Bob Smith

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Merrimack, NH, on their 250th anniversary. On April 2, the 22,500 residents of Merrimack will begin a year-long birthday celebration encompassing numerous town activities to mark this historic occasion. Very few towns in the United States can claim 250 years as part of their heritage. In 1746, King George II of England issued the town's first charter. During the Revolutionary War, Merrimack residents volunteered as some of the original Minute Men. The volunteers fought in the Battle of Bunker Hill in Charlestown, MA. Miraculously, only one Merrimack life was lost in this battle. Later, over 40 Merrimack men served heroically in the areas of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, West Point, Valley Forge, White Plains, and Fort Ticonderoga. The town of Merrimack paid their soldiers with Indian corn since money was scarce at that time. This is the sort of patriotism and commitment to freedom that Merrimack residents still embody today. Commercial development in Merrimack began even before King George II issued the first charter. In 1656, John Cromwell established the first trading post. More settlers began arriving via the Merrimack River, from many surrounding areas. Other trading posts were established at ferry landings where stores were stocked with beeswax, molasses, flint, and powder, along with the best sellers of the day, rum and spirits. In the early 1880's, rich deposits of clay were found in Merrimack allowing the town to create a thriving brick-making industry. By 1846, there were 12 brickyards in town, employing 100 people. Many of the local buildings began using brick with granite foundation from nearby quarries in their construction. Brickmaking and river boating flourished until the railroad arrived in 1852. In 1872, a cooperage shop at Reed's Ferry was established where English immigrants came to work. In 1897, other immigrants from Greece, Poland, and Slavic countries arrived to work in the many mills and factories being built. Today, Merrimack is one of the thriving industrial towns just north of the Massachusetts border, housing many of New Hampshire's most prosperous manufacturers. Over the years, Merrimack has had a number of famous residents; including Dr. Matthew Thornton whose signature appears on the Declaration of Independence. Among his numerous distinctions, Doctor Thornton was the surgeon of the New Hampshire Troop in 1745, was elected to the Continental Congress in December 1776, and served in the State senate from 1784 to 1786. In 1789, he purchased a large estate, and spent the rest of his 89 years in Merrimack. A monument to honor Matthew Thornton is displayed on the corner of route 3 and Greeley Street. Today, Merrimack's population has grown to include 22,500 residents. The town boasts a dynamic business environment with a number of small to medium size businesses, many of which are family owned. In addition, Fortune 500 companies, particularly technology firms, dot the business landscape in Merrimack and are continuing to hire more and more residents each year. Merrimack residents are very politically active, attending town and school board meetings regularly. The local chamber of commerce and Rotary Club are also both very involved in local activities. I wish the town of Merrimack a very happy 250th birthday. I share the pride of all New Hampshire citizens in the accomplishments and rich historic background of this wonderful town and its people. Congratulations Merrimack. (At the request of Mr. Dorgan, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Astronaut Richard Searfoss, a Portsmouth, NH, native, who will pilot the space shuttle Atlantis, scheduled to leave Cape Canaveral, FL, in March. This is an exceptional honor for an astronaut, and everyone in his home State of New Hampshire is very proud of his accomplishment. Richard attended Portsmouth High School and as a student scored a perfect 1,600 on his scholastic aptitude test. He was also the keynote speaker at the Portsmouth High School graduation ceremony for the class of 1994. Later, Richard on a National Science Foundation Fellowship in 1979 earned a master of science degree in aeronautics from the California Institute of Technology. The people of Portsmouth recognize Richard as an outstanding role model for all of his hard work and determination in becoming an exemplary astronaut. Richard will pilot the 9-day Atlantis mission that will allow the five astronauts on board to hook up with the Russian space station, Mir, and drop off Astronaut Shannon Lucid. Shannon will spend 4 months aboard the manned space station, located about 200 nautical miles from Earth. Atlantis will dock at the space station for 5 days and then return to Earth with one of the three other astronauts who manned the station. The flight will also include a spacewalk. This mission is not the first time Richard has been in space. As a test pilot in the October 1993 space mission, Richard was one of seven crew members to participate in a 2-week life sciences mission on the space shuttle Columbia. I had the opportunity to meet Richard in February 1994, and his commitment to the space program and to America was heartening. New Hampshire is very proud of Richard's leadership in the NASA space program and wish him continued success in the future. We are honored to have him represent us in the final frontier.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I would like to commend 17 students from Gorham High School in Gorham, N.H. who were recently selected to compete in the national finals of the ``We the People . . . Citizen and the Constitution'' program to be held April 27 to 29 in Washington, DC. These high school students competed on the State level on January 29 for the opportunity to represent New Hampshire at the national competition, and will be among more than 1,200 students from 49 States and the District of Columbia to participate. The distinguished members of the team representing New Hampshire are: Elizabeth Baker, Sarah Belanger, Mary Anne Bevin, Erika Clark, Amy Davis, Alexandria Dery, George Eichler, Kathy Fortin, Kevin Glines, Andrea Guay, Kari Horne, Kami Michaud, Chad Miller, Gina Piattoni, Amie Tanguay, Alicia Turner, and Jamie Washburn. All 17 New Hampshire students will be tested on the Constitution and Bill of Rights before simulated congressional committees to demonstrate their knowledge of constitutional principles and their relevance to contemporary issues. The competition in Washington will consist of 2 days of hearings; and the 10 finalists, with the highest scores, will compete for the title of national winner on Capitol Hill in a congressional hearing room. Michael Brosnan, a teacher at Gorham High School, also deserves special recognition for helping these students prepare for the intense constitutional testing. Raymond Kneeland, the District coordinator of the ``We the People . . . Citizen and the Constitution'' program, Holly Belson, the State coordinator, and Howard Zibel, of the New Hampshire Bar Association, all contributed a significant amount of time and effort to help the students reach the national finals. I applaud all of them on their commitment to enriching the lives of these students. The ``We the People . . . Citizen and the Constitution'' program provides an excellent opportunity for students to gain an informed perspective about the history and principles of our Nation's constitutional government. I wish these young constitutional experts from Gorham High School and their teacher, Michael Brosnan, the best of luck in preparing for the April National finals. We are proud to have them representing New Hampshire, and wish them luck as they prepare to be America's leaders in the 21st century. (At the request of Mr. Dorgan, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record)

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Deborah K. Woelflein, an English teacher at Merrimack High School, on being named New Hampshire's 1996 National Teacher of the Year. As a former teacher myself, I commend her outstanding accomplishment and well- deserved honor. Deborah, who is a Nashua resident, will spend the next year representing New Hampshire's teaching profession at various statewide and regional functions. As New Hampshire's Teacher of the Year, she will be considered for the National Teacher of the Year Award sponsored by the Council of Chief State School Officers and Scholastic, Inc. The National Teacher of the Year Program is the oldest and most prestigious honors program to focus public attention on excellence in teaching. New Hampshire's Commissioner of Education, Elizabeth Twomey, named Deborah the Teacher of the Year. Among Deborah's numerous accomplishments as a teacher are several successful conferences she organized to draw together talented teachers to share their expertise with their colleagues. Timothy Mayes, principal at Merrimack High School, called her ``one of our most respected faculty members.'' New Hampshire has always been lucky to have many talented teachers, but Deborah Woelflein is certainly a role model among the teachers of the Granite State. I am proud of her commitment to education and congratulate her distinguished achievement.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I am pleased to be here today to urge the adoption of H.R. 2036 as modified by an amendment of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. The underlying House legislation is virtually the same as S. 1497, the Land Disposal and Program Flexibility Act of 1995 that Senator Nickles and I, along with a broad bipartisan coalition of our colleagues, introduced on December 21, 1995. Under the current land disposal restrictions [LDR's], individuals are generally prohibited from the land disposal of hazardous wastes unless these wastes have first been treated to meet EPA standards. In Chemical Waste Management versus EPA in 1992, the D.C. Circuit Court determined that these LDR's would also be extended to nonhazardous wastes managed in wastewater systems that are already regulated under the Clean Water Act or the underground injection control [UIC] program of the Safe Drinking Water Act. The court adopted this position despite the fact that the EPA had previously adopted a rule authorizing the appropriate treatment and disposal of these materials, and despite the fact that the Agency believed that such strict standards are inappropriate. Section 2 of H.R. 2036, as modified by the Senate, would counteract the court's decision and would restore the EPA's original regulatory determination allowing these materials to be safely treated and disposed of in permitted treatment units and injection wells. This change represents a very straightforward yet significant modification to the Solid Waste Disposal Act that has the potential to save our society as much as $800 million in annual compliance costs--an expense that the EPA agrees will provide no environmental benefit. Another issue that is addressed in the Senate amended version of H.R. 2036 is the issue of ground water monitoring legislation. In October 1991, the EPA promulgated regulations to exempt certain categories of municipal solid waste landfills from ground water monitoring requirements. Specifically, this exemption was intended to provide relief for communities that had a daily disposal rate of less than 20 tons of solid waste and which have very little annual precipitation. The EPA's authority to issue these regulations was overturned by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in Natural Resources Defense Council versus EPA, 1993. Section 3 of H.R. 2036, as amended by the Senate amendment, is a virtually identical version of ground water monitoring language that the Senate passed on May 16, 1995, when it adopted the Interstate Transportation of Municipal Solid Waste Act of 1995. This section will provide EPA with the necessary authority to implement the ground water monitoring regulations that were struck down in Natural Resources Defense Council versus EPA. As the chairman of the Superfund, Waste Control and Risk Assessment Subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over this legislation, I believe that this bill is a good example of a cooperative, bipartisan effort to correct expensive and needless environmental overregulation. I appreciate the significant time and effort that were spent by my fellow Members, the White House, the EPA, our House colleagues, and staff, toward speeding the adoption of this much needed legislation. In addition to this support, I would note that H.R. 2036 is also supported by the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials, the National Association of Counties, and the Ground Water Protection Council. We need to act quickly to adopt this legislation. If we fail to act, the EPA, due to court order, will be forced to implement additional LDR regulations in the next few weeks--regulations that they believe are both unnecessary from an environmental standpoint as well as needlessly costly for the private sector. Our House colleagues understood this urgency and passed H.R. 2036 on January 31 by a vote of 402 to 19. Given the level of support for this important legislation, I would urge my colleagues to unanimously adopt this legislation as amended so we can send it to President Clinton as soon as possible.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Let me also say in regard to the tax initiative that the Senator brought up a few moments ago, this again goes to the heart and soul of the differences between our two parties. George Bush said recently on national television that it might be nice if the American people just gave--it has not happened since 1952-- one party, in this case the Republican Party, the opportunity to govern. The Democrats have had that opportunity once under Clinton, under Carter, to do it, and we did not see the debt go down. We did not see deficits diminish. On the contrary, we saw the opposite. Give us a shot at it. If we do not do well, throw us out. That is fair. Give us a shot. That is what President Bush said. There is such a dramatic difference. How many times have we heard the debate from our friends on the other side that somehow growth is bad, making a profit is evil, that there is something wrong with that; and yet at the same time this debate occurs we see dollars being taken away, almost stolen, from the families of America. So we promote big government with the dollars taken from our families and at the same time denying them the opportunity to do the things that they would like to do for themselves, including education, getting a job, and being able to be productive in society. There are no jobs, as the Senator pointed out, if there is no growth in America and if there is no opportunity for businesses to create those jobs. Government should not be in the business of creating jobs. The economy--business--should be creating jobs. That is what we are all about. Somehow we have gotten into this debate that it is evil for anybody to make any money. I am pleased to hear when people make money. It delights me because I know somebody is getting dollars when somebody is making money. The Senator brought up the point about the luxury tax, which I am proud to say I opposed and voted against, where all the people who built boats and luxury cars lost their jobs because of the tax increase, and people did not buy then. When are we going to get the message that the greatness of America-- we grew more at any time in the history when we did not have an income tax. Again, it is taking dollars. If all of the dollars that have been taken away from the American families throughout especially the last 40 or 50 years--if it worked, welfare would have been a success. We would not have all the crime we have today. We would not have to be spending money on crime or on welfare and other things that we find we are not satisfied with in America. The truth is, it has not worked. Since it has not worked, we should try something new. What we have--and you hear the American people say they are tired of the gridlock, the deadlock, tired of you fighting with each other. Again, the issue here is standing for principle, standing up for principle, because we believe deep in our hearts that these principles we espouse are right, they are correct, and we need to move this President. He is not moving. We understand that. If he is not moving, and we go as far as we go, we go to the American people, and essentially the decision is, very simply, we either move on with more debt and more deficits, or we move toward more growth, more economic prosperity, and more revenues to the Treasury, as the Senator pointed out. Again, going back to the issue of missile defense, same thing--two very, very, important issues, if not the two most important issues that we face today in America, and a President with a distinctly different position than the House and the Senate. I really want to compliment the Senator from Arizona, who is now in the chair, and the Senator from Oklahoma for two very, very worthwhile points in bringing to the attention of the Senate --although it is in the middle of the debate on a farm bill. Sometimes when other Senators are not here to participate in that debate, we have the opportunity, under Senate rules, to make these points. They are excellent points. I want to compliment both Senators. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, just a few minutes ago, I was occupying the chair, as the Senator from Arizona is now, and I witnessed, first, a few remarks by the Senator from Arizona regarding the two-thirds supermajority vote for a tax increase, legislation that he is planning to introduce. And later, hearing the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe, come down and engage in a debate on both that issue with the Senator from Arizona and the issue of ballistic missile defense, I was very much taken by the debate. First of all, I want to compliment both the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Oklahoma for the distinguished service they have given their country just in allowing this dialog to come to the forefront. In the case of the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Oklahoma, I have worked very closely with both of them on this ballistic missile defense matter, taking that issue first, knowing that here we have a situation where the entire defense authorization bill was held hostage by the President of the United States because he did not want national missile defense. Not only did he not want national missile defense, he did not even want language talking about national missile defense. So in order to get a pay raise for our military, whom the President of the United States sent to Bosnia, we had to agree to take missile defense language out of the bill. What came to my mind as I listened to the debate between my two colleagues was one simple line: Elections have consequences. I found myself saying that if a President sat down at the White House who shared the philosophy of the Senators from Arizona and Oklahoma, sticking to missile defense, we would have had a Defense authorization bill not only with language, but with a real direction to move toward building a defense against incoming ballistic missiles against the people of the United States of America. We now do not have that. As the Senator knows, there have been a number of focus groups where people throughout America have been asked one very basic question: If the United States were fired on by a ballistic missile from another country, what would the United States do? Overwhelmingly, the response is, ``Shoot it down.'' In fact, we know we cannot shoot it down. It is shocking to me that a President, and many of the colleagues in his party, would hold a Defense authorization bill hostage to simply get that language out. I am outraged by it, to be candid about it. I think that what the Senator from Oklahoma brought to the floor with this intelligence information is shocking. I said to him, privately, as he was leaving the floor, ``I hope that both of you Senators, who are members of the Intelligence Committee, pursue this diligently because it goes really to the heart of our democracy here.'' If, in fact, those charges are true, or even remotely true, as they appeared in the Washington Times, that somehow this was falsified, this is a very, very serious matter because the defense of the United States of America is at stake. I just cannot understand why anyone would not want to do what needs to be done to defend American cities and American people. That is our obligation. That is one of the primary obligations of the U.S. Congress, certainly, as outlined in the Constitution. Yet, we have this situation where a report--and the Senator well knows we heard reports to the contrary. I am also on the Armed Services Committee. We heard reports to the contrary that this could be a problem within 2, 3, 4, 5 years. Now we are hearing maybe it is 15 years, or even further down the road. Something is wrong, Mr. President, because you and I both know of the technology that is out there. We know it is being shipped all around the world. The Chinese have this missile technology, the Iraqis have it, the Iranians have it, the North Koreans have it, and Qadhafi would like to have it, and he may have it soon. It goes on and on and on. The Senator from Arizona, the occupant of the chair, made an excellent point, which reminded me--and I want to accent it, comment on it a little further, expand on it a little further--that when those 28 brave men and women were killed in the Persian Gulf by that missile, that is the first time in the history of America that a missile--in this case a theater missile, but a missile--attacked, hit, and killed American service men and women. I find myself thinking, what if we had not had Jack Kennedy, to his credit, as you mentioned, and Ronald Reagan in the positions they were in at the time to see to it that we had even just the remotest possibility of defending against that missile. As the Senator knows, the missile that was used to shoot that missile down was not designed for that purpose, it was not designed to do that. So this is a very, very serious matter. We investigate a lot of things in the Congress, but if the intelligence community truly has information that says that the threat of attack from an incoming ballistic missile from one of those countries I mentioned, or another one, is possibly 15 years down the road, then I think they need to prove that to the Intelligence Committee. I do not believe that is going to be the case. I do not think they can prove it. We know the range of these missiles. We know how this technology is being exported. We know our own technology has in some cases been bought and in some cases stolen and has been shipped around the world and in some cases encouraged to be sold by the current administration--certain types of technology which may or may not be used in building these missiles. It is a perfect example, again, of one of the basic differences between the two political parties. So much focus has gone on the budget debate, and rightfully so, that we are trying to turn around 4 years of big government spending. That is a huge issue in and of itself, but also this issue of defending America, the basic responsibility that we have as Government servants of the people of the United States to preserve, protect, and defend our country is at stake here. I am certainly going to be pursuing this, as well, on my own and in conjunction with my colleagues on the Intelligence Committee to find out the facts. I hope that we are not going to find that somehow this thing was inflated to be something that it is not, and that some pressure was put on to play this down, because I have been in some meetings over the past several months and years that I have been on the Armed Services Committee where I have heard the contrary from very high-ranking administration and military officials, as I am sure the Senator from Arizona has. I am looking forward to hearing the results of this investigation. I think it should be on the front burner.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Acquisition and Technology, I would like to engage the chairman of the committee in a colloquy regarding the section in the legislation entitled ``Treatment of Department of Defense Cable Television Franchise Agreements.'' It has come to my attention that the Court of Federal Claims may have some concerns about the task we assign it in this section, given that it is not equipped to provide advisory opinions unless specific facts and parties are involved. Therefore, I wish to make clear that it is the committee's intent that the court allow the executive branch and any party with a franchise agreement in the section to part participate in the proceeding required by this section by identifying themselves promptly to the court within a period of time established by the court. The court may conduct the proceeding required by this section according to the pertinent rules of practice of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims to the extent feasible, including providing the opportunity for written submissions and a hearing. In order to ensure timely completion, any submissions or hearing should conclude no later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this act. I would also like to clarify that the phrase in paragraph (2), ``required by law'' should be read to include both law and equity. Finally, I would encourage the court to consider the position taken by the Senate in section 822 of S. 1026 when addressing this matter.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise to offer some personal reflections on both the substance of this treaty and the process by which the Senate is considering it. Frankly, I am troubled by the casual, disengaged manner in which the Senate is exercising its advice and consent responsibilities. Clearly, there are numerous issues of importance to the country which demand our attention these days. But national security policy is not something that we can set aside and deal with only when it is convenient. Maintaining a strong and effective national security policy requires our constant vigilance. It requires that we rise above the kind of partisan politics which are so prevalent in Washington today. It requires that we submit prospective arms accords to rigorous examination and analysis to ensure that these treaties are verifiable, enforceable, and supportive of our national interests. But where has this scrutiny been? How many of my colleagues have actually sat down and reviewed the details of this treaty? How many of my colleagues have examined the verification regime, the intelligence assessments, the Russian strategic modernization program, and the political transition that is ongoing in Russia. With all due respect, other than select members of the Foreign Relations, Intelligence, and Armed Services Committees, I would say very few. That does not speak well for this institution. It does not speak well for those of us who have been elected to uphold the Constitution. Mr. President, I want to raise a number of issues that trouble me about this treaty. First off, I am concerned by loopholes in the treaty that allow thousands of systems and warheads to avoid destruction. The treaty establishes central limits on deployed systems and accountable warheads, but it does not require destruction of many of these systems. Either side is permitted to retain a vast stockpile of nondeployed missiles, launchers, and warheads; but with the exception of the SS-18, only deployed systems are accountable. This can hardly be considered legitimate arms reduction. I am also troubled by the intelligence community's lack of confidence in its ability to verify Russian compliance. Although the administration has touted the effectiveness of the START verification regime, which START II continues, the intelligence community has been less convincing. In its report on the START Treaty, the Senate Intelligence Committee stated: Members of the Senate should understand, however, that U.S. intelligence will have less than high confidence in its monitoring of such areas as nondeployed mobile ICBM's, the number of reentry vehicles actually carried by some ICBM's and SLBM's, and some provisions relating to cruise missiles and the heavy bombers that carry them. The Intelligence Committee's report continues, saying ``this committee remains deeply concerned, moreover, that Russia's former, and perhaps continuing, biological weapons program may indicate that the Russian military is capable of mounting or continuing a START violation, either in contravention of the wishes of Russia's civilian authorities, or with the knowledge or support of at least part of that leadership.'' Mr. President, these are very sobering appraisals and they focus on a key point. Without full, unconditional compliance, no arms control agreement is worth the paper it is printed on. The former Soviet Union consistently violated every arms control agreement it was a party to. Indeed, on an annual basis, successive administrations cited Soviet violations of the SALT I and SALT II Treaties, the CFE Treaty, the INF Treaty, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the Limited Test Ban Treaty, and the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention. But this pattern did not end with the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Today Russia is in violation of the Biological Weapons Convention and the CFE Treaty. They are also refusing to implement any of the nuclear security and weapons inspection agreements announced by President Clinton and Boris Yeltsin at their summit meeting last May. I have heard many of the treaty's supporters brush off the noncompliance issue as an effort to revive outdated cold war rhetoric. But how does one explain this continuing pattern of noncompliance in the so called ERA of glasnost? We are not talking about events that occurred 10 years ago, we are talking about the Russian's violating the CFE Treaty today by failing to destroy tanks, armor and other weapons based east of the Ural mountains. We are talking about Russia's failure to honor its commitments made less than a year ago in the joint statement on the transparency and irreversibility of nuclear arms reductions. And what about the recent Duma elections in which the nationalists and Communists in Russia gained 33 percent of the lower house seats? What about Boris Yeltsin's removal of virtually all pro-Western democratic reformers from his government? What about the continuing onslaught in Chechnya where innocent civilians are being routinely slaughtered in their homes and in the streets? If Russia is engaging in such ruthless behavior, and is continuing to violate its existing treaty obligations, all under the stewardship of Boris Yeltsin and the more liberal, pro-democratic forces, how can we realistically expect its behavior to improve with the hardliners now taking power. The truth is there is absolutely no indication that the Russian legislature will even ratify START II, let alone comply. In fact, according to administration officials, the Russians have essentially told us that they are delaying consideration of START II indefinitely while they reassess the treaty. At the same time, the Russians are trying to manipulate the START II ratification issue to coerce financial and military concessions from the United States. Specifically, the Russians have stated that unless we suspend NATO expansion, unless we continue to adhere unconditionally to the ABM Treaty, and unless we increase financial aid to Russia, they will not ratify START II. Where I come from that is called extortion. And it is wrong. Yet advocates of the treaty, in both the administration and Congress, are going along with these Russian threats, and using them as a rationale to slow NATO expansion, prevent the United States from defending itself against ballistic missiles, and increase foreign aid. But what about our sovereignty? What about the security of our Nation? What about the security of NATO and the newly independent democracies in Eastern Europe? How can we possibly bow to such extortion and allow Russia to effectively wield a veto over our national defense policies? It is morally, ethically, and strategically misguided. Mr. President, I am particularly troubled by the bogus linkage that has been drawn between the START II Treaty and national missile defense. There is no legitimate linkage between the two issues. The ABM Treaty was crafted during the cold war and is premised on the outdated doctrine of mutual assured destruction. But the world is now multipolar. The monolithic Soviet threat has been replaced by numerous regional threats. Mutual assured destruction is neither relevant to, or capable of deterring, these threats. The only responsible way to counter ballistic missile threats to our homeland is to develop and deploy national missile defenses. The truth is, missile defenses do not threaten Russia. If Russia and the United States are no longer adversaries, and are no longer targeting nuclear weapons against each other, how could the deployment of a limited defense against other potential adversaries threaten Russia in any way? How are we provoking Russia or undermining cooperation if we defend the American people against the likes of Kim Jong-Il, Saddam Hussein, or Moammar Khadafi? Those who say that any decision to protect the American people against ballistic missiles will kill the START II Treaty are engaging in pure fear mongering. It is irresponsible and unsupportable. Mr. President, against the current backdrop of political, economic and military turmoil in Russia, against the backdrop of continuing noncompliance with existing arms control agreements, and against the backdrop of uncertainty over the verification regime, why are we rubber stamping this treaty with very little consideration in the Senate? With so many questions unanswered, it seems to me that the most responsible course of action would be for the Senate to delay action until we have a better understanding of the military and political situation that is unfolding in Russia. We also should demand full compliance with all existing arms control accords before ratifying a new, major treaty. In my view, to ratify START II now, when Russia remains in noncompliance with other accords, would legitimize their behavior and thoroughly undermine our national security. We would, in effect, be rewarding their defiance. That can only encourage more violations, and further jeopardize our security. I urge my colleagues to carefully consider these issues. The Constitution clearly calls upon us to safeguard the interests of the Nation through the advice and consent process. While I support the initiatives recommended by the arms control observer group to help strengthen the resolution of ratification, they alone do not address the plethora of issues that remain outstanding. We do the Constitution and the American people a disservice if we fail to more thoroughly evaluate these issues prior to ratification. For these reasons I must oppose ratification. Mr. President, I ask that several articles be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I want to congratulate my colleagues in the House for adding the language in section 128 of this bill, which prohibits the use of taxpayer funds to create human embryos, to perform destructive experiments on them, and ultimately, to destroy and discard them. We funded the National Institutes of Health in the earlier targeted appropriations legislation, but that bill did not contain this important restriction on the use of Federal funds. I have been working on this issue for the past several months, trying to call attention to the issue, and I am very pleased that we are very close to getting this important provision enacted into law. Many of my colleagues might not totally understand what exactly we mean when we talk about human embryo research. So, before we vote on this critical legislation, I would like to give a brief explanation of the issue. Mr. President, this is an issue that calls upon us to reaffirm the ethical limitations that govern taxpayer-funded scientific research. It is an issue that calls upon us to uphold the dignity of humanity itself. We know that science has benefited all of humanity in countless ways, but every one of us knows that the history of scientific inquiry also has its dark chapters. We have learned painful lessons from the atrocities that have been committed in the name of scientific progress. We have learned that the human subjects of scientific experiments must give their fully informed and voluntary consent. We have learned that ethical experimentation requires a proper respect for the dignity of the human subject. We have learned that an experiment that is likely to result in the death of, or disabling injury to, the human subject cannot be ethical and must never be permitted to occur. These principles are enshrined in the Nuremberg Code. They can also be found in the World Medical Association's Declaration of Helsinki as well as other major international conventions governing scientific ethics. They make it clear that no human being can be ethically regarded as an instrument--a mere means to serve the ends of another person or group of persons. These are absolute principles. Their framers clearly intended to establish limits beyond which an ethical science would not be permitted to go. Suppose for a moment that it could be proven that a large number of people could benefit and live happier lives if we all agreed to use a few of our fellow human beings as research subjects in experiments that we knew would harm or kill them. Of course, the benefits of scientific research are never certain, but let's put that aside. It wouldn't matter. Certain ethical principles are inviolate. That means that we do not subject them to cost-benefit analyses. I must commend President Clinton for his Executive order banning taxpayer-financed creation and destruction of research embryos. In making this decision, the President acted on the belief that ethics imposes certain limits on science. I only wish he had followed that logic to a more honest and consistent conclusion. Unfortunately, however, President Clinton continued to allow so- called spare embryos from in vitro fertilization programs for experimentation and destruction. In other words, it's still permissible to use developing human beings as raw material for bizarre experiments that will result in death. First of all, the distinction between specially created embryos and so-called spare embryos is unenforceable and meaningless in practice. When the Australian Parliament considered this issue, Dr. Robert Jansen--an advocate of embryo research--put it very plainly: It is a fallacy to distinguish between surplus embryos and specially created embryos . . . any intelligent administrator of an in vitro fertilization program can, by minor changes in his ordinary clinical way of going about things, change the number of embryos that are fertilized. . . . It would be but a trifle administratively to make these embryos surplus rather than special. The Warnock Committee, which investigated this issue in Great Britain, reached an identical conclusion. Furthermore, how can we say that it is wrong for Government to use taxpayer money to fund the creation of life for experimental purposes but say that it is nevertheless permissible to fund its destruction? More importantly, just because a private party plans to destroy life, why should Government force taxpayers to give their blessing to that act? Let private parties use private money for their ethically challenged experiments. Taxpayer dollars should be used to protect and uphold human life, not to destroy it. Columnist Ellen Goodman has stated that scientific inquiry must recognize the existence of ethical stop signs. President Clinton also acknowledged that there are ethical limits on scientific inquiry when he drew the line and prohibited the creation of human life for research purposes. Former NIH Director Bernadine Healy probably put it best: It's a rather profound decision to say that a government agency will use taxpayer dollars to designate a class of subhuman humans that will be there solely to be experimented upon and then discard them at the whim of science. Mr. President, the supposed benefits of a kind of scientific research do not make that research ethical. Today, when we pass this legislation we will be saying to the American people that ethics determine the limits of science and not vice versa. We will be saying that in the interest of science, we should not violate the fundamental principle of the sanctity and dignity of all human life. I urge the President to support this important provision. balanced budget

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, the Senate will be in tomorrow for a pro forma session only. No business will be conducted during Thursday's session. After the pro forma session, the Senate will adjourn until Friday. Once again, for the information of all Senators, Senator Dole has stated that rollcall votes are not expected for the remainder of the week.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, Senator Dole has asked me to announce today that the Senate will be in only for a brief period this afternoon and that there will be no rollcall votes during today's session of the Senate. The Senate will complete action on any legislative or executive matter that can be agreed to by unanimous consent. For the remainder of the week, Senator Dole has stated that rollcall votes are not likely. However, if a rollcall vote becomes necessary, ample notification will be given to all Members. It is expected that the Senate will be in session for a brief pro forma session on Thursday and will return on Friday. Regarding Friday, just a brief update on what is scheduled to go on. The Senate budget negotiators are scheduled to meet on Friday morning. If that meeting is fruitful, there is hope there will be a meeting later in the afternoon or at some point later on in the day with the President. The leader will update the Senate and our colleagues on this when the Senate convenes on Friday morning. At this point, those are all the announcements that I have.

Mr. SMITH. These calendar items have been cleared by both sides, Mr. President, so I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following calendar numbers on today's Executive Calendar: Nos. 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, and 448.

Mr. SMITH. I further ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc, and that any statements relating to the nominations appear at the appropriate place in the Record, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and that the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. SMITH

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

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today it stand in recess until the hour of 11 a.m., Thursday, December 28, for a pro forma session only, and immediately upon convening, the Senate stand in adjournment until 12 noon, Friday, December 29, and following the prayer on Friday, the Journal of proceedings be deemed approved to date, no resolutions come over under the rule, the call of the calendar be dispensed with, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and there then be a period for morning business not to extend beyond the hour of 12:30, with statements limited to 5 minutes each.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I join my colleague, Senator Nickles, in introducing the Land Disposal Program Flexibility Act of 1995, and I would like to thank the senior Senator from Oklahoma for the time and effort that he and his staff have been spending on this issue. In addition to a bipartisan coalition of Senators who are cosponsoring this legislation, this bill is also supported by the White House and the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]. This legislation represents a very simple, yet important modification to the Solid Waste Disposal Act that has the potential to save our society as much as $800 million in annual compliance costs--an expense that the EPA agrees will provide no environmental benefit. As the chairman of the Superfund, Waste Control and Risk Assessment Subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over this legislation, I believe that this bill is a good example of a cooperative, bipartisan effort to correct expensive and needless environmental overregulation. Under the current land disposal restrictions [LDR's], individuals are generally prohibited from the land disposal of hazardous wastes unless these wastes have first been treated to meet EPA standards. As a result of a 1993 decision by the D.C. Circuit Court, these LDR's would also be extended to nonhazardous wastes managed in wastewater systems that are already regulated under the Clean Water Act or the underground injection control [UIC] program of the Safe Drinking Water Act. The court adopted this position despite the fact that the EPA had previously adopted a rule authorizing the appropriate treatment and disposal of these materials, and despite the fact that the Agency believed that such strict standards are inappropriate. Simply stated, this legislation would counteract the court decision, and would restore the EPA's original regulatory determination allowing these materials to be safely treated and disposed of in permitted treatment units and injection wells. One of the issues confronting those who support this legislation is timing. Due to the court decision, the EPA will be forced to impose these needless and expensive requirements if Congress does not act very soon. As the chairman of the subcommittee of jurisdiction, I will work closely with the other interested parties to ensure that this legislation will be addressed in a prompt fashion. Again, I thank Senator Nickles for working with me on this issue, and I commend him for his involvement.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I join my colleague, Senator Nickles, in introducing the Land Disposal Program Flexibility Act of 1995, and I would like to thank the senior Senator from Oklahoma for the time and effort that he and his staff have been spending on this issue. In addition to a bipartisan coalition of Senators who are cosponsoring this legislation, this bill is also supported by the White House and the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]. This legislation represents a very simple, yet important modification to the Solid Waste Disposal Act that has the potential to save our society as much as $800 million in annual compliance costs--an expense that the EPA agrees will provide no environmental benefit. As the chairman of the Superfund, Waste Control and Risk Assessment Subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over this legislation, I believe that this bill is a good example of a cooperative, bipartisan effort to correct expensive and needless environmental overregulation. Under the current land disposal restrictions [LDR's], individuals are generally prohibited from the land disposal of hazardous wastes unless these wastes have first been treated to meet EPA standards. As a result of a 1993 decision by the D.C. Circuit Court, these LDR's would also be extended to nonhazardous wastes managed in wastewater systems that are already regulated under the Clean Water Act or the underground injection control [UIC] program of the Safe Drinking Water Act. The court adopted this position despite the fact that the EPA had previously adopted a rule authorizing the appropriate treatment and disposal of these materials, and despite the fact that the Agency believed that such strict standards are inappropriate. Simply stated, this legislation would counteract the court decision, and would restore the EPA's original regulatory determination allowing these materials to be safely treated and disposed of in permitted treatment units and injection wells. One of the issues confronting those who support this legislation is timing. Due to the court decision, the EPA will be forced to impose these needless and expensive requirements if Congress does not act very soon. As the chairman of the subcommittee of jurisdiction, I will work closely with the other interested parties to ensure that this legislation will be addressed in a prompt fashion. Again, I thank Senator Nickles for working with me on this issue, and I commend him for his involvement.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding, and I rise in support of the Defense authorization conference report. At the outset, Mr. President, I want to congratulate Senator Thurmond for his strong and determined leadership and tireless efforts on behalf of this legislation. It is a very, very difficult process to get this bill to the floor, but Senator Thurmond never gave up, and he has spent an awful lot of time talking to Members trying to work out agreements to get us here. It was a difficult conference with the House. While we experienced some growing pains in the process, I think the product, even though we do not all agree with it, is something we can be proud of. We do not agree with everything in it, but it is something we can be proud of. The Senator from South Carolina deserves a great deal of credit for his leadership and, more importantly, for his commitment to the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States of America. We are always grateful to the distinguished Senator from South Carolina for that strong leadership. The legislation before us authorizes approximately $264 billion for national defense. This funding level is about $7 billion more than the President's request, but it is consistent with the concurrent budget resolution adopted by Congress earlier this year. Some have questioned this level, and I want to emphasize that even with the increased funds, the bill provides 2.3 percent less than last year's defense bill in real terms. The truth is that real defense spending has declined every year since 1985. Of course, you do not hear about that much in the news, but for the last 11 straight years, defense spending, in terms of a percentage of the entire U.S. budget, has gone down. For the benefit of my colleagues, I want to briefly summarize some of the highlights of the bill before us. There is a 2.4-percent pay raise for our troops and a 5.2-percent increase in the basic allowance for quarters. I find it somewhat ironic that the President, who sends the troops to Bosnia, now may veto this bill which provides them with a 2.4-percent pay raise. Some of these troops may even be eligible for food stamps, and we are putting them in harm's way in Bosnia. I think it would be immoral for the President to veto this legislation. It includes an adjustment to equalize the schedule for military retiree COLA's to be sure they are provided the same schedules as Federal civilian COLA's and also includes a variety of acquisition policies urgently needed to maintain the pace of procurement reform begun last year. These are items under my subcommittee, and they are going to significantly increase the ability of Federal agencies to buy state-of-the-art technology from the commercial sector and reduce barriers for companies, both large and small, who want to sell their goods and services to the Government. All of these provisions are fully consistent with the existing requirements for full and open competition. In the area of relieving burdens on contractors, we provided a total exemption for the suppliers of commercial items from the requirement to provide certified cost and pricing data under the Truth in Negotiations Act. We also provided extensive relief from requirements for special certification of compliance of laws applicable to Government contractors and eased the requirements governing acquisition of commercially off-the-shelf products. In addition to these changes, we have included a series of initiatives which are intended to streamline acquisition. For instance, we have included a provision allowing agencies to use streamline solicitations and flexible notice deadlines in the procurement of commercial items under the amount of $5 million. This is a 3-year test program that does not alter the requirements for notice or the requirements for full and open competition in these procurements. Finally, under acquisition, we have included a major reform in the manner Federal agencies purchase information technology. This has been spearheaded, for the most part, by my colleague and friend from Maine, Senator Cohen. We have eliminated the jurisdiction of the General Services Administration over Federal agency information technology procurements, including the role of the General Services Board of Contract Appeals in bid protests. So the acquisition reform provisions were developed in a bipartisan manner, with the involvement and cooperation of the Governmental Affairs Committee and the participation of representatives from the Small Business Committee staff. These changes have been the subject of hearings, numerous hearings, over the past years. They are issues thoroughly researched and considered prior to inclusion in this bill. Let me talk about a few other things in the bill, Mr. President. There is a $480 million increase in military construction funding which, although it takes great criticism from some here, it enhances the life of our troops and their families. They have to be able to live in a decent place. In some cases, prisoners who serve in penitentiaries in the United States of America have better quarters than our armed services. This Senator is not going to stand out here on the floor and watch other Senators demagog the whole issue of military construction when, in fact, it is necessary. It is not all pork. There is some pork, and we tried to get that pork out. Did we get it all? Probably not, but we got a lot of it. But building good housing and having decent places for military to work and live in is not pork. There is $300 million to continue the so-called Nunn-Lugar cooperative threat reduction program with the states of the former Soviet Union. You can see what is happening now in the Soviet Union. That is taking on more importance. There is an increase of over $1 billion in operation and maintenance accounts to enhance readiness. And most importantly, perhaps, from this Senator's point of view, is the Ballistic Missile Defense Act of 1995, which establishes policies on development and deployment of missile defenses, and this includes an increase of $604 million to accelerate promising theater missile defense programs. Not everyone is going to like every provision in this bill. I certainly do not. But it is the nature of the legislative process that a good bill reflect the philosophies and priorities of all of us as much as possible. For this reason, Mr. President, to be very candid, it troubles me very much that the administration has announced its intent to veto, even before we adopt it, this conference report. As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Acquisition and Technology, I worked very hard, frankly, to accommodate the interests and priorities of the administration in my areas, sometimes taking on some of my own party to do it. I am not happy about the fact that one of the veto message items in this bill deals with areas that were under my jurisdiction, specifically the Technology Reinvestment Program. Frankly, I was specifically assured by Under Secretary Paul Kaminski for Acquisition that the administration appreciated the support and would accept our funding level, and now I find that it is one of the reasons for being vetoed. I was surprised and offended to see the TRP issue listed as a reason for the President's threat to veto the bill. I have dealt in good faith with the administration on this issue. If this is the reward for being open and accommodating, I can assure my friends in the administration, I may not be so open and accommodating the next time around. I do not appreciate it, and I want everybody to understand that. I deal in good faith with people, and I expect reciprocal treatment. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I am also troubled by the statements of the distinguished ranking member, whom I respect immensely and he knows that, Senator Nunn, regarding the ballistic missile defense provisions of the bill. We have met a number of times with Senator Nunn, many of us who worked on this negotiation. The bill before us accommodates virtually every single concern Senator Nunn raised, as far as I am aware. It retains the compromise language on demarcation that was included in the Senate bill, and it eliminates the requirement to deploy a multiple-site national missile defense, much to my consternation. In addition, it retains program guidance from the Senate-passed bill. These were big concessions to the minority, huge concessions to the administration, and, quite honestly, we had a tough time swallowing them, but we did it to get a bill here that would move us in the right direction, even though it was not as far as we wanted to go on missile defense, and we did it in good faith, and now we find the rug is pulled out from under us. It is clear that there was not a good-faith negotiation on the part of the administration on this issue. The administration has told us what the veto debate was, and we moved away from that, and still we have that action hanging over us. I do not want to be on that side of one--if the administration wants to be there, that is fine--that takes the position that the administration now has no intention of ever protecting the American people from ballistic missile attack. If they want to be on that side of the issue, that is fine. I do not want to be on that side of the issue. In its statement of policy, the administration specifically calls national missile defense ``unwanted and unnecessary.'' Let me repeat that. The administration calls national missile defense unwanted and unnecessary. With all due respect, who is it that defines protecting all Americans in all 50 States to be unwanted and unnecessary? I have not heard anybody say that. I find it difficult to believe that there are people out there who would not want to be protected from a missile. That is what has been said. So it is President Clinton--let us be very clear about it--that is the problem. The United States currently has no defense against ballistic missile attacks. Zero. We are totally vulnerable. If a missile is fired at us, we cannot stop it. Believe that or not. The administration does not intend to correct that. We fought hard to get these provisions in there. So the administration does not intend to ever deploy national missile defenses. And now, when Congress takes action to correct this vulnerability, as we have done in this bill, we get the veto threat. The truth is that nothing in this bill violates the ABM Treaty. It only calls for deployment, by 2003, of a ground-based national missile defense. There is no requirement that it be a multiple-site system. I wish it was, but it is not. We went as far as we could go to get the support of the minority, and the minority pulls out the rug. I find it unbelievable that this President, and some here in the Senate, with troops in the field in Bosnia--we heard a lot of speeches about how we have to support the men and women in Bosnia. That is why we should send them there, because we have to support them. The President wants them to go there. I disagreed with all that. I believe in supporting the troops once they are there, and the best way to do that is voting for this bill. If you do not, you are not supporting the troops, you are not giving them a pay raise, better housing, better weapons. If you do not vote for this, you are not. Let us not hear about any of this conversation and discussion out here about how you are supporting the troops in the field because you are not doing it. The Russians have taken full advantage of this single-site ground- based system and ABM deployment talk, and they have deployed a national missile defense system near Moscow. There is no breach of the ABM Treaty and no anticipatory breach of the treaty in this bill, period. Yet, that is what we are being told on the floor. How is the President going to explain this to the American people? He is going to veto a bill--to put it another way, he sends troops to Bosnia and will veto the bill that provides a pay raise and improves quality of life for their families, provides ammunition and the spare parts and equipment they need to do their jobs. That is what is happening, and this should be exposed on the floor of the Senate. This is an authorization bill, and it gets a little dry in the discussion. But let us call it what it is. That is what it is. How is the President going to explain this? I do not know. How is he going to explain it? We have heard a lot of talk about the importance of supporting the troops in the past few days. Well, that is not happening today. If you vote against this bill, you are not supporting the troops. You are not supporting the necessary programs for them and their families. So we have a Commander in Chief here, who, by vetoing this bill or threatening to veto the bill, is abandoning his troops when they need him the most. He sends them all over the world--to Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti, Cuba, wherever he feels like sending them to do police work-- without the support of the American people in most cases. And he cannot sign a defense bill that provides a pay raise and gives them the equipment and facilities, maintenance, and materials they need. And another reason for not signing the bill and vetoing it is because he does not want to protect the United States of America from missile attack. That is the reason the President has given for vetoing this bill. I urge my colleagues to think very carefully about these comments when you vote. If the President is about to walk off a cliff when he vetoes this bill, do you want to be hanging onto his coattails when he goes? I hope not. If you vote against the defense bill, you are doing that. The troops and their families are watching, I can tell you. They know what the stakes are. They know what the stakes are. These are the families on food stamps out there, whose parents are headed to Bosnia. If you vote against this bill, you will be voting to deny them that raise, deny them housing upgrades, and deny the very basic subsistence they so badly need. Who is really abandoning our troops then? It will be very clear to the American public I assure you. In closing, I urge my colleagues to support the bill before us. The legislative initiatives and funding authorizations contained in the conference report are essential to keep faith with our men and women in uniform and to preserve our national security. Those troops, including the 20,000 who will be deploying to Bosnia, need us now more than ever. I urge each of you to send the strongest message possible that you support them and their families by supporting this bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the owners and employees of the Bronze Craft Co. of Nashua, NH for over 50 years of service and dedication to the community. Bronze Craft was founded in 1944 by Arthur ``Artie'' Atkinson. This small foundry began its business by making custom architectural hardware. Fifty years later, the company is still owned by the same family, and the traditions of good business and dedication to employees are still the hallmark of Bronze Craft. Since its inception, the company has delivered for its employees in many ways, not the least of which has been providing long-term dependable employment. It is no surprise that by maintaining a professional run foundry and adhering to the highest health, safety, and environmental standards for its employees, that the foundry can take pride in its many multi-generational employees. Jack Atkinson, who succeeded his father in 1980 as president and CEO, continues to champion innovative employee participatory programs such as continuous improvement through employee suggestions and strategic action teams. Mr. Atkinson is a credit to the Nashua community, and is to be commended for his innovative thinking. His recent appointment to the executive board of the Non-Ferrous Founders' Society serves as recognition of his leadership in the foundry industry. It is businesses such as Bronze Craft, which put employees and quality first, that set such a high standard for others in the industry. Their proven success demonstrates the importance of such vision. The American Legion has been a customer since 1944, and recently Bronze Craft was recognized by Steinway & Sons as the Malcolm Baldrige Award Winner for quality and service. Mr. President, I praise the owners and employees of Bronze Craft for their untiring efforts to provide quality products, which help make America stronger, independent and economically successful. I would also like to recognize the thousands of small foundries, like Bronze Craft, located in urban and rural areas alike in all 50 States. Their outstanding devotion and contributions to making their workplace, community, and country a better place to live ensures a hopeful future.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senate Joint Resolution 31, the flag protection constitutional amendment. As an original cosponsor of Senate Joint Resolution 31, I am pleased to see that this important measure will be coming before the Senate for a final vote today. Mr. President, the flag of the United States is the central, unifying, and unique symbol of our great Nation. Throughout our history, tens of thousands of Americans have given their lives while serving under our flag in time of war. In my own family, my father, Donald E. Smith, died in a Navy service-related incident during World War II. My family was presented with his burial flag. That flag means a great deal to us. Desecrating the American flag is a deliberately provocative act. It is also an attack on the Nation itself, as symbolized by our flag. Such acts do not merit the protection of the law. On the contrary, those who commit them deserve to be punished by the law. Mr. President, this constitutional amendment ought not to be necessary. The need for it became clear, however, when the Supreme Court of the United States struck down as unconstitutional both a State and a Federal flag protection statute. The Court held that such statutes violate the free speech protections of the first amendment to the Constitution. I strongly disagree with those Supreme Court decisions. As the Court itself has recognized, our Nation's treasured right of free speech is not absolute. One does not have the right to yell fire! in a crowded theater, for example. In exceptional cases when the Government's interests are sufficiently compelling, the right to free speech may be carefully circumscribed. The Government's interest in protecting our Nation's central, unique symbol are sufficiently compelling, in my view, to justify limiting the right of political dissenters to desecrate the flag. Mr. President, while the great Constitution that the Founders framed has survived many tests, it also has been amended 26 times. The people of the United States are not forced to accept a Supreme Court decision with which they fundamentally disagree. The Constitution itself grants the people, as represented by the Congress and the State legislatures, the right to amend it in order to reverse erroneous decisions by the Court. I recognize that amending the Constitution is serious business. That is why we took the intermediate step of fashioning a Federal flag protection statute in the wake of the Court's decision striking down Texas's State law. When the Court also struck down the Federal statute, we had no choice but to move forward with this flag protection constitutional amendment. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this constitutional amendment authorizing the Congress to enact legislation to protect our Nation's great flag. I am optimistic that this measure can be passed by the requisite two-thirds majority of the Senate today and will be submitted to the States for prompt ratification. Thank you, Mr. President, I yield the floor.