Bob Smith

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. The distinguished chairman, Senator Thurmond, has asked for a little of my time, so I will just conclude by saying, if we lose this vote and lose this technology and end this technology, ASAT, it, in my opinion, will be a direct threat to the thousands of American men and women all over the world who wear the uniforms of the Armed Forces of the United States. It is an unprecedented erosion of our constitutional prerogative. When we take the oath to the Constitution, we take an oath to protect and defend America. This protects and defends America. I have been hearing a lot of this talk. I have heard some of it already, and we will hear a lot more, about how we are going to do this stuff with lasers, disable all these satellites with laser technology, that that is the thing of the future. It might be, but it is not here yet. What are we going to do here in between? For those who might not care about the military application--or maybe you care about space junk--kinetic energy ASAT disables satellites. It does not break them up into hundreds of pieces and create space junk. It disables them. It is a very important point. I would think the Senate would want to think long and hard before ending this technology because this amendment will do that. That is what it is designed to do. There will be another amendment coming to cut the funding off just in case this one does not work. We face that every year. I want to conclude on this point, Mr. President. I have been on the Armed Services Committee here in the U.S. Senate under Democrat and Republican leadership. We have fought this fight every year. And Democrats, when they were in the majority, were some of the strongest supporters on that committee of this program. This is not a Republican-Democrat issue here. This is a national security issue. It deserves to be supported. Why some in the administration have taken the position that it ought not to be, and some in the Senate, I do not know. But I know this is dangerous. This is a dangerous amendment. I do not say that about very many amendments on this floor. This is a dangerous amendment. This could cost American lives, and not too far in the distant future either. This could be very close in the immediate future. This could cost American lives. We have the technology to disable satellites. We ought to use it. It is proven. We have expended roughly two-thirds of the money. It is in place. The military supports it. And those policymakers who do not are ill-advised. They are wrong. They are absolutely wrong. We have an obligation to stand up and be heard on this, when these kinds of things happen. So I am proud to say, Mr. President, that I support this program, not for any parochial reasons, but for national security reasons. I am standing here on the floor today because this system works. It is necessary for the security of the United States of America. It protects American lives. It ought to be funded fully. It ought not to be in any way diminished. So I ask my colleagues, please, do not fall for this faulty line, this false information, and to support kinetic energy ASAT. I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, some things are very predictable around here. One of the most predictable is that somebody every year gets up there in the authorization debate and tries to kill the ASAT Program. This is not a harmless amendment. This is a very serious amendment that can do damage to the national security of the United States. I might say very bluntly and honestly, I do not have any parochial interest in this. I have a national interest in this. There is not anybody working on this in my State. It is not a jobs issue in my State. This is a national security matter, and year after year I stand up and engage in debate on this, and in committee, as the opponents continue to go after this program. This amendment is designed to kill ASAT, to kill the kinetic energy program plain and simple. That is exactly what it is designed to do. That is what they are trying to do. We have invested $245 million in this program. We have 2 years left, at approximately $75 million a year, to complete this program. This technology works. It has already been tested. It works. We are going to throw it down the tube, throw it away. What is ironic to me is that some of the things that Senator Bingaman has said on this issue are reasonable. In fact, I offered to work with the Senator in committee to address his concerns over the section dealing with the space architect. But, we could not reach a compromise. There was no interest in having a compromise. He wants the whole thing. He wants to defeat it. So here we are again, rather than simply addressing the concerns that he has over the space architect issue, the Senator from New Mexico now is going after the entire program--all or nothing. The truth is, this amendment circumvents the authorization and appropriations process totally. It allows the space architect to singlehandedly decide if the Pentagon spends the money that has been authorized and appropriated in both 1996 and 1997 for ASAT. That is an assault on the jurisdiction of this committee, the Armed Services Committee, and the Appropriations Committee. There is a process in place, a correct process, to seek reprogramming or rescissions, and that works pretty well around here. But to say that the space architect, whose identity I would venture to say very few of my colleagues even know, can decide whether or not he wants to comply with the law, this represents an enormous erosion of the Senate's jurisdiction and particularly that of the Armed Services and Appropriations Committees. We voted on this issue many times, both Republicans and Democrats, under Democrat control, under Republican control. The Senate has always gone on record in support of this program, and yet the assaults continue. The Armed Forces have testified that they need this capability. The Armed Forces have said they need this capability. The taxpayers have invested millions in its development. Now, when we are so close to completing the program, why kill it? You should not kill it on the money, because you have invested so much, but more important-- much more important--you should not kill it because of the technology. Let us talk a little bit about why it makes no sense to kill it and why it is a threat to our national security to do that. The global spread of advanced satellite technology has made it possible for countries to obtain this high-definition imagery for satellites in low orbit or to buy that information. This data is crucial because in a future conflict, the United States has to be able to neutralize a hostile satellite. How are you going to do that? This is how you do it, with kinetic energy ASAT. But at present, we do not have that capability. We simply do not have the capability. If you think back, during the gulf war, the Iraqi Air Force was destroyed or forced out of the air in the first few days of fighting, and Iraq had no reconnaissance capability. This lack of Iraqi overhead surveillance made it possible for the allies to mass their forces and sweep across the desert to bring a swift conclusion to a war that could have cost thousands--thousands --of American casualties. Gen. Charles Horner, Desert Storm air commander, said that the diplomacy that we used convinced France and Russia not to sell reconnaissance data to Iraq. Suppose they had it? We had no way to stop them with that kind of reconnaissance. ASAT destroys those satellites, Mr. President. Why would anyone want to stop that technology? Satellites that can be placed up in the air, over the Earth in low orbit with a capability to spy on the United States, spy on our forces, collect data, transmit data, what does ASAT do? What does this satellite do? It disables. It disables that satellite and keeps that enemy from collecting that information. Why would anyone want to deny the United States of America the capability to do that? It baffles me. I cannot understand it. Every year, year after year, we have to take the same position--for 6 years I have done it--defending this system, while those in this Congress and some in the administration try to kill it, try to kill the capability of the United States to take out a satellite that could destroy American forces. Some say, ``Well, nobody out there has any capability for satellites. What do we need ASAT for?'' According to the U.S. Space Command, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Great Britain, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Mexico, Norway, Pakistan, Portugal, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, Turkey, and Ukraine, to name 30. They do not have any capability? It is out there, folks. You say some of those are friendly countries. That is right, and they sell this technology and there are a lot of people out there buying it. ``Why not just jam them?'' they say. We do not have the capability to do that. A U.S. antisatellite capability--and this is a very important point, I cannot emphasize this strongly enough to my colleagues--is a disincentive for a potential adversary to spend their resources on military satellites. A U.S. kinetic energy ASAT could help constrain the proliferation of such systems. Why would somebody want to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to develop satellites to put in space to spy on us or to use to collect data against our forces if they know we can disable them or disarm them? The chances are they will not. Yet, here we are, here we are, saying, ``Let's kill the program.'' Russia leads the world in space launches of military satellites. Ukraine is building a series of radar satellites. China is launching military recon satellites and have been doing it for 20 years. They are selling space launches and satellite technology all over the world. United Arab Emirates reportedly has ordered a military reconnaissance satellite from a consortium of Russian firms. On and on and on, and yet we stand here on the floor today having to defend attacks on us, those who support this system. I have had enough of it, Mr. President, to be very blunt about it. I have had enough of it. I am tired of it. I think it is outrageous that people come down on this floor and put our forces at risk to try to kill the technology that works, that protects us. Let me repeat, had Saddam Hussein had the capability, had he had these satellites, we would have lost thousands of Americans because we could not have disabled them. We have the technology. It works. Why are we not using it? It does not make any sense, Mr. President, not to continue this technology. This technology was designed, developed, manufactured, and integrated under the Kinetic Energy ASAT Demonstration Validation Program from 1990 to 1993 and ground tested, and it works. Here we are having to defend it from these attacks. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. SMITH. I believe under the request I had 20 minutes. Probably very close to that amount of time. Privilege Of The Floor

Mr. SMITH. I concur with Senator Warner's earlier statement, that the $15 million for the Starstreak evaluation should be placed in PE 63003A and be provided for the purpose of continuing the Starstreak evaluation. As chairman of the Acquisition and Technology Subcommittee, I am pleased to join my colleagues in working to bring this development program to a successful conclusion. The position and legislative intent of the committee as articulated in this colloquy will supersede that expressed in the committee report. Appropriate corrections will be made during conference on this bill with the House of Representatives, and the Army will be notified of our position on this issue.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. SMITH. There is no objection on this side, and we have no objection to voice voting. I do have a few remarks I will make. Subsequent to that, we can proceed to do that. Prior to that, Mr. President, in regard to the previous unanimous consent for a vote at 2:15, there are some Members who apparently are tied up at a White House meeting. I ask unanimous consent that the vote which was previously scheduled for 2:15 now occur at 2:30 today.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Kim Yarmo, a sixth-grader at Amherst Street School in Nashua, NH, for receiving the honor of Girl of the Year Award from Girls, Inc. Girls, Inc. is an organization open to girls between the ages of 5 and 18 and dedicated to the empowerment of young women. The programs are designed to help girls compensate for neglect they sometimes suffer in the development of skills in certain areas, such as sports or subjects such as math and science. Kim's parents thought that the program would help her overcome the difficulties of growing up with three brothers and no sister. Selection for both Girl of the Month and Girl of the Year is based upon several qualities: cooperative attitude, enthusiasm, steady attendance, positive attitude, leadership skills, and outstanding ability to interact with staff and peers. Kim was chosen by the local Girls, Inc. staff and all of the 4 to 500 girls in the program as Girl of the Year. She was chosen from a group of 12 girls who had been named Girl of the Month during 1 of the past 12 months. Kim will represent Girls, Inc. at special events throughout the next year. Kim is known by her peers for her helping ways, including assisting her peers with homework and reading. She is a responsible and caring young lady who understands the definition of teamwork. Kim is a leader and I am proud to call her one of New Hampshire's own. Young women like Kim are important to the future of New Hampshire and the future of this Nation. I congratulate her as the recipient of Girls, Inc.'s Girl of the Year award.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to commend Dean Kamen, New Hampshire's Business Leader of the Year for 1996, president of DEKA Research and Development, and founder of U.S. First. I congratulate him for his record of excellence in business and community development. Business NH Magazine and the Association of Chamber of Commerce Executives sponsor an annual event to recognize New Hampshire individuals and businesses making outstanding contributions to industry and community. Each year the sponsoring group receives hundreds of nominations. The exceptional quality of the entries gives testimony to the strength of Granite State businesses and the New Hampshire volunteer spirit. Dean Kamen's record of achievement is certainly worthy of this outstanding honor. His inventions hold over 30 U.S. patents, he invented a life-saving 22-pound portable kidney dialysis machine, and he created a climate control system used by NASA. Dean has been recognized by President Clinton for his accomplishments and received the Hoover Medal, an international engineering honor. Dean Kamen is a visionary who wants to change the way children view science and technology. He would like to see our Nation's children emulate scientists as much as they do sports heroes. His award-winning and community-minded contribution for this year is the U.S. First program designed to inspire American children. Children from across the Nation work with engineers and compete in a technological version of ``American Gladiators.'' Dean is working on a new project and keeping it tightly under wraps, but I look forward to hearing about it in the future. This is an outstanding record of accomplishment for this 45-year-old businessman. I wish to congratulate him for his recognition as New Hampshire's Business Leader of the Year, and I am proud to call Dean Kamen my friend.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Daniel Healy as he celebrates the completion of 50 years as a New Hampshire State lawmaker. Dan Healy is the longest serving State legislator in the history of New Hampshire and the United States. I commend him and thank him for his long career of service to the Granite State. Representative Healy, a Democrat from Manchester, currently holds the honorary title of Dean of the House. Mr. Healy is the longest serving State legislator in the history of New Hampshire and the United States. First elected in 1944, he is the only person in the state's history to be elected 25 times to the New Hampshire House. Dan is the son of an Irish immigrant, attended Georgetown School of Law and began his career as a lawyer. He has seen the terms of 11 Presidents as well as 12 New Hampshire Governors. In addition, he was a delegate to the 1938, 1964, and 1974 constitutional conventions. He has seen the beginning and the end of the cold war in office. Daniel was serving the city of Manchester as it celebrated its 100th anniversary, and he is still serving as the city celebrates its 150th anniversary this year. Secretary of State Bill Gardener says of the 88-year-old Healy that it is his ``conservative nature and Yankee sensibility'' that brought him success and longevity. Daniel Healy's career bears the marks of dignity and distinction from its earliest days. He epitomizes the concept of public servant, faithfully representing his constituents for the past 50 years. Their confidence in him is apparent as he completes his 25th consecutive term in office. As he has been in ill health, the 50th anniversary celebration marks his first visit to the State House this year. His record of public service to the State of New Hampshire is outstanding, having devoted his life to serving the Granite State. The public trust has been and continues to be safe in the hands of Dan Healy. I commend Dan Healy for his long career of excellence in public office. He is a New Hampshire institution and I would like to take this opportunity to wish him well. I hope that New Hampshire may continue to be blessed by his faithful leadership and dedication.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding individual as he nears the end of a 40-year career as an educator. Bill Marston retires this month from his position as principal of Goffstown High School in Goffstown, NH. Mr. Marston's 15-year tenure as principal has been marked by his unfailing dedication to his students. His example of excellence and integrity, set for his students, his teachers, and his community, will endure long after his retirement. He will be remembered as a true educator in every sense of the word. An educator's job is about much more than passing along information or keeping order in the classroom. An educator provides his students with the tools they need to shape their future. Bill treated each student as an individual and was always willing to go the extra step to see a student succeed. Educators like Bill are one of our Nation's greatest treasures. They shape the future of this Nation as they shape the mind and character of our young people. Education and educators like Bill Marston give us hope for tomorrow. The young people whose lives our Nation's educators touch each day will be the leaders of tomorrow. It is the educator who sparks interest in physics or makes civics come alive for the student. They equip the future scientists and inspire the future writers of this Nation. As a former teacher myself, I have seen the impact educators can have on the lives of students. Teachers are, in many ways, the keepers of our Nation's future, holding the promise of tomorrow in their hands. By all accounts, Bill Marston has been an exemplary educator, both as teacher and as administrator. The job of an administrator is not always an easy one. By keeping the best interests of the students at heart, Bill set an example he can be proud of. Bill, however, was more than an administrator. He was a leader. He always acted with integrity and earned the respect of his community. The influence of his leadership will surely be felt long after his retirement. I commend Bill Marston for his career of distinction in the field of education. New Hampshire is fortunate to have such a talented and dedicated educator shaping its future generation.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the people of Hudson, NH, on their town's 250th anniversary. The town's residents will begin celebrating this historic occasion on June 21 with a number of festivities including a grand ball, parade, and block party events. I was proud to participate in this meaningful celebration. Hudson's history first dates back to the year 1672 when families first settled in the Hudson area. On July 5, 1746, then Governor and Command in Chief Benning Wentworth signed the town's first charter. As Hudson and the surrounding areas began to grow, the first bridge was built across the Merrimack River there in 1827. Many descendants of the town's first settlers still live in Hudson. Near the end of the 18th century, Simon Robinson settled on the north side of the pond later named the Robinson Pond. Originally, the pond was called Little Massabesic meaning the place of much water. Some of Simon Robinson's descendants still reside there. In addition, James Hills was one of the three brothers credited with being the first settlers in the town and his great-grandson settled on Alvirne, the old 181 acre Derry Road homestead, and had several children. Hudson opened their first library in 1797. The Nottingham West Social Library was founded during that year, and served the town residents for 50 years. In 1856, the Hudson Center Library opened its doors. Then, in 1891, Adoniram Greeley gave his private collection of 1,878 books to the town. The library was renamed the Greeley Public Library and in 1908, Alfred Hills donated money for the construction of a new library, the Hills Memorial Library. Today, the 20,000 people of Hudson still exhibit the Yankee traditions and commonsense values of their forefathers. The first school houses were built in Hudson in 1806. Since then, the school system has grown steadily to include three elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school. Alvirne High School has 1,032 students in grades 9 through 12, including 349 students from Litchfield. The police department has 50 officers and staff, the fire department has 28 full-time firemen and 26 volunteer firemen. The town also has a board of selectmen form of government. I congratulate the town of Hudson, and all of the dedicated and patriotic citizens there. I am proud to be their Senator.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Madam President, I am here to talk about Senator Dole when the Senator is finished on the budget matter.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Madam President, today I rise to join so many of my colleagues in a tribute to my friend and my leader, Senator Bob Dole, who, as we all know, is leaving the Senate today, June 11, 1996. As a former history teacher, I could not help but sense the historical significance of this day. It really was a flashback to the old days of the great oratory that took place on the Senate floor, with the likes of Calhoun and Clay and others, when Bob Dole took the podium that he so many times has stood at and addressed the U.S. Senate. You could hear a pin drop in the Chamber and in the gallery, not always the case here on the Senate floor, with a lot of hustling and bustling and talking and people not paying attention. That was not the case today. Senator Bob Dole took that podium, addressed the country, the Chair, his colleagues and friends, many, many staff in the galleries, and the Chamber was hushed and quiet and everybody was listening--as well they should, Madam President, because when the history books are written, they will write about the great Senators who have occupied this Chamber: Henry Clay, John C. Calhoun, Bob La Follette, Robert Taft and, yes, Daniel Webster. Daniel Webster used this very desk, Madam President, that I now have the privilege of speaking from. It reminds me that we are just a brief blip on the radar screen of time; here for only an instant. But Bob Dole is one of the great ones, and he will be remembered as one of the great ones. As a history student, I tried to catch a sense of what was happening. I looked at faces, watched people in this Chamber, as I watched, at the same time, Senator Dole. Without singling anybody out by name, I could not help but notice one page, a young lady, standing here on the floor of the Chamber during that speech and after the speech with tears running down her cheeks. It really was a very moving tribute to the kind of person Bob Dole is, because he commands the respect of not only his colleagues but every single man, woman, youngster, page. He could talk to a page as easily as he could talk to a President or world leader. That is what makes him such a great man. Today, he left the Senate to move on to other things. I remember many emotional private goodbyes that he shared with his colleagues. I remember when we had the meeting when he told us he was leaving. Most of us did not expect him to do it. If we were honest, we would say we did not expect him to say that. We thought he might leave the leadership post but not the Senate. But when he did it, and the way he told us, we knew it was the right thing. We knew it was right, because he needed to be out there debating, not other Senators on the floor of the Senate, but the President of the United States for the Presidency. We all knew that. Today, I think you saw with the type of speech that Bob Dole gave the kind of person he is: humble, gracious, and humorous, that great sense of humor. In all the tough battles we have here, he still finds that humor, which has always been a remarkable characteristic. So he is leaving the Senate. But he left today after that speech with the longest applause that I have ever seen given anyone in this Chamber or in the House Chamber. I have seen Presidents when we have gone to the State of the Union--great Presidents--receive a lot of ovations. I have never seen anybody receive a longer ovation than Bob Dole received here today, and that is a tribute to this great man who was elected to the House of Representatives where, Madam President, you and I both served together. He was elected in 1960 and served four terms in the House before he was elected to the U.S. Senate, which really has come to be, the past 27 years, his home. But he gave nearly 36 years of service to the State of Kansas and to the people of the United States of America. When you think about that many years of public service and reflect on the fact there is not one word or taint of scandal in any way, shape, or form, an unblemished, perfect political record, it is remarkable. He served his country and the Senate and the people with humor, with humility, and we will never forget him. His wife, Elizabeth, who has been by his side for so many years, is such a gracious woman and such an asset to Bob Dole. Those who serve here know how important the support of your family is as you put in the long, long hours that we have to endure in the Senate. Bob Dole said today in his remarks, ``My word is my bond.'' That is what it is all about. It is character. It is integrity and character. If you leave here, the legacy you leave, if no one says anything about you other than when he gave his word he kept it, you cannot do any better than that. I tried to think about what I might say here as my tribute in my own way, because so many people have so many wonderful things to say about this great man. I just want to share a couple of personal things, because they are important to me and I think it captures my feeling about Bob Dole. I come from a military family. My father served in World War II as a naval aviator and was killed at the end of the war, leaving my mother as a widow to raise my brother and me. She did that alone. I lost my dad, as I say, in World War II, and Bob Dole nearly lost his life in that same war. Severely injured, he had to fight his way back, not only from the brink of death but after that, paralysis, and became a U.S. Senator. But we, the sons and daughters of that generation, those of us who had parents who were in that war, World War II, we know, we are grateful. Perhaps we know and are a little bit more grateful than others for what they did and the sacrifices they made and how important they were to save the world from tyranny. It took heroes like Bob Dole--and he was a hero, he is a hero --it took heroes like Bob Dole to make that happen. We owe him, and thousands of others like him, a huge debt of gratitude for their service and their sacrifice to our country, because when the call came, they stepped up and they stopped tyranny. So Bob Dole did not get here the easy way. We hear a lot of stories about how everybody in the Senate is rich and everybody gets here the easy way and you live this great life, but Bob Dole made it the hard way. You cannot help but admire and respect a man like that. I turned to him in 1993 to be a part of one of the most personal and meaningful experiences of my entire life, and I want to share that with my colleagues and with the American people. When my father died in 1945, it was 2 days before my fourth birthday, so I only have two memories of my dad. My brother has no memories of our dad, because he was less than a year old. I had always wanted to have my father buried at Arlington, but I never wanted to bring that subject up with my mother because he was not buried at Arlington and I did not want to put my mother through that experience of having his remains moved from where he was buried in New Jersey to come here to Arlington where I believe he would have liked to have been laid to rest. So I put it off. Then in May 1993, my mother passed away. She used to say she was a one-man woman, and she was. She never remarried after she lost my dad. But she always would go by the cemetery and she would say, ``Put me there with him so that we can be together forever.'' When I made the decision to bury my parents--both of them--at Arlington National Cemetery in May 1993, I asked Senator Dole if he would have the time to come and give a few remarks at that service. Within a matter of minutes, the response came back: ``Of course.'' I asked Bob Dole to say just a few words. I listened as this man made connections to my parents that I just could not believe anyone could do so spontaneously. He did not know my mother. He did not know my father. But I listened to Bob Dole say very movingly of how my father had stood guard in the night and how he had made the ultimate sacrifice. I listened as he spoke of how my mother had stood guard here at home when my father went away to war. I listened, Madam President, and I knew how proud my father and mother were, looking down from Heaven to see this American hero, Bob Dole, speaking at their memorial service in Arlington National Cemetery. He even made the connection my dad served on the U.S.S. Wichita,. He said, ``Any man who would serve on the U.S.S. Wichita,, named after a city in Kansas, had to be a great man.'' He made that ceremony so personal that many of my relatives came up to me afterwards and said, ``Did Senator Dole know your parents?'' I said, ``I think he did. I really think he did.'' So holding Bob Dole in the esteem I do, I was honored that only 8 months into my first term in the Senate, Senator Dole selected me to be vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs. It was a great honor for me to serve in that capacity. I shall always be grateful to Bob Dole for giving me that opportunity. Of course, he also selected me for the Ethics Committee, and I may hold that against him for a little while. But, Madam President, in 1994, I had another moving experience. I attended the 50th anniversary commemoration of D-day at Normandy. I saw there a sight that I will never ever forget. My wife Mary Jo and I went, and Bob Dole went as well. He retraced his steps in Italy. To see him there back with those people who helped to save his life, and to walk those hills where he was wounded, and then to go to Normandy after he left Italy, to the beaches of Normandy with those rows and rows and rows of crosses, and to think of the sacrifices, and men in wheelchairs, men with lost limbs, hugging, saluting this man--it was a great honor just to be there for the celebration of Normandy, but to be there in the company of Bob Dole, I shall always be grateful to Senator Dole for giving me that opportunity. I have never seen such admiration, gratitude, respect, and love as there was for that man. They loved him. They absolutely loved him. Another just little thing, but last summer I had two young interns, just college kids, Jennifer Kilgus and Greg Annis. They were walking down the corridor of the Capitol, just taking a walk. They decided to stop in to the majority leader's office just to say they went in there, hoping maybe they might have the chance to meet Bob Dole. Not only did he agree to see them with no appointment, but in the midst of a very busy schedule he spent 15 minutes talking to them, two young interns in his office, giving them the thrill of their lives. That is the kind of man Bob Dole is. That is why there were tears in the eyes of that page when Bob Dole said he was leaving. Finally, Madam President, as the senior Senator from New Hampshire, I cannot help but note that somehow Bob Dole has managed to spend quite a bit of time in New Hampshire over the past few years. He lost a tough primary in New Hampshire but went across the Nation with a stunning series of smashing primary victories as he won the Republican nomination for President. Gracious in defeat and gracious in victory. He has been to New Hampshire just to enjoy its beautiful lakes and mountains and countrysides. Perhaps, Madam President, you never know, there might even be a summer White House in New Hampshire someplace. Final anecdote. I remember Senator Dole, I believe 2 years ago, saying to me, ``You know, my Elizabeth would really like to go water- skiing. But we would really not like to have a crowd around. Could you arrange that so that we didn't have to have a bunch of people with cameras so she could relax and enjoy herself?'' And we did. She is a great water-skier, too. So, Madam President, I join my colleagues in saying farewell, but not goodbye, to Bob Dole. The last thing I said to Senator Bob Dole on the floor of the Senate, as I shook his hand after his remarks, was, ``I'll see you at your swearing in for President on the West Front of the Capitol on January 20, 1997.'' He said, ``I'll be there.'' I said, ``I know you will, Mr. President.'' I have been proud to serve with Bob Dole in the U.S. Senate. I will be prouder still next year to fight as a Senator to help President Bob Dole pass the agenda that he dreams about for America. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter that Senator Dole read at my parents' funeral be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Madam President. A famous President not too long ago, Ronald Reagan, said, ``Here we go again.'' Here we go again, back with the same debate we heard last year in November, that somehow we do not need a balanced budget amendment, because all we have to do is balance the budget, show the political will, get the job done, make the tough decisions. That is what we hear over and over and over and over. As has been said all day in this debate, the truth of the matter is, in spite of the rhetoric, the political will is not here, and it has not been here, which is why we must have the amendment. I have just been fascinated, since I had the opportunity to be around the floor for the last couple of hours, both as a presider and just listening, to hear some of this rhetoric regarding the balanced budget amendment, the number of excuses as to why we do not need the amendment. It is incredible. There is one right after the other: We do not need it; it is unnecessary; we can balance the budget, make the tough decisions; just need the political will. Yet, when it came down to doing it, we put a balanced budget on the desk of the President of the United States and he vetoed it. We have not been able to get a balanced budget passed. So we need the amendment. It is as simple as that. When the balanced budget amendment was before the Senate in 1995, we were told then that an amendment to the Constitution was not necessary, as we had been told many times before, if Congress did its work. Congress is not doing its work, and, therefore, we need the amendment. It is interesting as to just what this amendment does. I think the American people should understand, and it has been said on the floor before, but we are simply asking people to vote tomorrow to let the States and the people decide whether they want to amend the Constitution of the United States. No amendment passes here tomorrow. We do not have an amendment if the Senate gets 67 votes. That does not happen. What happens when we vote here tomorrow is that this will then go to the States where three- quarters of the State legislatures would have to agree. That is all we are asking to do. We are simply asking this Congress, who at times appears to have this know-it-all attitude, to send this back to the States. Let the States decide whether they want to amend the Constitution. If they say no, there is no amendment. I campaigned for a balanced budget when I first ran for political office in 1980. The national debt was nowhere near $5 trillion then. And 16 years later--16 years later--we are still debating the proposal, trillions and trillions of dollars added to the debt since that time. To hear the rhetoric in here, you would think it was not important, it did not matter, we do not need an amendment. Why would anyone like myself and others devote more than a decade of time to fight for this balanced budget amendment or to fight for a balanced budget, either one? The answer is very simple. I am going to take a different approach here. We have heard a lot of speeches today. If some people have listened all day, they have probably heard a lot of things repeated. I am going to take a different approach. This is going to come from the people, not from this Senate, not from this Senator, not from some bureaucracy in Washington. I want to say what impact this amendment to the Constitution will have on the people of this country, ordinary men and women, all over America. I want everyone to know what balancing the budget will do to their lives, the lives of every single American man and woman in a very real and very tangible way. The Senator from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe, had a picture here of his grandson on the floor moments ago. That child has an $18,000 debt today. There will be hundreds of children born here in America during my remarks on the Senate floor today. Each one will be born $18,000- plus in debt. That is their share of the national debt. Is that fair? Is that fair to that child? Is that fair for us to do that? I was listening very carefully to the Senator from Wisconsin a moment ago. Is it really so unfair of us to ask that the people who are suffering the brunt of this debt have the opportunity to say whether or not they want an amendment? Is that so bad? I cannot understand why those with this know-it-all attitude in Washington would take that position. Again, I repeat, no amendment becomes an amendment because we vote for it with 67 or more votes tomorrow. All we are asking is that that little child who really cannot vote yet that the Senator from Oklahoma referred to moments ago, through his family, have the right to say through their State legislature in Oklahoma and 49 other States whether or not they want to amend the Constitution because the politicians are not getting the job done. That is all we are asking. It is very clear that we understand that. That is all we are asking. I just announced recently for reelection to the U.S. Senate, a great honor. My seat in this Senate does not belong to me. It belongs to the people of New Hampshire. Right over there on the floor--I am not using it at this moment--is Daniel Webster's desk. Daniel Webster's desk is one of the few original desks in this Senate Chamber. I often speak from it. I often write on it, write letters to constituents on it. I think about the fact that I am just a temporary steward at that desk, just a blip on the radar screen of eternity. That is all we are. Sometimes we think that we are a big deal in here, we are in the U.S. Senate and we are very important people. But you know, in the scope of things, we are really not all that important. In the radar screen of life, of eternity, we are a blip, a very small blip at that. Daniel Webster stood at that desk on the floor of the U.S. Senate in the old Chamber and gave some of the greatest speeches of all time. Webster and Calhoun and Clay were some of the great orators. He stood at that desk. But, again, Daniel Webster was a blip on the radar screen of eternity. So we have an obligation. We are only here a brief time. But think about what we are doing to the children and the grandchildren and their grandchildren. The distinguished Senator from Illinois, Senator Simon, who spoke while I was in the chair, gave a very eloquent speech. He said in jest, the Senator from New Hampshire probably had never been invited to a Jefferson dinner or a Jackson dinner because they were usually chaired by the Democrats, who obviously look at Jackson and Jefferson as heroes. I look at Jackson and Jefferson as heroes. I am not a Democrat, but I would not hesitate to go to a dinner honoring Jackson or Jefferson. But this party that leads the defeat of this amendment is not the party of Jackson and Jefferson, I can assure you. Jackson and Jefferson would be for the balanced budget amendment. Jefferson already, early in his life, right after the Constitution was formed and written and the Government was formed, spoke out saying he felt it was a mistake that we did not have an amendment to balance the budget. So I am often asked what is it like, what I do like the most about being a U.S. Senator. Boy, I could say a lot of things. I have met Presidents. I have met foreign leaders. I walk around here with some of the great Senators of our time. You can really get an ego about that if you want to, but I do not. I really do not. You know, without hesitation, when I am asked that question --and I am asked it often--I say every time, I like being a Senator because I enjoy helping people. That is the truth. We get a chance to help people get through this maze of bureaucracy, whether it is an immigration case or perhaps some other matter where somebody is having a tough time with the Federal Government, perhaps a veteran or whatever. I think about what does that have to do with this debate on the balanced budget? We can help people. We can help people by balancing this budget more than a million cases that we might resolve in our offices, more than 10 million cases that we might resolve in our offices. We can help the American people, like little Jason, whose picture was on the floor here with Senator Inhofe a moment ago, and millions of others, men, women and children, because the Joint Economic Committee estimates that a balanced budget would create 4.25 million jobs, new jobs in America, upon its passage. That is 4 million people working, 4 million people feeding their families, not on welfare--obviously, taken off welfare if they were on it--providing revenue to the U.S. Treasury, to provide funds to do something good, hopefully, for someone else. That is 4.25 million new jobs if we pass the balanced budget. Those are not Government jobs, my colleagues. They are not here in Washington. They are jobs all across America as a result of the spurt in economic activity that would occur because that amendment passed. The American people do not want a Government handout. They never have. They want to work hard. They want the opportunity to earn a decent living and be left alone. ``Leave us alone. Let us earn our way through life. We don't want you to give us handouts. We want you to get out of the way. You are here to protect us, to defend us. And you're not protecting us and you're not defending us when you run us into debt and you give it to our children, $5 trillion.'' That is today. If you think of debt today as a hockey stick, the first 200 years of our Nation was the toe of that hockey stick, and the next 10 or 15 were the handle of the stick. It goes up like this. Then the next 10 or 15 we are going to go so far out of the way, $10, $15 trillion, that, as others have already said many times today, we will file the equivalent of chapter 11, bankruptcy. It will happen. Then what happens to our grandchildren? The debate is about our grandchildren and their children. It is about simply asking those young folks and their parents and relatives to have the opportunity to vote through their legislatures to pass or reject a constitutional amendment. That is all this debate is about on the Senate floor. Anybody who says anything else is simply not accurate. What else does a balanced budget do for those people out there who work, those whom we represent? How about our sons and daughters who go to get a good education in college? I have a daughter who just graduated from Lafayette College in Easton, PA, on May 19. The cost was roughly $100,000 in 4 years. In higher education, whether it is public or private, it is not cheap, obviously. It is going up. Now, think about those 21-22-23-year-olds who earned their diplomas last month, or perhaps a few this month. Many of them are facing, today, an uncertain job market. Why is it uncertain? Because of the fiscal irresponsibility of this Government, for one thing. I have already mentioned how a balanced budget can help in their job search because we can create another 4.25 million jobs. Maybe they would get one. Assume for a moment one of the graduates is fortunate and finds a good job, and he or she probably has a few student loans that need repayment. Lower interest rates from a balanced budget would save on the average 10-year student loan for a 4-year private college, an average figure, a 10-year student loan, get the loan for 10 years, going to a 4-year private college, if the budget were balanced, the lowering of interest rates that would occur from balancing the Federal budget would save that recipient of that loan nearly $9,000 in that 10- year loan--$8,885 to be exact. When the American people are told about cuts in education or informed of a new proposal to provide a $1,500 tax credit for tuition, they should take the news with a grain of salt. The President vetoed a balanced budget that would reduce student loan costs by $9,000. That is what he vetoed. To atone for the veto, the President then says we will give everybody a $1,500 tax credit so they can go to college. If these kids paid off their student loan, and they could pay them off faster with $8,000 or $9,000 less, there is more money available to the student loan pot to those coming along. Bill Cosby, in a graduation speech at my daughter's graduation, said, ``Pay off your student loans.'' That was his advice. Pay off the student loans. If you do, others will follow you and they will have the opportunity to get an education. If you had $9,000 less in interest on those loans you could pay them off a heck of a lot faster. That is what the balanced budget amendment means to them. A balanced budget will do more for education in America than any tuition tax credit, any Government loans, or, frankly, Goals 2000. It is 9,000 bucks in the pockets of that young man or woman, just from passing balancing the budget. I used to be a schoolteacher. I think I know about education. I was a schoolteacher, a school board member, and a father for 21 years. I think I know a little bit about education. Do not take my word for it. Ask any students who graduated a few weeks ago and they will tell you the same thing. A balanced budget will dramatically improve the lives of those young men and women who are just getting started in life. That is why we were elected, to help people. This helps people. This is not a vague, opaque kind of mysterious concept we are debating here on the floor of the Senate today. This affects every man, woman, and child in America directly. There are many families in New Hampshire working two or three jobs just to make ends meet, as I am sure there are in Oregon, Texas, and everywhere else. They do it to put food on the table and pay the mortgages. The mortgage payment comes due every month, rain or shine, sickness or health. It is the largest bill most Americans ever pay. Think about this for a moment. That is the biggest line item in your entire family budget other than the money you pay to the Federal Government in taxes. A family in New Hampshire with an $80,000 mortgage, and you can put this in any other State, $80,000 mortgage, would save $107 each month-- each month--if the Federal books were balanced. Over the life of a 30- year loan, that family would save $38,653. Now, if someone could tell me what Government program or what act we could take here on the floor of the Senate today that would provide $38,000 in the pockets of the American people, better than that, I would like to know what it is. That is the positive spinoff of balancing the Federal budget--helping people. Again, we are talking about dramatically improving the lives of people, not just residually, dramatically helping improve the lives of the American people with a balanced budget. What Government program could do as much for the American family as a balanced budget? AmeriCorps? I do not think so. Funding for the arts? Peanut subsidies? I am afraid not. Battling the budget is what we need to do. That helps people. Madam President, there is another point that is often lost in this debate. The question before the U.S. Senate is whether or not we should send this budget to the States for ratification. Amendments to the Constitution are not just sent down Pennsylvania Avenue for a Presidential signature or for a veto. I alluded to this earlier but I want to say it again, they are sent to all 50 States, 38 legislatures, three-quarters of them must pass identical language, identical language, before this amendment becomes a part of our Constitution. Should the decision be made in Washington, DC, or Concord, NH, or Butte, MT, or wherever else--how should that decision be made? Where are the families sitting around the table? It is not here on the Senate floor in Washington, DC, where they are working their budgets out and worried about how they will make their payments. It is in the small towns and cities all over America, where families live and work and try to earn a living and want the Government to help them, but to stay out of their way. The balanced budget amendment is not a debate about accounting. It is not a debate about politics. It is not a debate about anything except real people. That is what this debate is about. What you have to ask yourself when you come down here on the floor tomorrow to vote, you have to ask yourself three or four major questions: If I vote ``no'' on the balanced budget amendment, do I help the college graduate struggling with student loans? Do I help him or her? The answer to that question is, no, you do not. You hurt them. Second, do I help the single mother who is having trouble with her mortgage payment? The answer is, no, you hurt her. I have heard people on this Senate floor on the other side of the aisle talk about their compassion for single parents and the difficulties that young women with children at home have as they try to go through life working and taking care of those children. I had a single mother because my dad died when I was 4 years old. I know what it was like. Believe me, I know what it was like for her. And it was tough. I know what it was like, and I know how much that would have meant to her to have that much more money in real income in her mortgage and perhaps to help me with my college loans had she been able to have a balanced budget. Do you help create a job for a laid off mill worker if you vote ``no?'' The answer is no, you do not. You insure that he or she will probably be laid off a little bit longer. There is no compassion there. Do you let these people and their elected representatives in the States have the opportunity to debate the merits of amending the Constitution? Do you allow them to have that opportunity? The answer is no, you do not if you vote ``no.'' You say, ``I am sorry, we do not want you to have that opportunity. We don't want it to leave here. (A) we do not want to balance the budget; (B) we do not want to help people; and (C) we do not want you to have the opportunity to talk about that in your State legislature.'' That is what you say when you vote ``no.'' What do you really say, though? Here is what you do say: Washington knows best. We have all the answers here. We can get 66 votes or less and we can beat you and you cannot get the opportunity to vote in your State. My colleagues, in conclusion, the choice is very clear. There has been a lot of emotion on the floor here these last few hours, but the choice is very clear. You want to help people? You want to really help people without a Government handout? Vote for this constitutional amendment to balance the budget because it will not get done, the budget will not be balanced without it, and you know it. I yield the floor. Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, let me close with one final observation. I feel very strongly that this issue has become a partisan political issue. It should not be a partisan political issue. We have no more fundamental or important constitutional responsibility than to provide for the defense of this country. And to be on the floor filibustering a bill that defends America, protects America from incoming missiles is an outrage. We can disagree on the degree, we can disagree on the architecture, we can disagree on the timing. But we ought not to be filibustering it. We ought to be having an up-or-down vote on it. I think everybody ought to be on record today--not having it put off, but be on record today. Are you for it, or are you against it? We ought to be recorded so the American people can judge us when the time comes. This Nation's people, treasury, and industry are vulnerable to missile attack. The technology is here. All that is lacking is the political will. We cannot delay any longer. We have to get on with the business of defending America. History, I think, will look at this debate as a key point in our Nation's history. Let us consider the consequences of our actions carefully and keep faith with the American people, who rely upon us to protect their security. They do not have anybody else to turn to. It is our responsibility, our obligation. All we are asking is that we exercise it. All the Senator from Arizona is asking for is a vote. All the Republican leader is asking for is a vote. We are not asking for anything else. We are not even asking for a victory, we are asking for a vote so that we can be recorded.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona for yielding, and rise today, Mr. President, in very strong support of the Defend America Act. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation. I commend the majority leader, Senate Dole, for bringing this bill to the attention of the Senate and to the American people. Mr. President, our Nation is walking a very dangerous tightrope. For reasons that are unknown and certainly inconceivable to most Americans, President Clinton refuses to defend our country against ballistic missiles. That is exactly what he is doing by opposing this bill, even though the technology to do so is available today. The truth is, our Nation is absolutely, completely vulnerable to ballistic missiles. We have no defense--I repeat, no defense--whatever against a missile targeted on our territory, our people, our industry, or any of our national treasures--no defense. The Patriot missiles that everyone remembers from Desert Storm 5 years ago are not capable of stopping long-range missiles. In fact, they can only defend small areas against short-range missiles. The Patriot is what we call a point-defense system that we send along with our troops when we deploy them in harm's way. Here at home, we have no defenses of any kind. We have no defense against long-range missiles from China, from Russia, from North Korea. I differ from the Senator from Nebraska. I have no idea, no idea whatever what the national security meetings, classified and confidential on North Korea, I have no idea what is going on in those meetings. Apparently, the Senator from Nebraska does. I do not know if he has somebody sitting in on them or where he gets his information, but I do not have such information, and I do not think the intelligence communities have it either. We have no defense against missiles that Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Libya are vigorously seeking to acquire-- vigorously. That is the truth. This is not some star wars program. That is an outrageous statement, as the Senator from Arizona pointed out. In this Senator's view, it is unacceptable that we would refuse to defend ourselves from this kind of technology being spread around the world to these kinds of nations. When told of this situation, the vast majority of the American people not only become upset, they become enraged. They cannot understand why their elected representatives would be willing to leave them defenseless and then stand on the floor of the U.S. Senate and advocate leaving them defenseless against the likes of people like Saddam Hussein or Mu'ammar Qadhafi. Hardly reasonable, rational, leaders in the world today, let alone Kim Jong-il whom very few of us know much about at all. They cannot understand why the tax dollars that they sometimes so reluctantly, or willingly in reluctance give up, how can they not contribute for our national defense? That is what they are asking. That is what they are asking. They have a right to be upset. There is no excuse for not defending America against ballistic missiles. The Republican Congress agrees with the American people and took action last year to defend all Americans--all Americans; not certain Americans, all Americans--against ballistic missiles, whatever their source. In the defense bill last year, Congress established a program to develop and deploy a national missile defense system for the United States. This program is not some elaborate star wars concept, but rather a very modest yet capable ground-based system that would provide a limited defense of America against accidental, unauthorized or hostile missile attacks. I ask anybody out there listening, or anybody participating in the debate on the other side, are you certain, are you absolutely certain, that Qadhafi or Saddam Hussein, Iran or Kim Jong-il do not have the capability or will not have it in the very near future? If you are certain, you ought to vote for them. If you are not sure, you ought to be voting with us. President Clinton vetoed the defense bill specifically because of the requirement to defend America. That is the main reason he vetoed the defense bill, because he did not want us, did not want us, to put this requirement in. In fact, in his statement of policy the President called national missile defense ``unwarranted and unnecessary.'' It is one thing to say ``unnecessary,'' that might be an opinion, but ``unwarranted''? This is a very insightful quote. It gets right to the heart of the differences between this President and this Congress. To President Clinton, providing for the common defense is ``unwarranted and unnecessary.'' That is what he says. To the Congress, it is the most fundamental of our constitutional responsibilities, the most fundamental. Simply put, it is a defining issue between the two of us. It is an issue that defines our Nation's character, right to the heart of character, a commitment to the American people. How could you not defend yourselves, your people, against the threat of an incoming missile? It does not have to be deliberate. It could be accidental. We have no defense. It is an issue that defines the difference between the two political parties in this country. There cannot be compromise on it. There are people here on the floor and in this Senate who are trying to work out some compromise to give on something else, and we will give a little bit of something else. There is no compromise, no compromise on defending ourselves against incoming ballistic missiles. It is an issue that defines the very basic difference between the two men who are seeking the Presidency, President Clinton, and Bob Dole, who is the author of this bill. It is a basic difference between the two men. It is an issue that history will undoubtedly look back on and pass judgment upon for better or for worse, an issue that will define our generation. Mr. President, if we fail to take action to defend America now while we still have the chance, we will regret it. At some point in the very near future we will have waited too long. What is that point? Are you sure, folks over there, sure that we have not reached that point? At some point in the near future we will have waited too long. The theoretical threat of a hostile ballistic missile launch will have become a reality and we will have no defense. Will we be ready when the theoretical becomes reality? Will be we ready? Not if we listen to this side of the debate. Not if we do what they are asking us to do, we will not be ready. What will it take for the President to recognize this? Must a missile equipped with a chemical, biological or perhaps a nuclear warhead, rain down upon the citizens of America before we act? Must tens of thousands of Americans die before we act? That does not have to happen. Let me tell you, had we not been far-sighted enough and thoughtful enough to provide the Patriot missile, we would have lost a lot more people in the Persian Gulf war. It is a good thing Saddam Hussein only has a Scud missile, or perhaps some of the families would be speaking here through us today. To those of us who are cosponsoring this legislation, the time to act is now. Not tomorrow, not the next day, now. We have the capability to do it. Our Nation is in jeopardy, ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction are spreading throughout the world. That is a fact. I have had hearings. I have heard information on it. We have heard the testimony. We cannot stop this. We have to protect ourselves against them. Mr. President, 30 nations currently possess or are actively acquiring weapons of mass destruction, and the missiles to deliver them. They are not all friendly nations. Just recently, the United States admitted that Iran is covertly storing up to 16 ballistic missiles armed with chemical or biological warheads. Iraq is the most inspected and thoroughly monitored country in the world, yet they still have them. If we cannot find these missiles in the desert of Iraq, how are we going to track them in the valleys of China, North Korea, Iran, or Syria? The answer is, my colleagues, we cannot. We cannot track them. That is the point. Even if we could, we do not have the system to counter them. We cannot counter them even if we can find them. The only solution is to develop missile defenses. This bill does that. It would require that our Nation deploy a national missile defense system capable of protecting all Americans by the year 2003. This is not about politics. It is not about partisanship. It is about national security and keeping faith with those who elected us and depend upon us to safeguard their lives and property, yet this bill is being filibustered, that is the bottom line, by the other side of the aisle--filibustering a bill to defend America. What an outrage. If we ignore this obligation, we will have failed in our most fundamental constitutional responsibility. You do not filibuster the defense of the United States of America. We can filibuster a lot of things around here, and we do it all the time, but not the defense of America. It runs against every principle I have ever stood for, and it ought to run against every principle that others in here stand for. Mr. President, as we discuss and debate the merits of this legislation, I want to specifically address what I believe are some fundamental and extremely dangerous flaws in the administration's position. First off, the administration has continually emphasized that they see no long-range missile threat emerging within the next 15 years that could threaten the United States. I would note that when the administration is pressed to describe how they came up with the 15-year number, versus 10 years, or 20 years, there is no real methodology. Essentially, it appears to have been a nice round number that the administration came up with. The classified national intelligence estimate that the administration uses to support this assertion is anything but reassuring. And contrary to the assertions of the Clinton administration, it does not rule out a rogue nation acquiring ballistic missile capabilities that could threaten the United States. Rather, it projects the view that it is unlikely that such a situation would arise. Essentially, it relies upon the perceived intentions of other countries rather than their actual technical capabilities. That is a very dangerous way of assessing the threat environment, and it runs in direct conflict with our historical experience. Our experience following World War II is very instructive. During 1945 and 1946, the United States conducted operation paperclip in order to employ Dr. Werner von Braun and his team of German scientists. My colleagues may recall it was von Braun and his associates who had created the German V-2 rocket. The transfer of these experts and their equipment provided the United States with nearly instant ballistic missile capability. Under the Hermes project, with the infusion of german technical expertise, we soon began launching V-2 rockets. A year later, the development of a two-stage vehicle based on the V-2 was begun. The so-called bumper vehicle went on to establish range, altitude, and speed records. By the late 1950's, frustrated by difficulties in the Atlas program, Gen. Bernard Schriever, a pioneer of the U.S. Ballistic Missile Program, ordered that our existing Thor ballistic missile be modified to include a new second stage. This second stage provided strategic range capability for our ballistic missiles within a year, increasing the range of the Thor missile from 1,500 miles to approximately 5,000 miles. Mr. President, the lesson here is quite simple. The acquisition of key technical experts can dramatically accelerate the pace of development for a country seeking to field ballistic missiles. In addition, the range of existing systems can be rapidly increased by incorporating additional stages. In the 1940's, designing and building ballistic missiles was a new and challenging endeavor. But with focus, determination, and national level support, it was done very rapidly. By contrast, in the 1980's and 1990's, the schools and universities of the West teach advanced technology to students from all over the world. Missile designs are well understood, missile components are available on the world market, and whole missile systems can be bought and delivered, as in the case of the Soviet Scuds to China, the North Korean Scuds to Iraq, Chinese M-11 missiles to Pakistan, and Chinese CSS-2 missiles to Saudi Arabia. Since most of today's ballistic missiles are mobile, training and launching by customer nation crews can take place in the missile's country of origin, so that the first actual launch of a missile from the customer country may occur without advance warning. Additionally, ballistic missiles do not need to have a long range to threaten the United States. In the 1950's, the United States launched several ballistic missiles from the deck of a ship, and sent them to high altitudes where their nuclear payloads were detonated. Most of the population of the United States live near the east and west coasts, and thus are highly vulnerable to a ship-launched missile that could be covertly deployed in merchant traffic several hundred miles off the coast at sea. The modifications to such a ship would not need to be obvious, a few test missile launches could be performed in remote locations to avoid detection. The problem with the administration program is that it seeks to wait until the last possible moment to deploy missile defense. But historically, we have proven very poor at making such intelligence estimates. Just look at Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons program. The real challenge for the United States is to deploy theater and national missile defenses as rapidly as possible in order to discourage potential proliferators from developing, building, buying, or otherwise acquiring offensive ballistic missiles. That is what deterrence is all about. But you can't have deterrence without the capability to actually defeat or defend against a threat. Without missile defenses there is no deterrence. Perhaps most absurd is the administration's argument that the technology of the future will be more advanced than that of today, so we should wait for the future technology to be available before we begin formal acquisition of missile defenses. If we followed that model we would never procure any weapons systems because they would always be surpassed by future technology. What this argument fails to recognize is that real objectives and deadlines are the critical instruments for focusing the efforts of the management and technical communities in government and industry. The experience of operating a real system with real military personnel cannot be replaced by paper and pencil, or computer system designs. In addition, the longer we wait to commit to deploy a national missile defense, the more we will encourage our adversaries to pursue their own offensive ballistic missile programs. Without an actual system deployed, or at the very least a commitment to, and timetable for, deploying a system, there is no deterrent value. The Russians have now accumulated 30 years of experience in building and operating ballistic missile defense systems, including the nuclear- tipped Moscow area defense and several mobile systems such as the SA-5, the SA-10, and the SA-12. This unique experience has been cited by our military as a major advantage for the Russians. It must be rectified. Mr. President, I also want to address the issue of how ballistic missile defense relates to strategic arms reduction. The administration and certain Members of Congress have falsely sought to link this legislation with Russian ratification of the START II Treaty. Simply put, it is bogus linkage. The truth is that no provision in the Defend America Act threatens Russia or undermines the deterrent value of its strategic offensive forces. Nothing in this bill would disadvantage Russian security in any way. The numbers of defensive systems the bill envisions to combat accidental or rogue nation attacks are simply too few to affect the deterrent value of Russia's strategic arsenal. The ABM Treaty was constructed during the cold war and is premised on mutual assured destruction. But the world is no longer bipolar, it is multipolar. Mutual assured destruction is not relevant in today's environment. It will not deter aggression by adversaries other than Russia. The truth is defenses threaten no one. If Russia and the United States are no longer targeting nuclear weapons on each other, how could the deployment of a limited defense against other potential adversaries threaten Russia in any way? We are providing billions in foreign aid to Russia to support them economically, politically, and to aid in dismantlement of their nuclear arsenal. When relations are this cooperative, how can anyone reasonably assert that we are provoking Russia or undermining the relationship by defending ourselves against the likes of Kim Jong-Il or Saddam Hussein. The truth is that any linkage between the Defend America Act and the START II Treaty is purely artificial. It is pure fear mongering by those who use it for political purposes here at home. Frankly, it is shameful. Those in Russia who are trying to link the two know full well that nothing in this bill threatens Russia in any way. They are merely trying to coerce further concessions. The truth is, we have consistently heard Russian officials seek to link START II to NATO expansion, compliance with the CFE Treaty, national missile defense, and virtually every other possible pressure point. Again, it is purely bogus linkage. And where I come from, it is called extortion. It should not be rewarded. If we do legitimize this fallacy, and pay the ransom that some are demanding, where will it end? What will the next hostage be? How many times will we allow Russia to exercise a veto over our defense policy? And at what cost to our security? Mr. President, let me close with one final observation. National defense should not be a partisan issue. As elected representatives, we have no more fundamental or important constitutional responsibility than to provide for the defense of this country. As it currently stands, this Nation, its people, treasures, and industry, are absolutely vulnerable to ballistic missile attack. The technology is here today, all that is lacking is the political will to do so. We cannot delay any longer. We must get on with the business of defending America. If we allow politics to prevail and we leave our citizens naked against aggression, I fear that the results will be catastrophic. If we wait for a ballistic missile to rain down upon our Nation, wreaking chaos and destruction, it will be too late. We will have failed our citizens. We will have failed the Constitution. We will have failed this sacred institution. I believe deep in my heart that history will look back upon this debate as a key point in our Nation's history. Let us consider the consequences of our actions very carefully. Let us keep faith with the American people who rely upon us to protect their security. They have no one else to turn to. It is our responsibility. It is our obligation. I urge my colleagues to support the Defend America Act as reported by the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Alton, NH, on the occasion of their community bicentennial celebration. Almost 200 years ago on June 16, 1796, the town of Alton was incorporated by the New Hampshire House and Senate and approved by then-Governor Gilman. To honor 200 years of history, the citizens of Alton have designated 1996 as a year of bicentennial celebrations with a variety of special town activities. Alton's big Bicentennial Day celebration is planned for June 16 and the bicentennial parade will take place August 17. The history of Alton began around 1770 when the first pioneers arrived in the area. Early settlers worked diligently to construct roads and bridges, schools and churches. The area now known as Alton these settlers first moved to was truly majestic--the southern tip of Lake Winnipesaukee along the shores of the Merrymeeting River, and nestled by the mountains. Today, Alton still sits in a very picturesque area of the lakes region of New Hampshire--not too far from my hometown of Tuftonboro. Alton's first town hall meeting was held at the home of Capt. Benjamin Bennett. Town officers were elected on that day, March 13, 1797, and other pertinent town matters were discussed. For hundreds of years now, Alton has continued the town meeting tradition. As Alton's bicentennial proclamation states on behalf of Alton's residents, ``the principles of democracy and self-governance have prevailed on issues such as spending appropriations, building of meeting houses, support of education, construction of highways and bridges, collection of taxes, election of political representatives, and enforcement of laws.'' A number of significant events occurred for Alton in the 1800's. In 1849, the railroad arrived in the town and the trains continued to stop in the Alton Bay area until 1935. Then, in 1872, the steamer, Mount Washington, was first launched in Alton Bay after being constructed there. From 1880 to 1920, the Rockwell Clough Co. employed a number of residents and became nationally known as the first manufacturer of cork screws and the company that invented paper clips. Recently, the people of Alton suffered through a devastating flood that destroyed many homes. I had the opportunity to visit the area after the flood and witnessed how quickly this community had joined together to rebuild. Rescue teams and volunteers, along with families and friends, worked together day and night to help their neighbors who were victims of the flood. I was very impressed with the strength and fortitude this community displayed. The public officials and residents of Alton have planned some festive activities to recognize the 200 years of history their town has enjoyed. A number of exhibits will be on display in the townhall featuring clay pipes, summer camps, railroads, and the Alton Central School. The Alton Historical Society will provide a walking tour of the city and conduct various other historical programs. A haunted hay ride and haunted house are also planned later in the year for Halloween. June 16 will mark the big anniversary celebration with day-long activities including a family picnic, fireworks, and a bicentennial march to Alton Central School. My wife taught school in Alton, so this scenic lakeside town holds a special place in the hearts of the Smith family. I congratulate all the residents of Alton on this historic milestone and wish them all an enjoyable year of celebration and remembrance. You all should be very proud of your heritage and 200 years of history.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate four outstanding New Hampshire high school students on receiving the 1996 Presidential Scholar Award. Timothy Marquis and Joanne Millette from Winnacunnet High School in Hampton; and Syma Mirza and Kenneth Johnson from Alvirne High School in Hudson were all honored with this prestigious award. The U.S. Presidential Scholars Program was founded by Executive order of the President in 1964 to recognize outstanding high school students in America. These four New Hampshire students should be very proud of this honor because the selection process is quite rigorous. Based on student scores from SAT and ACT testing, the top 20 men and women from each State are invited to apply for the Presidential Scholar Program. An independent review committee, composed of various academics such as guidance counselors and college admissions officers, then review the applications of these students and determine 500 semifinalists for the award. The committee uses a variety of criteria to evaluate each student such as personal character, academic achievement, leadership service in school as well as the community, and an essay analysis. From the pool of semifinalists a 32-member commission appointed by the President chooses 141 scholars to be honored for their accomplishments during National Recognition Week. These four hard working New Hampshire students will be guests of the White House Commission on Presidential Scholars in Washington, DC, from June 18 through June 23. While in Washington, the students will be involved in various activities such as informative panel discussions, a ceremony at the White House, and an evening at the Kennedy Center featuring performances by the Scholars in the Performing Arts. As a former high school teacher myself, I applaud the hard work and dedication of Timothy, Joanne, Syma, and Kenneth. Their outstanding academic performance have won them this distinguished national honor. I commend these special students for achieving excellence in their schools and communities, and wish them great success in their future endeavors. Their contributions to New Hampshire and the Nation serve as a role model for others to follow.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Manchester, NH, on its 150th anniversary. On June 8, the 100,000 residents of Manchester will hold a community wide picnic to celebrate this significant milestone. Manchester's 150 year heritage encompasses periods of growth and change including native American occupation, colonial settlement, industrial growth, and 20th century diversification. For over 10,000 years various native American groups occupied what was then known as the Merrimack River Valley. The abundance of fish and game in this area helped support these people's livelihood. By 1725, most of the native Americans inhabiting the Merrimack Valley had fled northward to escape conflict and disease brought about by European settlers that had migrated into the area. In the early 1700's, many European settlers began to move into the Manchester area. Scottish and Irish families with expertise in flax spinning and weaving were the first group to settle around what is now known as Londonderry in 1719. In 1722, John Goffe also established the town's first water-powered mill along Cohas Brook. In 1751, the town of Derryfield, now known as Manchester, was established. In the 1790's a man by the name of Samuel Blodget envisioned an industrialized Derryfield which could boast open trade routes with Boston to the south and Concord to the north. Consequently, he proceeded to fund the development of a canal and lock system around the Amoskeag Falls. In 1810, 3 years after Blodget's death, the residents of Derryfield voted to change their town's name to Manchester to honor Blodget's prediction that ``a city like unto Manchester, England'' would rise because of the waterpower at the falls. In 1831, a group of investors known as Boston Associates began manufacturing textiles by purchasing the rights to the water power at the falls and developing a plan for a major complex of mills. The execution of this plan helped foster 100 years of growth and expansion as the Amoskeag Manufacturing Co., became the largest textile producer in the world. At its peak, Amoskeag employed 17,000 workers and had over 30 major mills. In March of 1936 Manchester experienced a disastrous flood which completely devastated the city. The determined citizens of Manchester banded together to organize Amoskeag Industries and purchased the mill complex to help rebuild Manchester. The rebuilding of Manchester gave rise to a more diversified industrial base and the emergence of a strong service economy. Through the unyielding support of Manchester's citizens, local government, and banks, the local economy was slowly reborn. The complex of mills that still stand along the Merrimack are a reminder of how Manchester once flourished in the textile industry. The citizens of Manchester still have the Yankee ingenuity and commitment to growth and industry. Manchester's largest employers are now hospitals, universities, and technology companies. Manchester boasts a strong service and professional economy and is the largest city in New Hampshire. A combination of natural and historical spots are being developed for a potential tourism industry. The New Hampshire Heritage Trail is one of the major statewide projects. Additionally, many residents and visitors enjoy the Currier Gallery, the 883 seat Palace Theater and the Zimmerman House. These historical spots and others are quickly giving Manchester the reputation as the cultural center of the State. The citizens of Manchester will have much to celebrate on June 8. Among other highlights, the birthday bash will include a 150-foot-long birthday cake, sand sculptures, softball tournaments, classic car shows, and even a laser-light show. The Historical Association will sponsor a kite-flying contest and the high school jazz and concert bands will perform along with the Jack Jackson Big Band. The day promises to be quite festive as many people in Manchester join in celebrating the history of the Queen City. It is my honor to represent such a successful and thriving city in the U.S. Senate. I congratulate Manchester on the memorable occasion of its 150th birthday and wish the many residents of the city an exciting birthday celebration.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Rather than recite his vast and substantial accomplishments, I want to talk for a moment about the Mike Boorda that I knew. From the first time I met Adm. Mike Boorda, I knew he was something special. My first impressions were that he was an extremely intelligent, forthright, and principled man. He would tell it like it is. He pulled no punches. He had a passion for the Navy, a real passion. He had a passion for promoting the well-being of U.S. service men and women and for defending the interests of our Nation. When Mike Boorda told you something, he looked you in the eye and he spoke from the heart. You could take it to the bank. He was a man of his word. He was a man of honor. He was a man of great courage. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I had the opportunity to work very closely with Admiral Boorda. We frequently spoke on the phone. We met in hearings and private meetings, over dinner or just in passing. We also spent a great deal of time together during the base closure process. No one took the challenge of downsizing our infrastructure more seriously than Mike Boorda. No one fought harder to preserve essential naval capabilities. Sometimes Mike Boorda may not have agreed with the decisions that he was asked to carry out, but, like any good soldier, he carried them out. He never complained. That commitment to national security and to our naval-industrial base is well known in New Hampshire. Last Spring, when en route to Bosnia, Mike Boorda diverted his scheduled trip so that he could spend a few hours touring the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard with the Base Closure Commission, who was there to look at whether or not we should close our shipyard. I remember him calling me saying, ``Senator, do you need me there?'' I said, ``Admiral, I know you are a busy man, but the answer is yes, the Base Closure Commission needs to hear from you directly and personally that this shipyard is critical to the future of our Navy.'' He said, ``I will be there,'' and he was. And it made a very profound and lasting impact on the people of the Granite State. We owe him a lot, an awful lot. It made a direct impact on the members of the Base Closure Commission whom he looked in the eye and said, ``Ladies and gentlemen, you cannot take this base away from me. I need it.'' Even today, members will tell you that that had an impact on their decision. He looked them in the eye, and he told them the Navy needed this shipyard. He spoke from the heart, he spoke the truth, and they knew it. Those who had the privilege to know Mike Boorda personally, to work with him professionally, or to merely observe him in action, know that he was unique. He had that rare ability to communicate volumes through a few carefully chosen words. He was not one to dominate a conversation or to chew your ear off. He had few words to say. But when he said them, you knew exactly where he was coming from, and he chose them very carefully. He had the ability to transcend politics and parochialism by framing issues in their appropriate context. Whether serving a President Bush or a President Clinton, he was still Adm. Mike Boorda, naval officer, and a damned good one, Mr. President. He had the ability to command respect, discipline and excellence through his own example. He was a leader among leaders. The Navy will miss him, the country will miss him, his family will miss him, and I will miss him. I want to offer my deepest sympathies to his wife, Bettie, and their four children. There is another aspect of Mike Boorda that I want to emphasize. In the Armed Services Committee, former Chairman Nunn and Chairman Thurmond have always asked the officers who come to testify to speak from their heart, tell how they feel about an issue and not be bound by a policy that they may or may not disagree with. Mike Boorda lived up to that commitment, and always provided the Senate with honest, candid testimony. Amidst the grief and sorrow of this incident, I am compelled to offer some personal observations and concerns regarding recent events in the Navy that may or may not have had some relationship to this tragedy. But I want to express them because I feel them deeply, and I think they need to be said. I have never been one to question the responsibility of our news media to report on stories of national interest, nor have I sought to impugn the motives of news organizations seeking to root out the truth, and I am not doing that now. But it seems to me that the nature of news coverage and reporting is changing these days, I fear, for the worse. Clearly, the Navy has had some difficult problems over the past few years. Some of these were institutional in nature, others were isolated incidents and yet others were just plain bad judgment. These are not the norm, Mr. President, but we hear about them just the same. For instance, we hear about the problems at the Naval Academy, but we do not hear about the thousands of young men and women who go through that Academy, who make it, become great officers, and sacrifice their lives for the country. We do not hear a lot about that. The press has a responsibility to report on current events in a balanced and impartial manner. For the most part, I believe that has been the case. But at some point, there exists a line where responsible journalism gives way to excessive badgering. At some point, the continuing quest for a story can give way to relentless, unwarranted persecution. This is a tough town, Mr. President, as you well know. This town can consume people. There is a lot of pressure--pressure on families, pressure on individuals, pressure to get the job done. It is not a report to work at 9 o'clock and go home at 5 town. Admiral Boorda knew that, and when a crisis erupted, he was on the job, night or day, whenever necessary. He never questioned that. I want to make it clear, I am not criticizing the media or indicating their actions had a role in this incident. History will have to judge that. But I am suggesting that perhaps it is time that we all-- ourselves as well as the media--step back and take a hard look at the course of events that led up to yesterday's tragedy. Perhaps it is time to do a little soul searching to make sure things stay in the right perspective and to ensure that ethics, morality and fairness are not being undermined in the never-ending quest for a ``story.'' Sometimes the truth might be more important than the story. As I reflect upon this terrible, terrible tragedy to my friend, I cannot help but wonder about the seeming lack of balance in the media's reporting of Navy events in recent years. All we ever hear about are the problems--Tailhook, Academy cheating scandals, F-14 crashes, sexual harassment. Certainly these are newsworthy items, and they merit coverage and accountability. But what about the positive developments? What about the enormous progress that the Navy has made in improving the opportunities available to women and minorities in the ranks? What about Admiral Boorda's ``Seaman to Admiral'' program, which he designed to give enlisted personnel the opportunity to aspire to higher achievement, like my father did and like Admiral Boorda did. What about Admiral Boorda's efforts as Chief of Naval Personnel and as CNO to enhance the pay, benefits and quality of life for Navy personnel and their families? How much coverage has been devoted to these tremendous successes in the U.S. Navy; indeed, in the military as a whole? How much praise was heaped on Mike Boorda for his vigorous personal efforts on these issues? Sadly, and in my view, unfairly, not enough. Let me make one other observation on Mike Boorda. It is personal, but I hope that Mike's family understands me saying this. I had an occasion to visit his home about 6 weeks ago. Senator Lott and myself and our wives had dinner with Admiral Boorda and his wife. On the mantel is a picture of the current Pope with one of Mike Boorda's sons, who is severely handicapped. What a beautiful picture that was of the Pope laying his hand on Admiral Boorda's son. He was so proud of that. I said, ``Mike, are you Catholic?'' He said, ``No, but perhaps I ought to be, because the Pope was wonderful, and I've never forgotten it.'' It takes a pretty special person to raise a son like that. Did the press report about that? I don't think so. You probably will not read anything about that in Newsweek. Mr. President, it seems to me we need to stop this trend of relentless negative coverage and encourage more balance and objectivity. It seems to me that distinguished military personnel, such as Mike Boorda, should have their careers and activities judged in total, not selectively. It seems to me that Mike Boorda should be remembered for his outstanding service to our Nation, for his personal initiatives to enhance the military capabilities and quality of life for our naval personnel, rather than for some select institutional challenges that he inherited or fought to correct, or some other isolated occurrence. Sadly, this has not been the case. I cannot help but wonder how much of an effect the relentless, often excessive, media hounding of Mike Boorda and the institution he loved so much had on him. I know for a fact it did concern him greatly because we talked about it. We talked about it a lot. Perhaps it had no effect, perhaps it had a very direct effect. We will never know. But either way, we owe it to Mike Boorda, and we owe it to his family to search deep within this media and political culture here in Washington and, if possible, to find ways to prevent a recurrence of this tragedy. About 6 days ago, I had my last conversation with Mike Boorda, and I remember being frustrated because he was busy that day and he had not gotten around to returning my call, which he always did. It was just maybe 4 or 5 hours after I placed the call when he apologized and said he had been in meeting after meeting and was not able to get back to me sooner. I relayed a problem to him that I was having on an issue with one of his officers. He said, ``Senator, as I recall, the officer that you're referring to is a one-star; is that correct?'' I said, ``Yes, sir, that is correct. It is a one-star admiral.'' He said, ``Well, I'm a four-star, and I'll take care of it.'' He did. Mike Boorda was a man of his word. Mr. President, on behalf of the people of New Hampshire, who owe Mike Boorda a great deal for saving their shipyard, I bid farewell to a good friend, a great naval officer, and I offer his family my deepest and sincere condolences. Mike, rest in peace. You deserve it. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, it is with a very heavy heart and a profound sadness that I take the floor today to pay tribute to a good friend, Adm. Mike Boorda. As my colleagues know, Admiral Boorda apparently took his life yesterday near his home on the grounds of the Washington Navy Yard. Mike Boorda was an inspiration to those of us who care about military matters and who strive to improve the quality of life of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. He was also an inspiration to our enlisted ranks, to whom he demonstrated by example that hard work, dedication and commitment can pay off. My dad was a naval aviator in World War II. Like my dad, Mike Boorda was a Mustang, he was an enlisted man who rose from the enlisted ranks to become an officer. So I had a special appreciation for what Mike Boorda did. His career is a modern day success story. He was the first enlisted man to rise up through the ranks, become an officer, and become the Chief of Naval Operations. He was the first one in the history of America. From his enlistment in the U.S. Navy in 1956 through his service as Chief of Naval Operations, Adm. Mike Boorda epitomized our Nation's finest. He was truly a remarkable man. Many of my colleagues have described Admiral Boorda's distinguished professional history. It is a career rich in diversity, long on accomplishment. I ask unanimous consent at this point that Admiral Boorda's curriculum vitae be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, we are in the second year of a Republican- controlled U.S. Congress. This is the second year that an actual, real, balanced budget resolution is before the Senate for consideration. I suggest, in all humbleness, that is not a coincidence. During the years of the first 2 years of the Clinton Presidency when the other party controlled both the House, Senate and White House, all three branches, all three areas of the Government, not one balanced budget came to the attention of the Congress. There should be no misunderstanding in the minds of the American people who watch and listen to this debate. Congress only began to consider balancing the budget after the elections of 1994. That is the truth. That alone is a significant accomplishment in a city addicted to reckless spending. It is not enough. Good intentions alone are not going to balance the Federal Government's books. This country is $5 trillion in debt. That is with a ``t,'' Mr. President. Right now we are in the midst of the NBA playoffs, so let me give an analogy. Here is an idea of what $5 trillion really is. Shaquille O'Neal, the basketball player who plays for Orlando Magic, earns $30 million each year. That is a lot of money playing basketball. He would have to play 166,000 seasons to earn $5 trillion. That is our current national debt. He makes $30 million a year. It is almost unbelievable for anyone to even be able to fathom how much $5 trillion really is. This is what we are passing on to our children if we do not really do the job that we are elected to do, which is to balance this budget. If you break that down to more detail, every man, woman and child in America, every baby born as I am now standing on the Senate floor for these few minutes, will be born $20,000 in debt. That is what we are doing to our children. I think we have a moral obligation, if not a financial obligation, to solve this problem. It is not a Republican problem. It is not a Democratic problem. It is not a congressional problem. It is not a Presidential problem. It is an American problem that goes right to the heart and soul of this Nation. If we fail to get this job done, we will lose this Nation. That is what this is all about. Balancing the budget is about doing what we know is the right thing to do, despite the political consequences. Every man, woman, and child out there, every voter, every young person, they know the consequences if this country continues to drive this debt and allow the interest and the entitlement programs to consume our budget so there is nothing left for anything else. We have a rare opportunity to work in a bipartisan manner to have this budget signed into law. Why do I say that? This is an election year. Everybody says the place will go to pot and we will not get anything done. Let me use the President's own words. The President said, ``The era of big government is over.'' We should take him at his word. This budget ends that era, balances the budget, gets us on the track of downsizing again, making the Federal Government responsible for what it is supposed to be responsible for and not responsible for the things it is intruding into. The President also has stated he believes he raised taxes too much in 1993. All right, this budget repeals the Clinton gas tax and it repeals $123 billion of the President's $250 billion tax increase. The President stated he supports a tax credit for families with children. All right, this budget provides a $500 per child tax credit for families struggling to make ends meet for each of their children. The President has said, ``Let's end welfare as we know it.'' All right, this budget reforms welfare, sends the power out of Washington and back to the States where it belongs. There is common ground. If the President means what he says, pick up the pen, Mr. President. Do not veto the bill; sign it. Sign it and go out to the American people, face the electorate, all of us, and say, ``We got it done. We balanced the budget.'' If the President gets credit for that, so be it; if we get credit for it, so be it. But get it done. The balanced budget before the Senate is a bold, I grant you it is a bold document, but it is a reasonable policy document. It meets the President's stated intentions. It meets our intentions. It balances the budget in 6 years, provides tax relief for working families, and reforms our broken welfare system. It is a blueprint that will guide us as we remove power from Washington, reduce the red ink and rebuild America. Every Senator in this Chamber knows, Mr. President, there is an important election night right around the corner on November 5. I think it is important we look past that election, look right on past it, and instead of looking to the next election, look to the next generation for a change. Our children and our grandchildren deserve to inherit a nation as great as the one we grew up in. They have a right to live and learn in a country that balances its books and pays its debts like you have to do in your family and in your business. There is only so much credit you can get and then you go under. It is called chapter 11. That will happen to us if we do not stop it. Children cannot vote. But if they could, I think it is pretty safe to say they would support the balanced budget before the Senate today, because we are passing the debt on to them. It is they who will have to pay for it, not us. I urge my colleagues, in closing, Mr. President, forget about November. Cast a vote for the future of your children and your grandchildren. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 4007 (Purpose: Creates a 60-vote point of order against legislation diverting savings achieved through Medicare waste, fraud, and abuse enforcement activities for purposes other than improving the solvency of the Medicare Federal hospital insurance trust fund.)

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. As in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the injunction of secrecy be removed from the Extradition Treaty with Malaysia signed in Kuala Lumpur on Aug. 3, 1995, Treaty Document No. 104-26, transmitted to the Senate by the President on May 17, 1996; and ask that the treaty be considered as having been read the first time; that it be referred, with accompanying papers, to the Committee on Foreign Relations and ordered to be printed; and that the President's message be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, today I rise to pay tribute to George F. Courtovich of Stratham, NH. It was just 1 year ago that my wife and I attended this young man's funeral in New Hampshire. George died at an early age of 33, leaving behind his wife Debbie, daughter Colleen, parents, George and Dorothy, and brother Jim. I think nothing is harder than consoling a mother, a father, a wife, a brother, on the tragic loss, such an early and unexpected loss, of someone who was so close and loved and so young. However, my wife Mary Jo and I were able to learn so much more about George at his wake and funeral from his friends, colleagues, and family who had gathered to mourn his death. George had a youthful zeal for life that touched many in his community. From the senior citizens to whom he brought food to on holidays to the people in need he helped as a volunteer EMT in his hometown, George made a difference. George was a volunteer looking to help. He strived to make the quality of life better for not only his family but his community. George also was a ski instructor at Loon Mountain on weekends, helping others learn a sport that he had mastered. He even took on the task of teaching the senior Senator from Texas how to navigate on the snowy slopes of New Hampshire. This is a task daunting for even the most experienced ski instructor, but one George spoke of with honor, and, frankly, a little humor. George lived his life to the fullest always looking to move forward and to bring others with him. To see the numbers of people who turned out for his funeral, it was clear that the people who knew him had profound respect for what George did for his family and community. It is because of people like George Courtovich that we are here today, Mr. President. The hard working people of this country who contribute to their community, raise their families, help their neighbors, make this country what it is today. It is easy to find reasons why one cannot participate in their community or volunteer to help others. It is much easier than it is to become active in such endeavors. George did not take the easy route and for that he left this world as an example for others. He left too early, but was able to live three lifetimes before he did. No, George is not with us today but his memory and example of leadership and charity are. I join the Courtovich family as they prepare to celebrate his life at the morning mass on Tuesday, May 21, in honor of their son, brother, husband, and father at St. Michael's Church in Exeter, NH.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Mabel Richardson, a truly dedicated and respected New Hampshire public servant who passed away this week. Mabel, who was known to many as the Mountain Lady and the Grand Ol' Lady, served as a Republican lawmaker in the New Hampshire House of Representatives for 34 years. She was a role model for me and many other New Hampshire elected officials. While Mabel may no longer be with us, she has left behind remarkable political legacy. From 1946 to 1980, she served as a State representative, was a strong advocate of public education and helped establish the New Hampshire Vocational-Technical College in Berlin. She was also a delegate to the National Republican Convention in the 1970's and was Chairman of the Order of Women Legislators and the State Republican Party. On her 90th birthday in 1986, then-Governor, John Sununu, read a proclamation of appreciation for her 34 years as a representative, and 4 years later then-Governor, Judd Gregg, named her Republican of the Year. She retired from politics when she was 83 years old. Mabel lived a long, happy life of 99 years. She was born in Randolph, NH, raised on a farm and educated in a one-room schoolhouse. In 1960, she and her husband Herbert Randall Richardson became directors of the Odd Fellows' Old Folks Home in Concord, and before that they managed the Androscoggin Valley Country Club. Many people in New Hampshire called Mabel the Mountain Lady because of her love of the White Mountains, where she had led many mountain climbs while working with the youth extension program. I am amazed at the stamina and energy this lady had even in the later years of her life. As a representative in the New Hampshire Legislature, she was devoted to improving the lives of New Hampshire citizens. Undoubtedly, she will be missed by the many people who were touched by her devotion and hard work. I have always admired this woman, who gave so much to her State. She was truly a New Hampshire landmark, and her memory will live on--as solid as the White Mountains that she loved for her century-long life.