Bob Smith

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. The Senator from Nebraska went well over the line with the statement regarding God, and I refuse to yield any more time to him. It would be glaringly inconsistent for those who support the Hyde amendment, which prohibits payments for abortion for Medicaid-eligible women, to vote in favor of Federal funding of abortion for Federal employees. In other words, Senators who support the Hyde amendment also should oppose coverage for abortion under the Federal employees health benefits plan. Supporters of the Hyde amendment, therefore, should vote to defeat the committee amendment. The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the Hyde amendment, and the Court found that the Government can distinguish between abortion and other medical procedures. In upholding the Hyde amendment in 1980, the Court commented that abortion is inherently different from other medical procedures because no other procedure involves the purposeful termination of, if it is not a human life, a potential human life. In closing, Mr. President, I wish to commend my friend, Senator Nickles. It takes a lot of courage, knowing the abuse we all take on this issue, to be down here. We do not always have a crowd; not many Members are willing to come down and speak on the issue. God knows, we get enough heat for doing it. I think the exchange that just took place between the Senator from Nebraska and myself is a very strong indication of the weakness of the argument that somehow after conception a precious life, a human being, is somehow not a human being. There is no, absolutely no credibility for that argument. Anyone, any reasonable person, pro-life or pro-choice, proabortion or antiabortion, who heard the exchange between the Senator from Nebraska and myself, would understand that. If a person takes the position that a woman has the right to terminate, that is another argument. I do not happen to agree with it, but that is another argument. And there is some good reason I think to at least argue that there is some rationale to that decision. But to say that life does not begin at conception, there is a--when an embryo is formed and the sperm and egg unite and life begins, that is the beginning. You cannot be a 50-year-old man or a woman unless that act took place. That is just a biological fact. It has nothing to do with God. I deeply resent the comment that the Senator from Nebraska made on the floor of this U.S. Senate, somehow saying that because I questioned his comments on this matter, somehow I would be believing myself to be God. I deeply resent it. I think it was entirely inappropriate. I would hope that he will apologize for it but, frankly, I do not expect it. Mr. President, I think I have made the point. The majority of the American people do not support taxpayers paying for abortions, and I rest my case on that. Mr. President, I yield back to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. SMITH. I would be happy to yield to the Senator from Nebraska to respond.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, the issue of abortion is certainly one of the more controversial issues that we face. Many people are very uncomfortable talking about it. There is never a huge crowd here on the floor when this issue is brought up. Contrary to what some might assume, I respect those who feel differently than I do on this issue, however I think it is one of the great moral issues of the day, much as slavery was some 150 years ago in the United States of America. I rise in opposition to the pending committee amendment to H.R. 2020 and support the Senator from Oklahoma and commend him for what he is doing. The pending committee amendment places before the Senate the issue of whether abortion on demand will continue to be covered as a routine--I emphasize routine--health benefit, under the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program. That is really the issue here, as to whether or not abortion, which in my opinion takes a human life, is a health benefit. The Federal Employee Health Benefits Program provides coverage for some 9 million Federal employees and their dependents. People who feel as I do, and others here, that it is the taking of a human life to commit an abortion, perform an abortion, do not want their tax dollars spent to take human life. I think that is not an unreasonable position for them to take. I think it is backed up in the polls, that even people who are in favor of abortion--many people who are in favor of abortion--do not support Federal funding. That is really the issue, Federal funding. Approximately 72 percent of the premiums for those plans, under the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, are paid by the Federal Government, in other words the taxpayers of the United States of America. Between 1984 and 1994, for some 10 years, the Congress prohibited Federal Employee Health Benefits Programs from paying for abortions. But, in 1993, Congress passed the fiscal year 1994 Treasury, Postal appropriations bill without, for the first time in 10 years, this longstanding restriction on abortion funding. No such restrictions were included in the fiscal 1995 Treasury, Postal appropriations bill either. But at present, health plans in the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program are permitted to cover, and most of them in fact do cover, abortion--not simply abortion, but more appropriately, abortion on demand, for whatever reason. Thus, as we debate this issue on the Senate floor this morning, the American taxpayer--whoever he or she may be or wherever they may be located or whatever their position may be on this issue--is forced to pay for abortion on demand for Federal employees. That is the issue before us. That is why, for 10 years, it was not in there. And it is not a matter of what your position is on abortion, it is a matter of whether or not you believe the taxpayers, even those taxpayers who disagree with abortion, should have to pay for it for Federal employees. Also, is it really health care? When I think of health care I think of helping someone. I think of, perhaps, saving someone's life or performing some medical service, which makes someone healthy again. The taking of a human life, in my opinion, is not healthy--certainly not healthy for the person whose life is taken. That, then, is the stark truth about the status quo. As we debate this issue today on the Senate floor, the American taxpayer, with all of the other things we have to pay for as we begin to downsize and balance the budget, is being forced--not asked, forced--to pay for abortion on demand for Federal employees. How many abortions are we talking about? According to the Office of Personnel Management [OPM] in the calendar year 1980, the last year for which any authoritative figures were available, 17,000 elective abortions were paid for through the Federal employees health benefits plan. The estimated cost is about $9 million. So the figures for fiscal year 1994 are not, to the best of my knowledge--they may be; I do not have them if they are--but assuming that the figures before the 1984 ban have held steady after the ban was lifted in 1994, the American taxpayer we assume can be expected to be forced to pay through the Federal employees health benefits plan some 17,000 elective abortions for Federal employees in the current fiscal year at a cost of $9 million, plus some 15 years of inflation. So I think we can assume that this is going to cost far in excess of $9 million. We all know inflation has risen considerably since 1980. So let us be very clear, Mr. President. The question before the Senate today, in spite of all of the hard feelings and comments that develop from this issue, is whether the American taxpayer is going to continue to be forced to pay for abortion on demand for all Federal employees for those who choose to have one. As I indicated, about 72 percent of the premiums for the Federal employees health benefit plan are paid for by the Federal Government. So unless the committee amendment is defeated today, these taxpayer- funded Federal premium payments will continue to be used to pay for abortion on demand for Federal employees. It is particularly I believe inappropriate for the Congress to allow these benefit programs in the Federal Government to cover abortion because, as I referred to this earlier, the overwhelming majority of abortions--there will be some dispute perhaps and some of my colleagues on the other side may dispute the numbers--but the overwhelming majority of abortions have nothing to do with saving a life or protecting the physical health of the mother. In hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1981, Dr. Irving Kushner, who served in the Carter administration as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population Affairs, testified before Congress about the reasons why women have abortions. Dr. Kushner estimated that only 2 percent of abortions are done for physical health reasons and that 98 percent are performed for life-style reasons. Maybe those numbers are not exactly accurate. They could change. They could vary somewhat. But even if there are 5 to 10 percent, those numbers are still very striking. Dr. Kushner testified that: The data with which I am familiar would indicate that something on the order of 2 percent of all of the abortions in this country are done for some clinically identifiable entity, physical health problem, amniocentesis, and identified genetic disease. The overwhelming majority of abortions in this country are performed on women who, for various reasons, do not wish to be pregnant at this time, Dr. Kushner testified. There is a mixture of social, economic, educational, perhaps health, or whatever. But I am aware of no studies that indicate that anything has changed in that regard since Dr. Kushner's statement. If someone has some facts that would dispute that, I would certainly be happy to hear from my colleagues on that. The overwhelming majority of the American people do not want their tax dollars spent to finance abortion on demand for Federal employees in this case. I base this contention on a series of national polls by well-respected polling organizations. In March 1995, the CBS-New York Times poll found that 72 percent of Americans oppose the inclusion of abortion in a national health care plan. Only 23 percent were in favor. There is no reason why a greater number of Americans would favor such coverage from employees in the Federal Government with the taxpayers footing about 72 percent of the bill. Why would they? Unless the committee amendment is defeated, H.R. 2020 will allow Federal tax dollars to be spent to pay for abortions for Federal employees on demand as a routine method of birth control. Will some women do it for health reasons? Yes, of course. But the bottom line is that, for the most part, a routine method of birth control--which many millions of Americans oppose abortion on demand as birth control--they will be forced to have their tax dollars pay for this. According to a working poll in 1992, 84 percent of Americans are opposed to abortion as a method of birth control and only 13 percent favor such a radical position on the abortion question. It follows then that the American people do not want to pay for abortion on demand for Federal employees as a method of birth control. Finally, Mr. President, in the area of polling, an ABC News- Washington Post poll taken in July 1992 said that 69 percent of Americans oppose the Federal funding of abortions. Mr. President, regardless of where one stands on the issue of abortion as a moral or a legal matter, it is beyond dispute on this subject of debate today that millions of Americans believe that the unborn child is a human being from the moment of conception and that abortion is the wrongful taking of a human life. A large number of Americans believe that forcing those millions of pro-life Americans to pay for abortion on demand with their tax dollars, as I believe, is a gross violation of their freedom of conscience. That is why I am here supporting the Senator from Oklahoma today. I do not see the manager of the bill, Senator Kerrey of Nebraska, here on the floor. I am sorry he is not because I was sitting on the floor a short time ago, and I heard the Senator from Nebraska, Senator Kerrey, say that he has studied this issue a long time and he has concluded that human life does not begin at conception. I am paraphrasing, but essentially that is what he said. I would just like to ask the Senator from Nebraska if he comes back to the floor, when did his life begin? When did the life of the Senator from Nebraska begin if it did not begin at the moment of conception? I see the Senator here. And I am glad he came back on the floor. I was referring to the comments earlier when you said you had concluded that human life does not begin at conception, and I am very sincere and this is not to be confrontational. My honest question to you is, when did your life begin if it did not begin at conception, if you are not human the day after conception? Then how can you be here today as a reasonable, mature adult and a U.S. Senator contributing much to America--I might add, because your mother chose life? And I think that the argument that one makes is the intellectual argument that life does not begin at conception is just mindboggling to me. If you want to take the position, which many do and many of my colleagues do on the other side of this issue, that because of a particular reason, whatever that reason might be, a woman has a right to do that, to take that life, that is another argument. But to say that life does not begin at conception, if it is not life by definition, there is no life to kill, there is nothing to take. So if there is no life, then there is nothing to destroy. So if your life does not begin at conception, I do not know when it does begin. I would be interested to know when the Senator from Nebraska thinks his life did begin.

Mr. SMITH. If it is not a human being, what is it, I say to the Senator from Nebraska? Could the Senator from Nebraska answer that question on my time for me?

Mr. SMITH. I will take it off my time.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I reclaim my time.

Mr. SMITH. Regular order, Mr. President.

Mr. SMITH. I reclaim my time, Mr. President.

Mr. SMITH. I reclaim my time.

Mr. SMITH. Regular order.

Mr. SMITH. I reclaim my time.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, during the Armed Services Committee consideration of S. 1026, Senator McCain and I introduced language to amend section 120(h)(3) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 [CERCLA], otherwise known as Superfund, to allow for the use of long-term leases at former military bases undergoing hazardous waste remedial action. The need for this language grew out of a lawsuit filed by the Conservation Law Foundation [CLF] and the town of Newington, NH, which charged that the Air Force had violated Superfund section 120(h) by transferring contaminated parcels at Pease Air Force Base via long-term lease without an approved remedial design. In a decision dated August 29, 1994, Judge Martin Loughlin of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire, held that the Air Force's actions to provide long-term leases to the State of New Hampshire were a violation of CERCLA. Not only has this decision placed a cloud over redevelopment efforts at Pease, but more important, it has helped to hinder the expedited redevelopment of facilities across the Nation that are being closed under the Base Closure and Realignment Act. The language that was included in section 2824 of S. 1026 was intended to modify section 120(h)(3) of Superfund to provide that the Department of Defense may enter into long-term or other leases while any phase of the cleanup is ongoing. The amendment that I am offering today clarifies the language included in section 2824 to provide that not only are existing leases appropriate, but future leases may be entered into after consultation between the EPA and DOD. I have worked closely with Senators Chafee, Baucus, and Lautenberg, as well as the Department of Defense and the Department of the Air force, in developing this language, and I believe that it has been cleared by both sides. This amendment will not only eliminate a significant obstacle to the expedited redevelopment of these bases, but it will give the Department of Defense more flexibility and creativity in placing these facilities back into productive use. Again, I thank my colleague for working with me to adopt this important measure.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. I thank the Senator from South Carolina for yielding, and thank him for his leadership in support of the defense of the United States of America. I am very pleased that this amendment has been offered. I oppose it, vehemently and strongly oppose it, but I am glad it has been offered because it gives the American people a chance once and for all to see just exactly what this debate is all about and who stands for what. The Dorgan amendment would leave the American people completely vulnerable to ballistic missile threats, completely vulnerable. It says to our constituents, it is OK to protect Israel, protect France, protect Germany, protect Italy, protect our allies, but not our folks at home. Do not protect them. The armed services bill, on the other hand, establishes a program to defend all Americans, regardless of where they live, against a limited ballistic missile attack. For the life of me, I do not understand how anyone could use the argument it is OK to protect somebody in one area of the country and not in another area of the country. How can one do that and keep a straight face? The Clinton program and the Dorgan amendment leaves the United States hostage, completely, to the likes of Kim Jong Il and the Pyongyang Communists. The intelligence community has suggested that North Korea may well deploy an ICBM capable of striking Alaska and Hawaii within 5 years, and some talk maybe even as far as San Francisco in a very short period of time, but the Senator from North Dakota thinks it is wrong for us to defend these American citizens? If the Senator disagrees with this assessment, let us look at the statement of the recently confirmed Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, John Deutch. Dr. Deutch stated, If the North Koreans field the Taepo Dong II missile, Guam, Alaska, and parts of Hawaii would potentially be at risk. This is a serious, serious problem. The issue really boils down to this. Twenty nations have acquired or are acquiring weapons of mass destruction and the capability to deliver them, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Libya, China, to name a few. That ought to put the fear of God in us--just that, just thinking about those nations. And at least 24, some of the same ones I just mentioned, have chemical weapons. And approximately 10 more are believed to have biological weapons. And at least 10 countries are reportedly interested in development of nuclear weapons. The international export control regime is failing to prevent the spread of these technologies. They are being spread all over the world, this missile technology, biological, chemical, nuclear, and the capability to deliver them. The Armed Services Committee, under the strong leadership of Senator Strom Thurmond, recognizes that fact. This is a far-reaching, farsighted, looking-ahead attempt to protect the United States of America and its citizens in the outyears. You have to be thinking about that today, not 50 years from now, because 50 years from now it will be too late. You think about it today, and that is what the Senator from South Carolina has done. Under his leadership we have provided, in the Armed Services Committee, the opportunity to protect our citizens. The Dorgan amendment would say that the continental United States, Alaska, and Hawaii, are absolutely vulnerable to these threats. The reckless leaders of North Korea, Syria, Libya, and others basically have free access to our citizens. The choice is simple, really; really simple. If you believe the American people should be protected against limited accidental or intentional missile attacks--take your choice-- you should support the Armed Services Committee bill. That is why we are on the committee. That is why we delve into these matters in great detail. That is our specialty. That is what we are there for, to understand these things and to present options to the full Senate. But if you believe the American people should not be defended and should be completely vulnerable, then you vote for the Dorgan amendment. It is ironic--and tragically ironic, frankly--that those who oppose defending the American people hide behind the fig leaf of the cold war. The cold war is over. And the technology and the philosophy that we use to defend against it is also over. We do not have mutual assured destruction anymore. We do not have a bipolar world anymore. These people are not rational. Does anybody think Saddam Hussein is rational? Would Saddam Hussein have used a nuclear missile in the Persian Gulf war if he had the opportunity? You bet he would. He just does not have it. We do not have the capability to protect against this. It is very interesting that focus groups have been held where we call a few people into the room and interview them. We asked them, ``What would you do if somebody fired a missile at the United States?'' In this group, American citizens were put together in a room and they were asked, ``What would you do if someone fired a missile at the United States of America?'' And every single one of those people said, ``We would shoot it down.'' Guess what? We do not have the capability to shoot it down, Mr. President. This amendment will make sure we do not have the capability to shoot it down until it is too late. So I urge my colleagues to defeat this very irresponsible amendment.

Mr. SMITH. I thank the Senator from South Carolina. Mr. President, the other side in this debate, Senator Levin and others, assert that somehow this bill is going to violate the ABM Treaty or require us to violate the ABM Treaty. Those are the terms that we have heard used--violate or require us to violate the treaty. My friend, Senator Levin, is a very accomplished attorney, and I respect his intellect very much, but this is just patently false. There is no requirement to violate any treaty in this legislation we have written. Nothing in this bill violates the treaty, nothing. If it did, if the language in here were to violate the treaty, why does the distinguished Senator from Georgia, Senator Nunn, in comment after comment talk about an anticipatory breach down the road? If there is an anticipatory breach down the road, the way I read that is there is not any breach yet. There is not any violation of anything. We are anticipating it. Well, you can anticipate anything you want, but the facts speak for themselves. This does not violate the ABM Treaty, period. Nothing in this bill violates the ABM Treaty. It is simply patently false to say that it does. Now, in 2003--that is the deployment date for ground-based multiple sites--in 2003, yes, we could do that, but it is not 2003. This is still 1995 as I looked at the calendar, and I do not quite understand the logic here of how it is that we are violating something that we have not violated yet. We are anticipating a violation, but we are not violating anything. So I am having trouble understanding the semantics, and I think that is probably the intent of the opposition here, to make sure that others have trouble understanding the semantics so that we can confuse and obfuscate and hide the real truth, which is that we are not violating any treaty at all in this language. Now, article XIII, which the Senator from Michigan and others are aware of, is very clear on this, about what our rights are under this treaty. There is nothing hidden about it. I have a copy of the treaty right here in my hand, and it says: To promote the objectives and implementation of the provisions of this treaty, the parties shall establish promptly a standing consultative commission within the framework of which they will-- Among other things, consider possible changes in the strategic situation which have a bearing on the provisions of this treaty. Surely, my colleagues will admit there have been strategic changes since the fall of the Soviet Union. Second: Consider as appropriate possible proposals for further increasing the viability of this Treaty including proposals for amendments. We have a right to amend the treaty. And finally it says under article XV, Mr. President, that: Each party shall in exercising its national sovereignty have the right to withdraw from this Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events relating to the subject matter of this Treaty have jeopardized its supreme interests and it shall give notice of its decision to the other party 6 months prior to the withdrawal from the Treaty. So we are not violating any treaty with this language. If someone is saying we are anticipating the violation of the treaty, fine; we can anticipate anything we want to. But it is simply wrong to say that we are violating this treaty or that we do not have the right to change this treaty or to withdraw from this treaty or whatever the parties wish to do. It is right there. It is written. It is clear. It is indisputable. It is fact. I am kind of surprised to hear that we are going to automatically violate this treaty if we decide that we, in the United States of America, want to defend America against attack. Well, you know what? We do not violate the treaty, but if we had to defend America I would violate the treaty--that happens to be this Senator's personal opinion--because I do not think I am worshiping at the altar of a treaty. I did not know that a treaty was forever and that we could not change the provisions. We have the right to change this treaty. It was written to change, just like the Constitution was written with a possibility to amend it. This treaty was written to change it, to even withdraw from it if it is in the national security interests of a nation to do so. Those are the facts. I suggest to my colleagues that the end of the cold war is just the kind of change the treaty is referring to. That is the kind of strategic change that this treaty is referring to, the end of the cold war, the end of a bipolar world. We are now in a multipolar world with threats that we do not really know how to calculate, with weapons that are different and in the hands of some who may be more inclined to use them than even the old Soviet Union. Our colleagues who support the Levin amendment, if we are to put this in perspective, are the same people who day after day, day after day, year after year, argue the cold war is over and therefore we should adapt our defense program to the changed environment. That is a good argument. The cold war is over. We must adapt. We are adapting. We have downsized our military. We are changing some of the priorities in our weapons systems. That is fine. But why are they fighting so hard, Mr. President, to preserve the most obvious relic of the cold war, the ABM Treaty? The ABM Treaty, the AntiBallistic Missile Treaty, the relic of the cold war, deals with a bipolar world, deals with a concept of mutual assured destruction, that if one side fires at the other, the other will fire back; therefore, the first side will not fire. That is the whole logic here, but is not a bipolar world. Does anybody believe that Saddam Hussein would be reasonable and rational, or perhaps Qadhafi in Libya? Are we dealing with rational people in some of these fundamentalist and other nations around the world today? I think not, and the American people know that. Frankly, those who wrote this treaty knew that, that we were not always going to have the same situation in the world. The treaty is between the United States and the Soviet Union. There is no Soviet Union anymore. Even if we agree that Russia is the successor to the Soviet Union--which frankly is an open question--there are many other nations now, legitimate nations of the world that were part of that old Soviet Union. It is not just Russia. Russia is not the automatic successor to the Soviet Union. It is clear that this treaty does not include the nations that threaten us the most. The nations that threaten us most: Libya, North Korea, Syria, Iran, Iraq, China, they did not sign the ABM Treaty. They do not have anything to do with the ABM Treaty. So why are [[Page S 11268]] we locked to an ABM Treaty? Why are we locked to an ABM Treaty that does not even deal with the countries that are threatening us? The answer is very simple. We should not be. And the treaty founders, those who authored that treaty, knew it. We are not standing on the brink with Russia. In fact, Yeltsin says Russia is no longer targeting us with missiles. This is no longer bipolar. It is multipolar. The Levin amendment would leave us perpetually locked into an outdated posture of confrontation with the former Soviet Union, the past, the cold war. Let us step into the 21st century. Let us look at the threat today, not yesterday. We have an obligation here in this Senate to look ahead, to protect the future, and this language does it. This language does it. It encourages a cooperative transition away, away from mutual assured destruction toward mutual assured security-- not destruction. The Levin amendment would leave America completely vulnerable to ballistic missile attack. It would strike this language, gut the essence of the bill, restrict our ability to make theater defenses as technologically capable as possible. The SASC bill says all Americans deserve to be protected and ensures that our national security and theater defense programs are targeted toward the specific threats which confront us today, not yesterday. The Levin amendment would perpetuate the policy again of mutual assured destruction, even though the cold war is over. Do not take my word for it. Henry Kissinger, who helped develop the doctrine, agrees that mutual assured destruction is no longer relevant; not even appropriate, yet Senator Levin would continue a policy that I believe is absurd, that leaves our Nation defenseless while being locked into a policy, a relic that belongs in the dustbin of history. It is time to move on, Mr. President. It is time to move into the 21st century. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time, and I thank the Senator from South Carolina for yielding. Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. SMITH. I move to table the motion. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Taxpayer Debt Buy-Down Act. The proposal is specifically designed to give taxpayers an unprecedented role in the budget process and provide a mechanism for an annual national referendum on Federal spending. If Congress fails to reign in Federal spending, this bill allows the taxpayers of America to speak out every April 15. The proposal would amend the IRS Code to allow taxpayers the opportunity to voluntarily designate up to 10 percent of their income tax liability for the purpose of debt reduction. All moneys designated would be placed in a national debt reduction fund established in the Department of the Treasury, and used to retire the public debt, except obligations held by the Social Security trust fund, the civil service, and military retirement funds. On October 1, the Treasury Department would be required to estimate the amount designated through the checkoff. Congress would then have until September 30 of the following year to make the necessary cuts in Federal spending. The Debt Buy-Down Act does not micromanage the spending cuts. Congress retains complete authority to cut any Federal spending program it deems appropriate. To coordinate this measure and the efforts to balance the budget, the checkoff will apply only if the amount designated is greater than the cuts that Congress has already implemented. For example, if Congress passes a reconciliation bill this year that designates cuts of $50 billion in 1998, and the checkoff in 1998 totals $60 billion, the $50 billion will count toward the checkoff and only an additional $10 billion will need to be cut. If Congress failed to enact spending reductions to meet the amount designated by the taxpayers, an across-the-board sequester would occur of all accounts except the Social Security retirement benefits, interest of the debt, deposit insurance accounts and contractual obligations of the Federal Government. If Congress enacted only half of the necessary cuts, the sequester would ensure the other half. The Debt Buy-Down account would hold Congress's feet to the fire. All spending cuts required by the act would be permanent--the cuts would permanently reduce the spending baseline. For example, if $1 billion of cuts are required and Congress eliminates a $1 billion program in the Department of Energy, that program would be gone forever. If Congress later decided that they needed the program, they would be required to cut $1 billion elsewhere. Although nothing in the legislation would prohibit Congress from increasing taxes, tax increases could not be used to substitute for the spending reductions designated by taxpayers. Mr. President, we cannot allow the current talk about balanced budgets to deter us from our ultimate goal--elimination of the $4.9 trillion national debt. Yes, we must balance the budget first, and this proposal serves as a friendly enforcement mechanism to do just that. Balancing the budget, however, does not guarantee that we will begin to buy down our national debt. If our budget is balanced by the year 2002 as required by the congressional budget resolution, what happens next? Under current law, the answer is: nothing. There is no requirement that Congress begin to attack the debt problem. This bill would change that. The American people would be allowed to tell us exactly how much debt reduction they believe is necessary and Congress would be required to act. That is the way our system of government is supposed to work. Mr. President, the Taxpayer Debt Buy-Down Act was endorsed by then- President Bush at the 1992 Republican Convention. The House companion legislation, H.R. 429, is sponsored by Congressman Bob Walker, and passed the House earlier this year as part of the Contract With America. The legislation is supported by the National Federation of Independent Business [NFIB], Americans for a Balanced Budget, Americans for Tax Reform, The American Legislative Exchange Council [ALEC], The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, Association of Concerned Taxpayers for a Fair and Simple Tax, the Institute for the Research on the Economics of Taxation [IRET], the National Taxpayers Union [NTU], and the U.S. Business and Industrial Council. I urge my colleagues to support the Taxpayer Debt Buy-Down Act. It is an innovative proposal that makes ``We the People'' an integral part of the Federal budget process.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. I thank the Senator from Kentucky for yielding. Mr. President, in seeking office to be a U.S. Senator, it was not my hope that I would ever be in the position that I am now in on the floor of the U.S. Senate as a member of the Ethics Committee essentially debating in some ways regarding a case involving one of our colleagues. It is not something you look forward to. But before entering into the discussion of the Boxer amendment, which I strongly oppose, I just want to say regarding the chairman of this committee--and frankly, his predecessor as well, Senator Bryan-- starting first with Senator Bryan, I served on the Ethics Committee and I have served for the past 4 years on that committee, a year--2\1/2\ years of that--3\1/2\ years of that was under the chairmanship of Senator Bryan. Never, ever under any circumstances did I see any partisanship reflected by him or his colleagues on the committee. We always worked together in the spirit of knowing, frankly, as you refer to this case, but for the grace of God it could be some or one on the other side. See, as Senator McConnell has so brilliantly outlined, that is the beauty of the whole concept of the Ethics Committee, Mr. President, to the fact that we have taken this whole issue of judging a colleague out of the hands--out of the hands--of politics and put it into a nonpartisan, rather than bipartisan, in my estimation, Ethics Committee. Senator Cooper, who was referred to by Senator McConnell, who helped to craft this legislation to create this committee, was brilliant, in my estimation. Is it a perfect process? No. I can certainly attest to that, as can any of my colleagues who have served on this committee. Senator McConnell, as the chairman of this committee, involving a major case of one of our colleagues on our side of the aisle, has taken more abuse than any chairman of this committee that I can recall in recent times. And every word of it, every single word of it has been unfair. And I happen to know because I have served with him every step of the way, both when he was ranking member and as chairman. He has taken it from the press, he has taken it from colleagues on his side of the aisle, he has taken it from colleagues on the other side of the aisle. And none of it, none of it, is justified. I know how frustrating it is--because I have been in the Senate when I was not a member of the committee--when there is a case of this magnitude, or any case that is before this committee, to not know what is going on, meeting behind closed doors, if you will. There is a reason for that. No, it may not be popular out there in the public. It is certainly not going to be popular when you have colleagues like Senator Boxer railing against the process on the floor of the Senate. No, it is not going to be popular. It is going to be unpopular because when Senator Boxer and others rail against the process on the Senate floor, they will make it unpopular. That is why it is unpopular. There is no confidence in public officials or public institutions, it has been said on the other side of this debate. When I say ``on the other side of this debate,'' I do not necessarily mean all of the other party. But that is the reason why, because with all due respect to my colleague, she did not give us the opportunity to render a decision, not a decision in regard to Senator Packwood in terms of punishment, if any. No, no; that is not the issue. She did not give us a chance to render a decision on whether or not there was going to be a public hearing. This issue is not about a public hearing. Let us be honest about this. This is not about a public hearing. If it was about a public hearing, with all due respect to the Senator from California, the Senator from California would have waited until the Ethics Committee took a vote and, as it turned out, it was 3 to 3. Then she would have come to the Senate floor and criticized the vote, which she has a right to do, and say we should have had public hearings. But that is not what happened, I say to my colleagues. Senator Boxer decided, before the Ethics Committee made a decision, that she was going to criticize the Ethics Committee to intimidate the Ethics Committee and break up the process, the nonpartisan process. That is what happened. That is exactly what happened, and my colleagues know that is what happened, and that is wrong. We have now interjected the ugly aspect of partisanship into this process. I heard it said on the floor of the Senate prior to this debate that the three of us on our side of the aisle in this case had made up their minds and had already announced their decisions. This Senator had not made any such decision, and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle know it. If they are honest about it, they will admit it, because I never made any statements until just days, a couple of days, before this whole thing happened, did I ever say to one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle how I was voting. I did not know how I was going to vote. I tried to keep an open mind. I heard Senator Mikulski say in the debate a while ago that I have always been in favor of public hearings. Let me just say, that is not true. In my case, I was never always against public hearings. You know what; I tried to listen to the merits of this case and I tried to make my mind up on whether or not there should be a public hearing based on what I heard after 2\1/2\ years. I did not make my mind up on anything, not anything at all, because it is too important to do that. This is a colleague that we are talking about; these are victims out there that we are talking about. They all deserve--they all deserve--a fair process, and the process that has been outlined by Senator McConnell is fair. It is fair, and it keeps politics out of it. It allows the Senate Ethics Committee to operate not under the pressures of what is popular out there, or unpopular out there, whatever the case may be, not what the Washington Post says or anybody else says out there in the media, not what is written on the editorial pages, no, and not what is said on the floor of the Senate in some partisan debate. That is not the way we are supposed to operate. We cannot operate that way. I urge my colleagues to consider that when you vote. Forget about the ``D'' or the ``R'' next to your name and think about it. Think very carefully about it, because as Senator McConnell has said, we very well may be back to the Rules Committee making decisions. I do not know who in the world, as he said, would serve on the Ethics Committee if before you make a decision on anything, be it public hearings or final decision, we have to be told or intimidated by debate as to what may be popular how we are supposed to rule. That is not the process. As Senator McConnell also said, we never had any partisan rancor in this case; a little bit of it when we had the situation on the floor over the diaries, but minimal. But in terms of the meetings that we had, I do not know how many hundreds of them we have had and the hours we have spent. I was sitting here and did not check the record--and I will be happy to stand corrected if I am wrong--I cannot recall one vote, not one, that was 3 to 3 on anything that we have done on this case, and we have had one heck of a lot of votes. This is the only one. It was 3 to 3. I have to deal with my own conscience and with my own Creator, and I made that decision not based on whether there is an ``R'' next to my name or not, thank you, I say to Senator Boxer, but I made it on the basis of what I thought was right. That is how I made my decision. And my colleagues on the committee who have worked with me for the past 4 years know it. The Senator seeks to undermine the bipartisan nature of this committee. It is a very dangerous road to travel down. The many issues that we face with other committee members have been handled not only in a bipartisan, nonpartisan, but a respectful manner--respectful manner. I truly believe that each member of this committee feels strongly about every case we have worked on, about each Member's conduct we have judged, and the effect every case has on the Senate as an institution, as well as the victims, as well as the Senator accused--but also the Senate. I can honestly state that I have never seen any partisanship until now. I understand the pressures, and I regret very much that because of those pressures, some have had to succumb to this. I regret very much-- and I do not cast any personal aspersions, and my colleagues know that--but I regret very much for the few moments that I was in the chair earlier this afternoon, seeing all of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle on the Ethics Committee converged around the Senator from California with their staffs, working on an amendment which, in essence, guts the entire Ethics Committee process. I regret that very much. I want to get that out on the floor as a matter of public record. I regret it very much. At each step of this investigation, with a Democrat as chairman, with a Republican as chairman, we have conducted our business fairly, bipartisanly, and we have never left a stone unturned that I am aware of, and that includes the committee. When Senator McConnell took over as chairman of the committee, he did not change one staff member; not one. Can we say that about other Senate committees after the parties changed power? Not one staff person. It did not even cross his mind. It was never discussed, ever. We cannot circumvent the procedure that we have here. If this Boxer amendment is adopted, no longer--no longer--will there be a thoughtful discussion of the facts among committee members, no more thoughtful discussions. It will be what is popular. I resent very much--and I again want to be strong in my statement--I resent very much some of the terms that have been used on the floor in this debate: ``Whitewash''; ``sweep things under the rug''; ``behind closed doors''; ``men's club.'' I have heard all of it. I have heard all of it, and it is an insult, frankly, to all six members, and all six members know it is an insult. The public has a right to know; it absolutely has a right to know the facts in this case. I spent 6 years on a school board, 3 years as its chairman. I strongly support the public right to know, the right-to- know laws, and full public disclosure. I take a back seat to no one on that. I can tell you that when this case is concluded, everything that this committee knows the public will know. I can also tell you that after the decision is rendered and this case is discussed on the floor, you can ask any question that you want to ask of this Senator, of any other Senator on the committee, any information. It is all there. You will have it all. You can question anything you want--anything. You can overturn any decision we make. You can agree to any decision we make. But that is the way the process is supposed to work, and that is not what is happening now. Think about this. In this case, it is a popular thing that Senator Boxer has brought up here. It is popular in the sense that somehow the perception is that a ``men's club,'' a U.S. Senate with very few women, is somehow, because of this being an allegation involving sexual matters, sweeping something under the rug simply because we do not have public hearings. Hearings are supposed to produce new evidence, add to the debate. That is a decision for the committee to make, and we made it. We made it in spite of the attacks that were made on this committee and the integrity of the process by the Senator from California. And I am glad we did, because it was the right thing to do. And tomorrow, God forbid, or next year, it may be someone on your side of the aisle, and you will be glad we did. You will be very glad we did. Mr. President, in my judgment, we have enough information to move on the disciplinary phase of this process. I would like to end this 2\1/ 2\-year investigation, which has taken many, many hours of my time and days of my time, and that of my colleagues--time I would have liked to have spent with my family or on other matters. I believe that at its conclusion, most likely the case will be before you here on the floor. Every one of you will have the opportunity to make your own judgment. I say to you, give us the chance, my colleagues. Vote against the Boxer amendment and give us a chance to be judged on the decision that we make. Give us that opportunity to be judged on the decision that we render. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise to state briefly the reasons why I voted today in support of S. 1061, the bill to reform the rules of the Senate regarding the acceptance of gifts by Members and employees of the Senate. That measure, of course, was approved by a resounding, bipartisan vote of 98-0. Mr. President, in the 103d Congress, I was pleased to support S. 1935, the Congressional Gifts Reform Act, which was approved by the Senate on May 11, 1994, by a vote of 95 to 4. Ultimately, however, S. 1935 did not become law because it was combined in conference with a controversial lobbying reform measure. As a result, the conference report was not approved by the Senate. I am pleased, Mr. President, that the Senate has now revisited the issue and has succeeded in reforming its Rules regarding gifts. S. 1061, as adopted by the Senate today, represents a reasonable compromise among the competing proposals for gift reform. In general, Members and employees of the Senate will be permitted to accept only non-monetary gifts with a value of less than $50, with a total cumulative value of no more than $100, in any calendar year from any person, corporation, or organization. No gift with a value below $10, however, will count towards the $100 annual limit. As a member of the Select Committee on Ethics, I am strongly committed to keeping the ethical standards of the Senate above reproach. The new gift standard under which the Senate will be operating will make an important contribution to enhancing public confidence in the Senate as an institution. I want especially to commend the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, Mitch McConnell, for his exemplary leadership in working to achieve the compromise that resulted in the unanimous passage of S. 1061. It is my privilege to serve under Senator McConnell's leaderships as the chairman of the Select Committee on Ethics. He does an outstanding job of leading that important Select Committee under what are sometimes difficult circumstances.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to George F. Courtovich of Stratham, NH. George passed away suddenly on May 21, 1995, at the age of 33. George was a great American. Although his was not a name that would be nationally recognized, George Courtovich was great because of the way in which he lived and influenced the lives of so many. He lived his life to the fullest and gave of himself to the community in numerous ways. Most notable was his volunteer work for the Stratham Fire Department where he was a member of the EMT rescue squad. George left his parents, Dorothy and George, his brother, Jim, and his wife, Debra, and daughter, Colleen, much too early. He will be missed by his family, his friends, his colleagues, those whose lives he saved through his EMT work, the elderly in the community to whom he delivered meals on weekends, and those he taught to enjoy the sport of skiing while an instructor at Loon Mountain. George touched many lives and embodied what is best about the American spirit. He has left this world for a new one, and though he is no longer with us, we are all enriched for having known him. The celebration of George's life was poignantly related by his brother Jim at the funeral service on May 24, 1995 at St. Michael's Church in Exeter, NH. Mr. President, I ask that the text of the eulogy be reprinted in the Record. The eulogy follows: Eulogy Given by James C. Courtovich Today we come to celebrate the life of George Courtovich, my brother, my best friend. George had many qualities, but none stronger than the love he had for his family, friends, and even strangers. George enjoyed life to the fullest, and more importantly, he wanted everyone to enjoy it with him. He made it easier for us to do so. George answered the call--whether as a volunteer fire fighter, friend, neighbor, brother, son, father or husband-- he was there to help. He believed that we were here to leave this place better than we found it. George did. On Thanksgivings, before joining my parents and other family members, George prepared and delivered dinners for people for whom the day would have been nothing special otherwise. His reward was, as in many instances, knowing he helped make someone's day a little better. It is hard to quantify all of the good George did, as he was able to bring people together, help a neighbor, be a supportive family member in a way that would leave people grateful but not obligated--sometimes not knowing until later what George had done for them. I wish I could talk to all the people whom George helped as a volunteer E.M.T., but I know there were many. I wish I could go back and find all of his friends he helped along the way, but I know there were many. I just know, however, that no matter where George was, he helped. I remember running into George the day I was leaving for a ski weekend. George spotted my attire and shabby skis. For all of you who were close to George, you know this was unacceptable to him and off we went to a ski store--and we shopped like only George could--he was standing at the fore, directing three salesmen in eight directions ensuring that I arrived at the mountain outfitted for an Olympic tryout. As he paid, George looked at me and said he could not let me go skiing looking like I would have because it might have hurt his image on the slopes. He didn't fool me, I knew he was helping me, like he had so many times before. That was classic George. To understand George's love of family, you need look only at the walls of his and Debbie's home, where Norman Rockwell's four Freedoms hang. Freedom from Want hangs over the dining room table, Freedom of Speech and Freedom to Worship are in the living room, and Freedom from Fear watches over Colleen's crib. This is how George wanted life to be, for all of us. This is what George strived for. He helped us all get one step closer to Rockwell's world. George brought Debbie, and they together, Colleen into our lives. They have made us stronger and richer. Deb, you are the sister I never had. You brought George so much happiness and joy. We take great comfort in knowing you have been part of George's life and have made it better--as you have done for all of us. Mom and Dad, you stood by George and helped him along the way. You were always there for him, as you are for me. Just by moving no further than a few miles from you shows the love he had for the both of you. Your commitment to him was clear, your love, unquestioned. My Grandmother, of course, has been here for all of us. We know this is especially hard on you, but we can all rest easier knowing George is with our grandfather now. Together, with our many other beloved relatives, they are watching over us. And to all of you who have come to express your support and sympathy, our family appreciates everything you have done for us. We know that this is a tragedy we all share in and will need each other to get through it. Just knowing that there are so many of you there, comforts us greatly. Today we have come to say good-bye to my brother, my best friend. Today we will leave here with George in all of us; he will live on in our memories and our hearts forever. George, we love you.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, as I look at this table, it seems to me that my State would be better off funding its AIDS programs on its own. If we collected $10 in State taxes, we would have $10 to spend on AIDS services. But, under this formula, we give the Federal Government $10, and Uncle Sam writes us a check for $2, and then tells us how to spend it. I would urge my colleagues to take a look at this breakdown, and consider how their own State does, before supporting this bill. Mr. President, I have to congratulate the proponents of this legislation. They have done a superb job at packaging it up with a glitzy title, lots of cosponsors, and a masterful press campaign. Everyone knows the story of Ryan White, the courageous 13-year-old boy who fell prey to this devastating disease. It is a very effective technique. You name your bill after a person with a heroic story who is deeply admired by millions of Americans, like Ryan White, and people are afraid to vote against it. This makes for good politics, but, too often, bad policy. Frankly, Mr. President, if Ryan White were alive today, because he was from Kokomo, IN, and not a big city, he would not qualify for assistance under the emergency relief program--which accounts for $368 million--nearly half of next year's funds. The only funds that he might qualify for would be under the ``CARE grant program'' (title II) which are distributed by a formula using the numbers of AIDS cases, rather than the size of the cities. But, according to CBO, the formula in this bill only allocates $205 million for this section--just over half the amount allocated for the big cities. So, the big cities get $368 million, the rest of the country-- including those same big cities--get to divide up the $205 million that is left over. If we are trying to help all AIDS victims, like Ryan White, why are most of the funds being funneled into large cities? Some would argue that they get more funds because they have more AIDS cases. That is not why they do better under this bill. That might be the reason that States with big cities get more money under title II, the $205 million CARE program. But the bulk of funds in this bill go to title I--$368 million. That section says that big cities, cities with more than 500,000 residents, get all of the money, as long as they have more than 2,000 cases of AIDS. If you have 499,000 residents, and a huge AIDS population, forget it. You get nothing. This has nothing to do with AIDS cases, or fairness, or need--only size. Suffice it to say that my State does not have any cities that are that big. Manchester has about 100,000 people. Nashua has about 80,000. Concord has about 36,000. So, this bill says ``tough luck for the State of New Hampshire, and many other States.'' That is not to say that New Hampshire does no have an AIDS problem. We have the same problem that every other State has. I would urge my colleagues to take a look at the state-by-state breakdown that I put in the Record earlier and see how your own State does. But, we could have the highest incidence of AIDS in the Nation, and that would not matter. Under title I, it is cut and dry. Unless you have 500,000 residents, you don't get a nickel. In conclusion, Mr. President, it would be very easy for me to look the other way and vote for this bill. I would probably save myself a lot of grief and controversy. Unanimous-Consent Agreement

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I am going to vote against S. 641, the so- called Ryan White CARE Act. This is not going to be a popular vote, and I am sure that many will say that I am being unfair to AIDS victims and their families. But, I believe that this it is this bill that is unfair. Unfair to persons suffering from other diseases, and their families. Unfair to small States, like New Hampshire. Unfair to the taxpayers. First of all, let me make it clear that I take a back seat to no Senator in my concern for those inflicted with HIV and AIDS. I have always supported Federal AIDS research. But, we are already funding AIDS research. In fact, AIDS research is by far the most heavily funded area at the National Institutes of Health. Earlier this year, I was sent a table from the American Heart Association regarding the distribution of research dollars at the Department of Health and Human Services. The table tracks HHS research funding dollars spent per death in fiscal year 1993. It tracks five diseases--HIV-AIDS, diabetes, cancer, heart disease, and stroke. We are spending $36,763 per HIV-AIDS death, $5,421 per diabetes death, $3,708 per cancer death, $1,032 per heart death, and $731 per stroke death. Clearly, relative to other diseases, the Federal Government has demonstrated a firm commitment to funding AIDS research. In fact, the American Heart Association materials go on to say that HHS-- spends 36 times more research funding per death of an AIDS victim than was spent per death of a victim of heart disease. Similarly, with regard to dollars spent per death, AIDS funding exceeded stroke funding by 50 to 1. It seems that, in an effort to demonstrate our commitment to AIDS, we have seriously shortchanged many other devastating illnesses. As you can see, AIDS research is already being funded. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this bill will cost $3.7 billion over the next 6 years. So, where is this $3.7 billion going to go? If it is not research, what exactly is the Ryan White CARE Act? One of the architects of the Ryan White Program, the senior Senator from Massachusetts, summarized in his opening statement how Ryan White funds have assisted the city of Boston: 15,000 individuals are receiving primary care, 8,000 are receiving dental care, and 9,000 are receiving mental health services. An additional 700 are receiving case management services and nutrition supplements. I am very pleased to hear that so many people are being assisted in this way, particularly in Boston--right across the border. But, Mr. President, what makes someone with AIDS more entitled to federally funded mental health or dental services than someone with cancer or diabetes or Alzheimer's? No other disease has its own program like this. I am not saying that we should pit one disease against another, and say that they ought to all receive the same amount of funds. What I am saying is that we are already spending huge amounts of money on AIDS, without this bill. Would I like to see AIDS victims receive these services? Of course I would. I would like for everyone to receive these services. But, we need to face the budgetary realities. Our national debt recently climbed over the $4.9 trillion mark. It is rapidly reaching $5 trillion. We can't just keep plowing full speed ahead with these sorts of spending programs without contemplating how we are going to pay for them. But, Mr. President, what concerns this Senator in particular is how my State of New Hampshire gets shortchanged in the funding formula in S. 641. The Senate Labor Committee provided me with a State-by-State breakdown of 1996 funds under this bill. According to the Labor Committee, when you combine titles I and II, my State of New Hampshire gets about $1,125,000. It is difficult to look at this number and determine whether this is higher or lower than what we should be getting. So, my staff calculated, using Census Bureau population statistics, how much each State gets back for every dollar it contributed for this bill. This new breakdown clearly shows where most of the money is going. New Hampshire gets only 20 cents on the dollar. That is, for every dollar we put in, we only got 20 cents back, while the State of New York gets $3.18 for every dollar they put in. Washington, DC, gets $7.26 for every dollar. I ask unanimous consent that this State-by-State breakdown be included in the Record at this point.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 1060, the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, as amended last night by the compromise language developed by our distinguished colleagues, Senators McConnell and Levin. I am pleased that the McConnell-Levin amendment solves both of the principal problems with lobbying reform legislation that caused me to vote against it last year. First, the McConnell-Levin amendment assures that this legislation is not directed at grassroots lobbying. Grassroots lobbyists will not be required to report their activities or disclose their contributors. Unlike last year's bill, moreover, S. 1060 does not threaten to make grass roots lobbyists divulge their entire mailing lists. Second, the McConnell-Levin amendment removes from S. 1060 the provisions that would have created a new government agency, which would have been called the Office of Lobbying Registration and Public Disclosure. It replaces those provisions with language that establishes administrative enforcement by the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives. Those officers, and not a new government agency, will receive the lobbying reports that will be required if S. 1060 becomes law. Mr. President, S. 1060 represents a reasonable compromise that properly balances the first amendment rights of the people against the demand of the public for meaningful reform of the way in which Washington does business. I remain convinced that last year's bill went too far and threatened to abridge the first amendment rights of grassroots lobbyists. Moreover, last year's bill made the age-old mistake of attempting to address a problem by creating yet another new government agency. I am pleased that last year's bill was defeated and that, this year, the opposing sides in that battle have come together to produce this bill. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, Senator McConnell, for his able leadership with respect to this bill. He has done an outstanding job in achieving the imminent overwhelming approval of the Senate for this bill.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, this debate is one of the most emotional debates I think that I have had the opportunity to witness and in any way be involved. I think it is one of the major foreign policy issues of our time and probably the last major foreign policy problem that the world will face in this century. I must say, as I listened to the debate, in particular the remarks made by the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Biden, the emotion that he put into those remarks and the strong personal feelings he expressed, I think summed it up about as well as anyone could. I think it summed up the frustration, it summed up the morality issue, the political issue, and made us all reflect on what a terrible crisis this is. I have some concern standing here and speaking, because if words in this Chamber could solve the world's problems, I guess they would have been solved many times over. So I have some trepidation in trying to add. As Lincoln said at Gettysburg, there is little to add or detract, to pay due respect for what they did, referring to those who died at Gettysburg. In other words, words cannot express what is happening in Bosnia. There is no way you can capture that in debate in this Chamber. I wish to compliment Senator Lieberman because he has been steadfast on this issue for many months, as has Senator Dole, the majority leader. The two of them have been very outspoken in particular, and others have as well, on the arms embargo issue, even early on before this has reached this crisis proportion. I can remember both of these Senators being very outspoken and eloquent on the issue of the arms embargo and the right of self- determination for the Bosnian Muslims. So I wish to publicly thank Senator Lieberman and Senator Dole for their leadership. I should like to add a few remarks to express my feeling as well, knowing full well, considering the eloquence of many of the people who have preceded me here to speak today, and probably will speak later, there is not much one can add other than to express his or her own personal outrage and disgust, contempt, frustration, whatever the words might be, to describe it. I would start by saying I think the word dilemma is probably appropriate in the sense that this is a world dilemma; it is a U.S. dilemma; it is a U.S. foreign policy dilemma; it is a dilemma certainly for the participants in that war; it is a moral dilemma; it is an ethical dilemma; and certainly it is a political dilemma for whomever happens to be in the White House or in the Congress, in Government at the time. I rise in very strong support of this bill introduced by Senators Dole and Lieberman to lift the arms embargo against the Bosnian Moslems. It is the right thing to do. It has been too long in coming, but it is the right thing to do. Bringing this matter before the Senate is long overdue. Perhaps, had we had this debate in this kind of public policy forum, we may have brought it to a head a lot sooner. Perhaps if the Senator from Connecticut and the majority leader, the Senator from Kansas, had had their way, we might have saved some lives, had this embargo been lifted back in the days early on when the Senators were talking about that. The illegal and immoral policy of denying people the capability to defend themselves must stop. It must stop. If we are not going to intervene, which we have made the decision not to do, in terms of ground forces, then we ought to lift the embargo and allow people the right to self-defense. How can anyone, seeing what is happening now in Bosnia, dispute that? It is time to lift the arms embargo against the Government of Bosnia. The United Nations policy toward Bosnia--there is no other way to say it--is an unmitigated disaster--all well intended, the greatest motives in the world, no question about it. I admire the soldiers who went there and the countries that sent them there. But they were not given the tools to do the job. They did not go in as a fighting force, and they did not go in as a protecting force, Mr. President. They are not fighting, and they are not protecting either. They need to get out, and they need to get out right away. Our acquiescence of this policy, indeed, our active enforcement of it, is not only wrong, it is absolutely unconscionable, unconscionable that we would tolerate the sending of a force under the auspices of protection, not engage, not stop the atrocities but simply stand by and allow them to happen. Every day, every minute, as we speak on the floor, the situation gets worse. As I sat watching the Senator from Delaware, listening to his very eloquent remarks, I wondered how many people died in Bosnia while he spoke. I wonder how many people will die in Bosnia before we complete this debate, not because the United States of America or the allies did not go in and intercede and fight the war for them, not because of that, but because they were not armed, because they did not have the opportunity to protect themselves or defend themselves, to defend their women, to defend their children, to defend the very men who have been hauled away and imprisoned and executed. Every day, every single day that we participate in this embargo, this whole action becomes more reprehensible, more unconscionable, more unethical, more immoral--every single day, every single minute that we continue this policy. As I reflect upon this, I say to myself, it is easy to criticize, but there are many times when we make policy mistakes. I am sure many of us have made mistakes here with our votes on policy matters. Many Presidents, past and present and future, have made and will make mistakes in the future. But this one, this one is costing lives every day. Every single day lives are lost because of this policy. Article 51 of the United Nations Charter affirms Bosnia's inherent right of self-defense as a sovereign nation. That is very clear. Sovereign right, in article 51, of self-defense--self-defense. It does not say in there that we have to defend them or anyone else has to go defend them. It says to defend themselves. It says self-defense. Yet, the arms embargo prevents them from exercising this very basic right. So it is not just a matter of not intervening to help someone. It is a matter of preventing them from helping themselves. That is why it is immoral, and that is why it is unconscionable. No matter how strongly you feel about this, how can anyone condone such a policy which denies the Bosnians the capability for basic self-defense? How can we participate in a policy that leaves them utterly vulnerable to territorial conquest and ethnic cleansing? I hate that phrase, ``ethnic cleansing'' because the word ``cleanse'' has a pure meaning to it, something good. It is not ethnic cleansing; it is murder. Let us call it what it is. Let us take the term out of the vocabulary, the vernacular. It is murder, it is rape, it is extermination. That is what it is. It is brutality. Ugly words, ugly, dirty words. Not good, clean words. Mr. President, the United States has no business, in my opinion, making matters worse by intervening in this conflict. At least that has been the policy decision that has been made. It is the overwhelming feeling of the majority of the American people that we do not have military interests and we do not have economic interests and we do not have an alliance and relationship to enforce, and it is not our battle to fight. You have heard all the arguments. It is not our place to deny innocent Bosnian victims the ability to defend themselves either. If I were to give a comparison, Mr. President, I would say this would be the equivalent of you seeing a terrible crime being committed, say a murder, several murders. You call the police, and the police come. And the victims who are being preyed upon by this murderer or murderers try to come to the police for aid, and the police simply stand by and watch it all happen. That is what is happening. It is the exact same analogy there. There is nothing different about it. So, blue uniforms of the policemen; blue hats of the United Nations. They cannot do anything about it. They are not doing anything about it. Therefore, why create the impression that somehow they are going to help and be able to help these people? It is not the United Nations' battle either although the so-called U.N. protection forces are currently deployed in several so-called safe havens. I think the term ``protection forces'' is another [[Page S 10643]] misnomer, misnamed. They are not protecting anybody. So why call them protection forces? Again, it is the vocabulary, the vernacular, the semantics, to help mislead the world that somehow these people are protecting the Moslems. And safe havens. Think of that word as we talk about vocabulary. Safe havens. People are being butchered, raped, dragged out of their homes in safe havens. And that is what we continue to call them. That is the term that is still being used. Gorazde, Zepa, safe havens, even though in many cases the safe havens have been overrun. It is completely misleading to even use such terms. U.N. forces are not equipped to protect the designated areas. And these areas are certainly not safe. The truth is, the truth is--and this is harsh--but U.N. forces are nothing more, Mr. President, than a speed bump for the Serbian forces who are overrunning these positions at will. That is all it is, a speed bump. Bloop. Out of the way. Seizing hostages wherever, whenever, it suits their needs and using those hostages by placing them next to military targets, in a sense saying, go ahead, bomb us. It is a disgrace and embarrassment to the world and to our country. No one likes to stand here and say that. We witnessed it once in our history in Vietnam and now we are seeing it again. And if we get into this country, it will be Vietnam 10 times worse. And perhaps the most telling example of just how preposterous this whole situation is, Mr. President--this has really got to me emotionally--is recently U.N. troops, UNPROFOR troops, came under attack, not by the Serbs, but by the Moslems. Why were they attacked? They were attacked because the Moslems wanted their weapons to protect themselves. They wanted to take the weapons from their protectors, so that they may be able to confront the Serbs. If that did not convince you to support Senator Dole and Senator Lieberman and their endeavor, I do not know what else could possibly convince you to do it. When the U.N. force is incapable of defending the victims of Serbian aggression and even preventing them from defending themselves, it is clear that this policy is a failure. The report on this was very brief, did not give a lot of detail. But you cannot help but wonder just what happened in that little exchange when the Moslems confronted the U.N. forces to take their weapons. Did they fight the Moslems? Did they voluntarily lay them down and give them up? I did not see a lot of detail on that. It would be interesting to know just how that little exchange took place. Mr. President, the only reasonable strategy--the only reasonable strategy--is to terminate further escalation of military involvement, terminate it, move out the U.N. forces, lift the arms embargo against the Bosnian Moslems, and we ought to establish a timetable to fully withdraw the U.N. forces within the next 3 to 4 months, followed by an immediate lifting of the embargo. I want to be very clear on my position that I oppose the introduction of American ground forces for this conflict for the same reasons so eloquently stated by Senator McCain a few moments ago. There is no mission. And without that mission being very specific, you are not going to get the job done. And when you go in, what is your mission? Kill all the Serbs? Then what? Partition the country? Line up along the borders, not allow anybody in or out? For how many years? For 100 years? For 1,000 years? Two days? They have been fighting for centuries there. It is ethnic fighting. How do we police it? Do we plan to stay there forever? I have no objection to the use of American communications equipment, command and control assets, to support a withdrawal of U.N. forces. Maybe that will be necessary. I personally believe that the Serbs would welcome withdrawal of the U.N. forces. I do not think they want them there. I think they would welcome it, and I think resistance may be overstated in terms of how much resistance they would give if we announce tomorrow that the U.N. forces were leaving. The U.N. forces should be immediately withdrawn, followed by the lifting of the embargo. Let those who are being heinously persecuted, let them meet destiny on their own terms, not on somebody else's terms, Mr. President. Let them meet their own destiny on their own terms. And let them meet that destiny from behind their own weapons, not cowering behind the ruins of some unsafe haven, waiting, hoping, praying that somebody in a blue helmet is going to come in and provide them protection. Let them meet destiny on their own terms with their own weapons. We do not have the legal or moral authority to play policeman in this centuries-old conflict. Least of all do we have the moral authority to do it when we go in there under the auspices of a protection force and then do not protect anybody. That makes it worse. That compounds it. Let us step back, allow the Moslems the dignity and the capability to defend themselves. It would be nice to read about a few successes with the Moslems as they do have the opportunity to meet at least with some weaponry to allow them to meet this enemy on some reasonably equal terms on the battlefield. It would be nice to witness that and read about that and see that take place. And it can take place if we would stop this insane policy. And it is insane. This is exactly what this legislation does. At present the military equation is completely one-sided, totally one-sided. The Dole-Lieberman bill will enable the Moslem forces to better defend themselves and even the playing field until a mutually acceptable peace settlement can be reached. Mr. President, that is the least we can do. That is the least we can do. No one, least of all this U.S. Senator, likes to stand up on the floor of the Senate and admit that a foreign policy, no matter what President it is, or how many Presidents developed it, is a failure. This is not, particularly, a direct hit on this President. This is a foreign policy failure. It perhaps goes back before the beginning of his administration. There is enough blame to go around. This is not a blame game. This is much bigger than that. This is a moral issue of the highest magnitude, and I think that when historians look back on the close of this century, this will be one of the big moral issues, international moral issues that this country has faced. It is not too late to have history judge us in a positive way, but it is getting there. It is getting there, Mr. President. And we have to lift the embargo. The U.N. forces out, lift the embargo and we can at least make an attempt to correct a terrible injustice. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a friend and New Hampshire institution--Jim Finnegan. Jim is retiring this week as the editorial editor of the Union Leader newspaper in Manchester, NH. Before moving to New Hampshire to begin writing editorials for the Union Leader 38 years ago, Jim was involved in talk radio in Pennsylvania where his populist, conservative principles, and commitment to his causes cost him his job. But he found a home at the Union Leader. Late publisher William Loeb and Jim were a perfect match--both unwavering, bedrock conservatives who used their pens to promote the ideals and traditions that reflect New Hampshire values. Bill Loeb's wife, Nackey, took over the helm after Bill passed away and, of course, she and Jim have the same relationship of mutual admiration and respect. Jim was born 65 years ago in Philadelphia. He attended the Milton Hershey School for boys where the Dickensian regimen instilled strict discipline and high moral standards in the young Jim. That discipline and commitment to excellence is behind the nearly 40,000 editorials Jim has written over the years. Jim's editorials have elicited strong responses from Union Leader readers during his nearly four decade tenure at the paper. The Union Leader has the most extensive ``Letters to the Editor'' section in the State, largely due to citizens reacting to Jim's outspoken opinions. Jim's editorials have received national awards and helped the paper remain in the American political spotlight. He is a leader in the national conservative movement, dedicated to preserving the right-to- life, and a fan of opera and boxing. His love of boxing has helped Jim ``take the gloves off'' when writing his opinions on the editorial pages of New Hampshire's largest newspaper. Jim's editorials have run the gamut from heaping praise to fearless criticism. However, he has never used party or personality as a criteria for criticism. His editorials have always been non-partisan, non-personal, and issue-oriented. He has used his pen to promote the issues in which he profoundly believes--faith, justice, good government, individual liberty, and freedom. Victims and beneficiaries of his words agree on one thing: Jim Finnegan is a man of integrity, wisdom, wit, and principle. On Tuesday August 1, 1995, Jim Finnegan will celebrate his 65th birthday and his final day as Editorial Editor of the Union Leader newspaper. I would like to join his family, friends, and colleagues in wishing him the happiness he so richly deserves. He will be missed by all of us who read the unique and thought-provoking editorial pages of the Union Leader.