a Republican Congress who pushed and pushed and pushed to get it through this Congress and into the White House where the President can sign it? I think the answer is: Obviously, no, we would not have. By dramatically cutting the Federal welfare bureaucracy and replacing it with block grants to the States, this bill recognizes the best hope for making welfare programs successful lies in shifting major responsibilities for their administration to a level of government where innovation and experimentation can flourish. This is a giant step toward reinvigorating federalism in our system of Government. I heard the Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, earlier in the debate, talking as if somehow all these people were going to slip through the safety nets because the Federal Government no longer is assuming responsibility. We all know that we have 50 Governors out there, frankly, Democrats and Republicans--I have confidence in those people. I do not think any Governor in any State in the Union is going to put a starving child on the street. I will believe that when I see it. That is not going to happen and we all know it. It is an outrage to define this welfare reform in those kinds of terms. Governor Steve Merrill, the Governor of New Hampshire, using my State as an example, is a compassionate, decent man and a good Governor. He is not going to let that happen. I want him to have this program. I want him to be able to administer this program, this block grant, because in the State of New Hampshire, Governor Merrill and the legislature and the others who work every day in these welfare programs, know who the needy people are. They also know how to help them find work. That is compassion and it is compassion at the local level, where it should be. Because people in Washington, DC, do not know all the answers, in case you have not figured that out yet. No Governor is going to let a child starve and it is an outrage and an insult for anybody to even insinuate it rather than say it. Our Governors have been leading the way, from both parties. President Clinton, when he was Governor, talked about welfare reform and as a Presidential candidate said he would end welfare as we know it. He knew then as a Governor it was not working, which is why he spoke out about it. This is landmark legislation. This is dramatic. This is the kind of thing that I have been working on for all the years that I have been in Congress, and I am so happy just to see it come to fruition. I am going to be pleased and proud to work with Governor Merrill and see that this program is administered properly to help the people in the State who need help. This is a huge accomplishment just to get this bill through this Senate and the House and on the President's desk. Mr. President, this bill transforms welfare from a handout that fosters dependency into a temporary helping hand for those who fall on hard times. It places a 5-year lifetime limit on receiving welfare benefits and requires able-bodied adults to work after 2 years. Surely after 5 years, an able-bodied individual can find a job. Of course, they can find a job, if you want to find a job. But you are not going to want to find a job if somebody is taking care of you all the time. When I was a kid, I had a favorite uncle, Uncle George. He used to sell toys, and I used to look forward to Uncle George coming around with toys. My family at sometime would say, ``If Uncle George keeps coming around, we won't have to buy toys for little Bobby,'' because they expected it. Where is the respect for the people who are paying the bills? It is not the Federal Government paying these bills for people who will not work. It is the taxpayers. It is the hard-working men and women across America who work hard for a living. There is no reason why this is an entitlement for somebody who does not work. There is not a person out in America today who does not have the compassion in their heart to help somebody who needs help. We see it every time there is a tragedy. Whether it is the TWA bombing, a flood, earthquake, American people are always stepping forward in a compassionate, helpful way to help their fellow man. It happens every day. It is happening now, and it is not going to stop because we pass a bill that says people who will not work cannot get benefits for the rest of their lives. Mr. President, another very important point here is that this bill cracks down on the so-called deadbeat dad by requiring that father to pay child support, and it mandates that welfare applicants must assist in establishing the paternity of their children in order to qualify for their benefits. What is wrong with that? That is responsibility, Mr. President. I am also pleased that this bill takes a number of steps toward ending the abuse of the welfare system by those legal immigrants who come to America, not to go to work but to go on welfare. That is not true with every person who comes to America, it is not true with most people who come to America, but it is true with some, and they ought not to be getting welfare benefits if they are not an American citizen while Americans who are working hard, trying to pay their bills are providing it. That is simply wrong. It ought to stop, and this bill does stop it. But it also provides when you are sponsored, the sponsor can assume some responsibility for you. If they want to bring you to America, they can assume some responsibility. That is what built this country--responsibility, not running away from it. Deeming is a good policy. Noncitizens, after all, remain, by definition, citizens of other countries. They should not, in all fairness, expect to be supported by Americans who are not their fellow citizens. Finally, Mr. President, H.R. 3734 provides a total of $22 billion to help the States provide child care for parents who are participating in work and job training programs. It also provides additional grants for States that experience high unemployment or surges in their welfare populations. Mr. President, I commend those among my colleagues in the Senate who have worked long and hard to make this such a strong, landmark welfare reform bill. I also commend a former colleague--Senator Bob Dole--for working tirelessly since the beginning of this historic 104th Congress to deliver landmark welfare reform for the American people. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Barry Albert for receiving New Hampshire's Middle School Principal of the Year award. Barry is principal of Franklin Middle School, a position he has held since 1990. As a former teacher and school board chairman myself, I congratulate him for receiving this prestigious recognition. Barry has had a long and distinguished career in education. He graduated from Plymouth State College in 1970 with a bachelors degree in secondary education and earned a master's in learning disabilities and special education from Rivier College in 1977. In addition, Barry was a teacher at Merrimack High School and the coordinator of Raymond Middle School. For over 20 years he has been serving the students of New Hampshire and pursuing excellence in education. He has built a reputation for achievement among his colleagues in many areas, from teaching to administration. Barry is known in his school for his leadership, initiative, and dedication to education. Among other achievements, Barry re-started and re-organized the Student Congress at Franklin Middle School. His first concern is always for the students and he is unfailing in his commitment to support school activities while constantly seeking to ensure that students are receiving the best possible education. Barry also created a positive action program at Franklin Middle School, just another of the many ways he serves his school and community. Barry is the personification of an excellent middle school principal and the community can be certain that Barry is dedicated to his students. Franklin Middle School's success and development attests to Barry's outstanding leadership. The Granite State is fortunate to have such a talented educator and administrator devoted to the education of our children. I commend Barry for his exemplary career in education and congratulate him for his dedication.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Barbara Marois of Dover, NH for her competition in the 1996 summer Olympic games in Atlanta. Barb captained the women's field hockey team in their impressive series of games. This year's Olympic hockey team is the best team the United States has ever fielded. New Hampshire is proud of Barb's dedication and commitment to training for such a competitive sport. Barb competed with the 1988 U.S. Olympic field hockey team in Seoul and this year she led the team into competition on home turf. Her long sports career, beginning 10 years ago, bears the marks of distinction and excellence. Barb has competed in 119 international contests and her team placed third in the 1994 World Cup. Field hockey has been gaining popularity over recent years, largely because of outstanding athletes in the sport like her. The women's field hockey team gave an outstanding performance at this year's Olympic games. They defeated the No. 2 ranked South Korean team with a 3-2 victory and tied the well-respected Dutch team with a score of 1-1. Incidentally, the final point in the game with South Korea was scored by Barb from one of the penalty corners. She is known as a steady defensive force and a powerful weapon on penalty corners by her teammates. During the games she scored one goal and had 38 interceptions and 3 steals. Barb is arguably one of the keys to the field hockey team's improvement over the last few years. This national team captain is the team mentor and maker of history in field hockey. She is a three time U.S. Field Hockey Association Female Athlete of the Year and has been an assistant coach at her alma mater, the University of New Hampshire. Barb's distinguished record is the mark of an Olympian and a champion. Her driving sprit has enabled her to pursue her sport with determination and follow her dream. New Hampshire has followed her career and she has made the Granite State proud. Many people watched Barb lead the women's field hockey team. I join them in saluting her for representing them at the 1996 summer Olympic games and I commend her for her efforts in Atlanta. Congratulations Barb.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Stephen North for being named New Hampshire's Secondary School Principal of the Year. Steve is the principal of Profile Junior and Senior High School in Bethlehem, NH, a position he has held since 1977. As a former teacher and school board chairman myself, I congratulate him for receiving this prestigious award. Steve celebrates a long and distinguished career in education. He has been a teacher at Hanover High School, Curriculum Coordinator for the Dresden-Hanover School Districts, and both principal and assistant principal at Frances C. Richmond Middle School in Hanover. Steve's 18 years in education have been marked with success and leadership in this regional school district. He has built a reputation for excellence and achievement in many areas, from teacher to administrator. An example of Steve's achievement is the completion of much needed additions and renovations for Profile Junior and Senior School. This project, under his leadership, was completed in just 5 years. Steve's achievements can be seen in more than new buildings, he has earned the respect and admiration of his colleagues for his efforts. He is an excellent role model for his peers because of his professional activities, leadership abilities, and commitment to community. Steve is involved in various educational organizations including the New England Association of Schools and Colleges, the New Hampshire Association of School Principals, and the North Country Principals Association. Teachers and students alike admire Steve for what he has done for the school. He is known as someone who mentors new teachers, encourages innovation, promotes professionalism, and creates a sound educational environment. Under his supervision, Profile Junior and Senior High won the 1995 Sportsmanship Banner for exemplifying the positive tenets of good sportsmanship. This type of achievement reflects the type of motivation Steve provides for his school. Our children are very important to our future and I am proud to see that they are in such capable hands. New Hampshire is fortunate to have such a talented educator and administrator like Steve North. I commend Steve for his outstanding career in the field of education.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Michael Tocci for being named New Hampshire's Secondary School Principal of the Year. Mike is the principal of Gilford Elementary School in Gilford, NH, a position he has held since 1964. As a former teacher and school board chairman in the Lakes Region myself, I congratulate him for receiving this prestigious award. Mike celebrates a long and distinguished career in education. He received his bachelors in education in 1967 his masters in public school administration and Supervision in 1973 from Plymouth State University. Mike has served as teaching principal at Danbury Elementary and supervising elementary principal for Newfound Area School District in Bristol. In his 30-year career, he has built a reputation for excellence and achievement in many areas, from teacher to administrator. Mike is known among his colleagues for his leadership, enthusiasm, dedication, and contribution to children's education. His honest and caring spirit is reflected in the school's positive atmosphere. As an individual of distinction, Mike provides an excellent role model for his students and his teachers. He is admired by his school and his community for his concern and his commitment to community development. Granite State children are fortunate to have such a talented educator and administrator committed to their education. Gilford Elementary School's success and achievement is reflective of the outstanding leadership Mike has provided. Our children are very important to our future and I am pleased to know that they are in such capable hands. I commend Mike for his outstanding career in the field of education and congratulate him for his dedication.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Lynn Jennings of Newmarket, NH, for her competition in the 1996 Summer Olympic Games in Atlanta. Lynn competed in the 5,000-meter run Friday July 26 and was the first American to cross the finish line. New Hampshire is proud of her dedication and commitment to training for such a competitive sport. At age 36, this is Lynn's third time to compete with the U.S. Olympic track team. Lynn's long career exemplifies marks of distinction and excellence. She competed in the 1988 Olympics in Seoul and in the 1992 Barcelona Olympics she became the only American woman to earn a distance medal when she took home the bronze in the 10,000-meter run. Previously, the greatest distance in which an American woman had medaled was 800-meters and Lynn broke that record. Lynn has also been the World Cross Country Champion three times, holding the title from 1990-1992. She is an eight time National Cross Country Champion and holds American records in the 10,000-meter, indoor 3,000-meter, and the 8- and 10-kilometer road courses. Lynn's distinguished record is the mark of an Olympian and a champion. She has pursued her sport with determination, followed her dream, and embodied the Olympic spirit. New Hampshire has followed her career and she has made the Granite State proud. Many people from New Hampshire watched Lynn compete last Friday and join me in saluting her for representing them at the 1996 Summer Olympic Games. I commend her for her efforts in Atlanta and wish her other running successes at future competitions. Congratulations Lynn.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Robert Silva for receiving New Hampshire's Outstanding Service Award in Education. William has served Concord school children for almost 30 years with pride and dedication, always putting the best interests of the children first. As a former teacher and school board chairman myself, I am proud to congratulate him for receiving this prestigious award. Robert received his Bachelors and Masters degrees from the University of New Hampshire and has worked in Concord since 1967. He has been a teacher, athletic director, assistant principal, and principal. In addition, he served as the Director of Adult Education at the New Hampshire State Prison for 2 years. Robert is currently Assistant Superintendent in Concord, a position he has held since 1984. Robert is also very involved in his community, where his record of service to schools and the community is outstanding. He has served on the Concord Recreation Committee, the Christa McAuliffe Fund Committee, and the Community Election Forum Committee. In addition he has served on the Board of Directors of the Concord DARE Association and chaired United Way fundraising for the schools. Robert's dedication and commitment to service won him this prestigious award. He is also a leader who has shown his devotion to community development. He is a highly respected individual who is trusted and admired by all who know and work with him. His colleagues have always been impressed with his hard work and warm hearted nature. To those who work with him, Robert is also reliable and down to earth. Our educators have been entrusted with one of our Nation's greatest treasures, our children. They, as the guardians of this treasure, care for and ensure the development of these young minds. Throughout his career in education, Robert has done an excellent job looking out for the welfare of those in his care. His outstanding performance is reflected in the respect and admiration he has earned from his colleagues. New Hampshire is fortunate to have such a talented educator and administrator. I commend Robert Silva for his outstanding career in the field of education.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Jenny Thompson of Dover, NH, for three gold medal performances at the 1996 summer Olympic games in Atlanta. Jenny's outstanding performances in women's swimming relay events are a tremendous achievement. She has made the Granite State very proud of her Olympic success. Jenny swam the anchor leg in the women's 400 and 800 meter freestyle relays, setting American and Olympic records in both races. In addition, she swan in the qualifying round of the 400-meter medley relay to launch the team to gold in the final. With her three outstanding performances, Jenny proved herself a team player, giving so much of herself to the team's quest for a gold medal. The U.S. swimming team brought home its sixth straight relay gold medal, winning all of the relays that have been contested. Jenny is a graduate of Dover High School where she swam and ran cross country track. She subsequently attended Stanford University, graduating in 1995, and began working with her current coach in California. In the 1992 Olympic games in Barcelona, Jenny won two gold medals and one silver medal. She has held American and world records in the 100 meter freestyle and an American record in the 100-yard freestyle. She was named the U.S. swimmer of the year after winning five national titles, eight NCAA titles, and six Pan-Pacific titles and is also a 12-time U.S. national champion. In 1995, she won the 100- meter freestyle and 100-meter butterfly at the world championships despite breaking her arm. At the young age of 23, Jenny now ties skater Bonnie Blair as the American woman with the highest number of Olympic gold medals. The Olympic games are the crowning achievement of an athlete's career--the best meet the best from around the world. Years of training culminate in just a few weeks of competition in which dreams are fulfilled, records are broken, and champions are made. Jenny is one such champion with her three gold medals and two Olympic records. Dover will welcome their hometown girl as she returns on August 10 with a celebration and, appropriately, the dedication of a swimming pool in her name. Jenny has proven herself an athlete and a winner. She has the admiration and pride of the New Hampshire seacoast and we are indeed proud of her. It is with pride that I congratulate the women's relay teams and our shining New Hampshire star, Jenny Thompson.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Dr. William Wheeler for receiving New Hampshire's Superintendent of the Year Award. William has served his schools with pride and dedication, always putting the best interests of New Hampshire's children first. As a former teacher and school board chairman myself, I am proud to congratulate him for receiving this prestigious award. William received his doctorate in education from the University of Wyoming and has been a teacher, high school principal, and assistant superintendent of schools. He is currently superintendent of school in School Administrative Unit No. 38, which serves the Monadnock Regional, Hinsdale, and Winchester Schools District. In addition, he also serves as president of the New Hampshire Schools Administrators Association. William's colleagues have always been impressed with his focus and commitment to the communities he serves. William was selected as New Hampshire's Superintendent of the Year for his leadership, communication skills, professionalism, and community involvement. He is a leader and an educator tireless in his commitment to children and community. William's efforts on behalf of New Hampshire public school children have been praised by many including the New Hampshire School Boards Association, the director of the New Hampshire School Administrator's Association, New Hampshire's Education Commissioner, and the vice president of the New Hampshire Business and Industry Association. Our Nation's children are our future and one of our greatest treasures. Our educators have been entrusted with the care and development of these young minds and are the guardians of this treasure. As superintendent, William has done an excellent job coordinating the schools in his care. His outstanding performance is reflected in the quality of the schools in his district and the respect and admiration he has earned from fellow educators. I commend William Wheeler for a career of distinction in the field of education. New Hampshire is fortunate to have such a talented and dedicated educator devoted to our children.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Let me tell you what I think is wrong with it. You are hoping that this works, and it may. No one can answer that question today. But it didn't work in Europe until after communism fell. I don't think that you can bifurcate law saying what is here on one side, business law, is good and not abiding by the rule of law in terms of its treatment of its own people, in terms of imprisoning people without having them charged. I don't think you can bifurcate those things and say this is OK and we will just overlook this.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SMITH. Let me just briefly respond. The Senator from Louisiana is correct in terms of waivers being applied in the past for countries. I think he mentioned Colombia and Peru. That is true. And in most cases where such waivers were granted, it was related to narcotics, in the sense that we wanted to try to help them to stop the flow of narcotics into this country. I think if any Senator wanted to look up the background on that, they would find out that is the reason for the waiver. I think in most cases they were voted on, these waivers, in the Senate, and not tucked into a foreign operations bill. Let me also say I am all for Vietnam coming around to the rule of law. I hope it happens before the end of my speech. But is it happening? If they supported the rule of law they would have free elections. The last time I looked I do not think there are free elections in Vietnam. If they supported the rule of law they would not be imprisoning people throughout their country without charging them with anything. So, to say we are going to put $1.5 million of taxpayers' money into this trade council to get into Vietnam to encourage them to live by the rule of law, we could make the same argument with Cuba. How about North Korea or Libya? Why do we not pump a few million dollars in there and see if we can get them to abide by the rule of law? Let me also respond to the position regarding assistance. For Eastern Europe, true, we do provide that kind of assistance. But Eastern Europe is not Vietnam. Eastern Europe broke out from under the yoke of communism. They are struggling democracies. They have gotten out from under this Communist tyranny. It is true and I support it. It is true we should provide and I support providing moneys to help those countries to set up a rule of law and to set up a viable free enterprise, free market system, and to continue to grow out from under the yoke of communism which they are doing so well right now. That is a different situation. They first must make the decision that they want the rule of law. When they make the decision that they want the rule of law, then they deserve help. And they made that decision when they threw the Soviet Union out, when they broke up the Soviet Union and threw out the Communist tyranny. Vietnam has not made that decision, unfortunately. Not only have they not made it, they have criticized us pretty openly in recent times, criticized the President of the United States, criticized this Senator, Senator Helms, and criticized others in the so-called Helms-Burton amendment here regarding our treatment of Cuba.

Mr. SMITH. Certainly.

Mr. SMITH. I do not know that you can say emphatically and without any doubt that Vietnam is ready to embrace the rule of law. I think, if I understand this amendment and I understand the debate here, it is more likely that we are trying to encourage them through these dollars to embrace the rule of law and to make it easier for companies who do business there to do so under some legal system. That would be my interpretation of it. I do not think Vietnam has embraced the rule of law and said we will embrace the rule of law if you provide us this $1.5 million. My point is, I say to my friend, the issue here is really: Have they made the decision and is it fair for us to put $1.5 million in aid in there when we have this money that is already owed us? Why make an exception? That is the issue.

Mr. SMITH. No.

Mr. SMITH. What I am saying is I think the right approach is to say to Vietnam, ``You owe us $150 million. Let's work out a payment schedule instead of avoiding it and ducking it. Let's work out a payment schedule to return the $150 million that you owe us,'' and once that schedule is set up and we begin to see payments coming back for that, then we can work with them to try to help them set up a legal code that not only applies to helping big business or business do business in Vietnam, but also helps the people of Vietnam who are suffering at the hands of a system that does not really have a rule of law.

Mr. SMITH. I think we would say to the Vietnamese Government, ``We want you to repay.''

Mr. SMITH. The American Bar Association, I say to my friend, certainly has the financial capability to send lawyers to Vietnam to sit down and discuss with them how they might set up a legal system without having $1.5 million of the American taxpayers' money. The American Bar Association donates tens of millions of dollars to political campaigns, frankly in my friend's party more than my own. I think they certainly have the capability of $1.5 million to go over there, if that is important to them, to set up this business structure. But it would help also that instead of just setting up a business structure to see to it that profits can be made, I hope they also will work on helping these poor, unfortunate souls who sit in prisons for years and years and years without even having charges brought against them because there is no legal system. That is my point. This is not a situation where we go back and replay the normalization argument or the MFN argument or diplomatic relations argument. That is over. But I do think we need to make a statement that this country is still a hard-line Communist regime. I have been there. I love the Vietnamese people. I have traveled all over Vietnam. I have friends there, people I have met. I like the Vietnamese people. I think they would benefit from a good legal system in that country. I don't think just providing $1.5 million in aid is the way to get it. That is the issue. The issue is very simple, you either support $1.5 million in foreign aid to a country that still owes us $150 million that is a hard-line Communist regime or you don't. If you feel that is justified, then you vote against my amendment. I yield the floor, Mr. President. Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.

Mr. SMITH. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter of support for the amendment from the American Legion.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, other than that, I have no further comments.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Helms as a cosponsor.