Bob Smith

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I would just like to take about a minute or two to conclude here, to say I listened very closely to my colleague from Ohio. We are not opposed to the use of seatbelts. This amendment does not preclude the State of Ohio or any other State from having seatbelts.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Brown as a cosponsor of my amendment.

Mr. SMITH. No, nothing. Nothing. We are simply asking that States like Maine and New Hampshire that choose not to have mandatory seatbelt laws and/or helmet laws, in this case Maine and New Hampshire, mandatory helmet or seatbelt--we are simply asking that we not be penalized and be told to spend additional dollars on safety programs that we are already spending dollars on. We would rather use that money for highways to save lives.

Mr. SMITH. There is no change.

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

Mr. SMITH. May I take 10 seconds just to say to the Senator, it sounds to me as if the Senator from Virginia is advocating a national helmet and seatbelt law rather than a State law, based on the comments that the Senator made, if the Senator is worried about going from one State to another. The point is, I think it is not that. It is a question of who makes the decision, and I do not think the Federal Government needs to make it.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, before I yield the floor, I will at this point ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. SMITH. I also ask unanimous consent that a letter from the Governor of New Hampshire, which is 2 years old, which basically forecasts problems that would be coming up with this by having mandated laws--the Governor of New Hampshire was saying that New Hampshire voluntary seatbelt use had increased through education, and I ask unanimous consent that letter also be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH. If I could just briefly reclaim my time here, we could mandate that we lock all the doors in automobiles, too. I can envision State troopers roaring down the highway seeing the door lock up and immediately sending somebody over to the side of the road and citing with a ticket. We could mandate that we all wear foam rubber suits and helmets every day that we walk around so we do not hurt ourselves. The point is, Mr. President, in New Hampshire--I believe it is also true in Maine--we have safety programs, good safety programs. This is a chart which shows the counties in New Hampshire, the 10 counties. Since 1984, we have improved--just picking one county off the top here, in 1984 there was a 24-percent seatbelt use in that county. Today it is 55 percent. There is no mandate. The point is we have good safety programs. We do not need another $800,000 for our safety programs. All we want is that $800,000 to be spent on repairing roads. It does not hurt Montana one bit. It does not do anything to Montana. We just want the right to be able to have this done in the ``Live Free or Die'' State without a mandate, without the Federal Government saying you have to wear a helmet. Why do we not wear helmets in cars? How about this? Will the Senators agree that we should wear helmets in cars? We could save a heck of a lot more people from head injuries in automobiles than on motorcycles. So we wear seatbelts in the car. If you wear a helmet in the car, you would save even more lives. The point is these mandates get ridiculous. The individuals have the right to essentially exercise the freedoms that they have as Americans. This is not an unreasonable amendment at all. To use the logic that somehow we are denying somebody else in the other 48 States--there are 25 States here that are losing $97 million in moneys that they are entitled to to repair their highways. They are not getting it unless they decide to expand the safety program and spend money that they do not need because their safety programs are more than adequate. That is the whole stupidity of this Federal Government Washington-knows-best attitude. The issue, in conclusion, Mr. President--and I heard the Senator from Rhode Island talk about this. He said mandatory helmets have saved thousands of lives. Wrong. Helmets save lives. Mandating the helmets do not save lives. Wearing helmets save lives. It is not the mandate. So, you know, who makes the decision? That is the issue. Who is going to make the decision about wearing a helmet? The individual, the State, or Washington? It is no different than anything else in Medicaid, welfare, whatever, environmental laws. It is the same issue. Washington knows best. Therefore, nobody else knows anything. So we have the mandates. I ask unanimous consent in conclusion--even the USA Today, which is part of or a strong supporter of the conservative cause, says, ``States know what's best,'' and in their recent editorial of May 8, they indicated that we were right in what we are trying to do here on seatbelt and motorcycle helmet laws. So I ask unanimous consent that article be printed in the Record, Mr. President.

Mr. SMITH. That is correct. But I fail to understand the Senator's logic in saying that it is OK to mandate seatbelts and not OK to mandate helmets. What is the difference?

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SMITH. Reserving the right to object, I would like to have 20 minutes, if that would be agreeable to the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and the Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm], I rise today to introduce the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1995. This bill is the companion legislation to a measure that was recently introduced in the House of Represenatives by Congressman Charles Canady of Florida. Congressman Canady is the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution which held a hearing on the bill yesterday. Mr. President, partial-birth abortions are first performed at 19 to 20 weeks of gestation--and often much later. To give my colleagues a clear understanding of how well developed an unborn child is that late in pregnancy, I have here an anatomically correct medical model of an unborn child at 20 weeks' gestation. It is unlikely that the cameras will pick it all up, but this is the actual size of a 20-week child, and the bodily features are there--nose, eyes, lips, fingers, toes-- almost perfectly formed so that anyone could see that this is a child. I want to point out to my colleagues that this is the smallest that this child could be under this procedure, which begins at 5 months or 20 weeks. So that this child is aborted in this procedure minimally at this size and much larger as the child grows in the womb. Now, I have brought some photographs to the floor that show perhaps a little more clearly premature babies of the very same age of many of those babies who are the victims of these partial-birth abortions. This photograph here--this is an AP photograph, by the way--is of tiny Miss Faith Materowski. Little Faith Materowski was born at 23 weeks of gestation, approximately this size, weighing in at 1 pound and 3 ounces. This photograph was taken about a month after she was born. The good news is that little Faith Materowski survived, and she survived because her mother chose to have her receive medical attention. She did not choose to have an abortion. In photograph No. 2, we see a little lady named Melissa Mauer. She was born at 24 weeks of gestation, weighing only 14 ounces, Mr. President--14 ounces--less than a pound. She is shown in the picture about 8 days after her birth, at which point she was breathing on her own in an incubator. Unfortunately, Melissa died after briefly struggling for life after 3 months. In photograph No. 3--this photograph was in the Miami Herald--we see a healthy little Miss Kenya King, who was born about 22 weeks into gestation, so is approximately the size of this model that I am holding. She weighed only 18 ounces at birth. She is shown here 4 months later, home at last with her parents. Now, with a series of illustrations, in a moment I am going to try to demonstrate to you what is done to children like these and like this. This procedure is done to children--not fetuses or some inanimate object--children, Mr. President. Now, as we put the pictures up, keep in mind that Dr. Martin Haskell, who by his own admission performed over 700 of these procedures--they are called partial-birth abortions--as of 1993, he told the American Medical News he had performed 700 of these. That is the official newspaper of the AMA. So the illustrations and descriptions that I am about to present are technical and from a technical point of view would be found or could be found in one of those journals. In the first illustration, the doctor--excuse me, the abortionist--it is interesting that I made a slip there, saying doctor, because were this to be some type of a miscarriage or premature birth, the doctor would be assisting the birth of this child, because the mother wanted the child. But in this case, another decision has been made without the child's consent, of course, and the abortionist reaches in with forceps, using the ultrasound aid, and grabs the child with the forceps by the foot or leg, and then in the next picture he turns that child with the forceps so that he can pull the child out through the birth canal by the feet. So you can see this being the birth canal, the child--this is a child, like this, and like those three children that we saw in those photographs. With this child now, the forceps are around the legs and the child now is being pulled from the birth canal. In the next illustration, the abortionist delivers the entire body except for the head of the child. So we now have the abortionist pulling the child all the way out from the uterus with the exception of the head which the doctors tell me is approximately 85 to 90 percent of the child. Now, the fourth illustration--this is pretty rough, Mr. President. I have seen a lot in my life. I am 54 years old, and I have seen some pretty rough things. But I cannot imagine, in a country as great as this why anyone could sanction--whether you be pro-choice or pro-life-- how anyone could sanction what I am about to show you happens. If the head of this child comes through the uterus, they must try to keep it alive. So the abortionist has to be certain that the head does not come through the uterus. So he stops the baby from coming through the uterus at the head, and takes a pair of scissors, as you can see--I am going to try to demonstrate it here with this little model, which would be just like this, superimposed upon that picture--he takes the scissors and places them into the back of the head, into the cranium, and opens those scissors, once he sticks them in like that, to open a gap in the child's head. After that procedure is done, they insert a catheter into the back of the neck, the back of the cranium, and literally suck the brains out of that child, and as you can see there, the baby is hanging limp, now dead. That is called partial-birth abortion. We are really talking about inches here, are we not? What is a birth? Ninety percent out of the uterus, is that a birth? One hundred percent out of the uterus? Is that what we are going to say is a birth? So a couple of inches and this child can live, but because it is prevented from fully coming out of the uterus by the abortionist and he then places the scissors to the back of the head, opens up an incision and inserts the catheter into the brain to suck the brains out, because that decision is made by someone other than the child, that child is denied life. Mr. President, by the 19th or 20th week of gestation, when this unspeakably brutal method of abortion is used, the child is clearly capable and able to feel what is happening. This is a living human being. According to neurologists, premature babies born at this stage may be more sensitive to painful stimulation than others. We had testimony yesterday at a press conference that I attended with a neurologist who indicated that. He does surgery on babies all the time, and he indicated point blank that that child would suffer pain in that procedure. I think that most of my colleagues, and certainly most if not all Americans, would be absolutely appalled, sickened, and angered at such a brutal act committed against another human being. I know I had that feeling. I did not know that this procedure existed, Mr. President, until a couple of weeks ago, and I have been for 11 years an advocate of the pro-life cause, but I never knew this. I never knew this happened, and doctors who are gynecologists have told me that they did not know it either. I just ask my colleagues a very simple question: If you had a dog or a cat or a pet that you needed to put to sleep, would you do it that way? Would you do it that way? Would you insert a pair of scissors into the back of the head of your family pet and suck the brains out to put it to sleep, Mr. President? Would anybody do that? This is the United States of America, the greatest country in the world, that says under the Constitution that we have an obligation to protect life. This is happening in America, probably right now as I am speaking. We would not do it to an animal, not a pet, and we do it to our children. Under the Supreme Court Roe versus Wade decision, this partial-birth abortion procedure that I just described is legal in all 50 States. So anyone listening out there who says, ``That doesn't happen in my State,'' it does. Somewhere in your State it is happening probably right now. Indeed, addressing the controversy over the partial-birth abortion method, the National Abortion Federation has written to its membership stating--and here is the document, here is what they say: ``Don't apologize: This is a legal abortion procedure.'' And they are right, it is legal. But I am going to tell you something, Mr. President, if I have anything to do with it, it is not going to be legal very much longer. This is a sickening, disgusting act that should never be tolerated, not 1 day longer, not 1 minute longer. My good friend--and he is a good friend--the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich, has told audiences all over America for the past couple of months that America cannot survive with 12-year-olds having babies, 15-year-olds killing each other, 17-year-olds dying of AIDS and 18-year-olds receiving diplomas that they cannot read, and he is right. And I am going to add one more to it. America cannot survive when some of its doctors turn from being healers to stabbing innocent babies to death when they enter the birth canal. America is not going to survive doing that either. Dr. Martin Haskell has claimed responsibility, proudly, for 700 of these partial-birth procedures as of 1993. Pro-choice, pro-life, I do not care what your position is. How can you tolerate this? How could you possibly condone this act? James McMahon, who was profiled in the January 1990 article in the L.A. Times makes late-term abortions his speciality--late-term abortions his speciality. In that article, Dr. McMahon coldly claims credit for having developed the partial-birth method which he calls ``intrauterine cranial decompression.'' Nice way of saying murdering a child that is three-quarters of the way out of a birth canal. ``I want to deal with the head last,'' Dr. McMahon comments icily, ``because that's the biggest problem.'' In the United States of America, a doctor who took an oath to save lives is killing a child. That is not killing a child? Somebody stand up and tell me on the floor of the U.S. Senate that that is not killing a child. Have the guts to come down here and stand up--I will yield to you--and tell me that is not killing a child. According to the American Medical News, Dr. McMahon does abortions through all 40 weeks of pregnancy, but he says he will not do an elective procedure after 26 weeks--26 weeks. At 26 weeks, many babies are capable of living independent of the mother; 40 weeks is a full- term pregnancy. That is nice of him. Mr. President, this grotesque and brutal partial-birth abortion procedure that I have described on the floor of the Senate can be and must be--must be--outlawed. Simply stated, the legislation that Senator Gramm and I have introduced today will do just that, it will amend title 8 of the United States Code and provide that ``Whoever, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial- birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.'' Not the woman--the abortionist. Our bill defines ``partial-birth abortion'' as ``an abortion in which the person performing the abortion partially vaginally delivers a living fetus before killing the fetus and completing the delivery.'' Thus, the bill would ban not only the brain-suction, partial-birth abortion that I described, but any other abortion that involves the partial delivery of the child before he or she is killed. The bill specifically prohibits the prosecution of a woman upon whom a partial-birth abortion is performed. The bill is aimed at the abortionist. It is aimed at the brutality of this act. In addition, the bill provides a life-of-the-mother exception. Mr. President, I am confident that no matter how one feels about this very controversial issue of abortion, that reasonable people, caring people in this country are going to step up and say, ``This is wrong, this is wrong, and we are going to stop it.'' I am going to fight to the last day that this Congress is in session to get this bill voted on in the U.S. Senate, and I am going to stand up here again and again. I welcome my colleagues who want to come forth and defend this. I cannot wait to engage in the debate. Today I am introducing the bill, but there will be a day tomorrow or the next day when I am looking forward to debating them. I want to hear what their rationale is for this procedure. I just want to hear their defense of it. Ultimately, I think, if we can get the bill through, the Supreme Court will find the bill to be constitutional. I think it stands the test of constitutionality. Even in Roe versus Wade, that decision recognized that a newborn child is a person. Is that a newborn child--90 percent birth? I am confident that the court will find that the Congress has the power to protect unborn children, who have started their journey through the birth canal, before being brutally killed, before they travel those last few inches. That is all we are talking about, Mr. President--a few inches. That is the margin between life and death. Inches. Inches. Do you know that in this procedure if an abortionist was distracted and that child came through the birth canal, the child would have to survive. They could not do this procedure because it is out of the birth canal. That is the tragic irony of all this. That is why they do it. That is why they do it, Mr. President, because there is nothing more embarrassing to the abortionist than having the aborted baby live. That has happened. I talked to a woman who is 18 years old who survived it, so I know it happens. A beautiful young lady she is, and she is contributing to America. Of these 700 that Dr. Haskell killed, how many Presidents are in that number? How many doctors who might find a cure for cancer? How many inventors? Who knows. We will never know, will we? They are gone--to the scissors. Sticking scissors. Take a pair of scissors when you go home tonight, and stick them into your hands a little bit, until you can just feel the nip of it. Or perhaps why do you not try doing it in the back of the neck and see how it feels, see if it hurts. I am going to see that this bill gets on the desk of President Clinton if it is the last thing I do before we leave this Congress. I hope, Mr. President, if you are out their listening, that you will sign this bill and you will stop this. I know how you feel about abortion, but I want to know how you feel about this. I hope you will sign this bill, because this is an outrage. It is unbecoming of this country to even think about it, and to even have to be here on the floor of the U.S. Senate and admit that this is happening in this country. So I am looking forward to the debate, as I say. I hope my colleagues who support this will be down on the floor and debating it here in front of all America--this cruel, horrible act against another human being, a precious little baby that is defenseless. We had a doctor yesterday, a gynecologist, who explained all of this, how it all works and how you turn the baby so carefully to remove it from the uterus as it is being born, and you are so careful with it, you take care of it and protect it. But not in this case. It is just a baby, an innocent baby. Surely, we have more important things to do in the United States of America than this. How could any doctor who took an oath ever perform those, and then brag about it? Mr. President, I think I have made my point. It has, frankly, been a very difficult speech to get through. It is quite emotional for me, and I know how the occupant of the chair, the Senator from Minnesota, feels about this issue. It is difficult to get through these remarks. I do not do it to offend people or to be overly graphic. But it is important that we understand that this is happening, and we must use every public access that we have to stop it. So there will be another time, Mr. President, sooner rather than later, when we are going to debate this again right here. I will be here. Thank you. I yield the floor. Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask the bill be read for a second time.

Mr. SMITH. I send a bill to the desk and ask that it be read for the first time.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President. I would like to commend the students from Hollis/Brookline High School in Hollis, NH, who competed in the national finals of the ``We the People'' . . . The Citizen and the Constitution program from April 29 to May 1, 1995, in Washington, DC. These young scholars worked diligently to reach the national finals. They triumphed in local competitions in the Granite State, and were among more than 1,200 students from 49 States and the District of Columbia to participate in the program. The distinguished members of the team representing New Hampshire are: Sarah Birch, Alisa Bowen, Brian Clardy, Ashley Dennis, Cerissa Desrosiers, Alicia DiGrezio, Katie Enright, Joe Gautheier, Lisl Hacker, Meredith Ham, Jessica Hannon, Alyssa Hemmerich, Andrea Higgins, Christine Hsu, Arwyn Jackson, Eric Jones, Zak Klimas, Rachel Lee, Cathy O'Sullivan, Reina Parker, Joshua Rattin, Mary Beth Rosamond, Justin Rydstrom, David Sawyer, Emilie Sommer, Rachel Spaulding, Stacey Stabile, Alan Stenzel, Heather Towne, Jessica Wild, and Holly Williams. I would also like to recognize their outstanding teachers, Deb Christenson and Joel Mitchell, who both deserve a great deal of credit for the success of the team. The district coordinator, Raymond Kneeland, and the State coordinator, Patricia Barss, also contributed a significant amount of time and effort to help the team reach the national finals. Administered by the Center for Civic Education, the ``We the People'' . . . program, now in its eighth academic year, is the most extensive educational program in the country developed specifically to educate young people about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The 3 day national competition simulates a congressional hearing in which students' oral presentations are judged on the basis of their knowledge of constitutional principles and their ability to apply them to historical and contemporary issues. The We the People . . . 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 Hollis and Brookline the best of luck and look forward to their future participation in politics and government.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Madam President, I rise this afternoon to commend Senators Dole and Hatch for incorporating my bill, S. 270, the Alien Terrorist Removal Act of 1995, into S. 735, the comprehensive antiterrorism legislation now before the Senate. [[Page S7853]] I also want to thank Senator Specter again for the opportunity to testify before his Terrorism Subcommittee last month regarding my alien terrorist removal bill. My bill--now the alien terrorist removal title of S. 735--essentially embodies the Smith-Simpson amendment that the Senate passed unanimously as part of the crime bill in the last Congress. Unfortunately, certain House Members of the conference committee insisted on the removal of the Smith-Simpson amendment from the 1994 crime bill. This year, however, Madam President, the Clinton administration proposed its own substantially identical version of my bill as a part of its omnibus antiterrorism legislation. Thus, I am confident that the alien terrorist removal title of S. 735 will enjoy broad bipartisan support here in the Senate, will be supported by the House as well, and will be signed into law by the President in the next few weeks. Let me summarize briefly for the benefit of my colleagues what the alien terrorist removal title of S. 735 is all about. The alien terrorist removal provisions of the bill would establish a new, special, judicial procedure under which classified information can be used to establish the deportability of alien terrorists. The new procedures provided under title III of S. 735 are carefully designed to safeguard national security interests, while at the same time according appropriate protection to the necessarily limited constitutional due process rights of aliens. Under current law, Madam President, classified information cannot be used to establish the deportability of terrorist aliens. Thus, when there is insufficient unclassified information available to establish the deportability of a terrorist alien, the Government faces two equally unacceptable choices. First, the Justice Department could declassify enough of its evidence against the alien in question to establish his deportability. Sometimes, however, that simply cannot be done because the classified information in question is so sensitive that its disclosure would endanger the lives of human sources or compromise highly sensitive methods of intelligence gathering. The Government's second, and equally untenable, choice would be simply to let the terrorist alien involved remain in the United States. Unfortunately, that is not just a hypothetical situation. It happens in real cases. That is why the Department of Justice--under both Republican and Democratic Presidents and Attorneys General--has been asking for the authority granted by my bill--now title III of S. 735--since 1988. Utilizing the existing definitions of terrorism in the Immigration Act of 1990 and of classified information in the Classified Information Procedures Act, title III of S. 735 would establish a special alien terrorist removal court made up of sitting U.S. District Judges that is modeled on the special court that was created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Under title III of S. 735, the U.S. district judge sitting as the special court would personally review the classified information involved. Without the compromising classified information, the alien in question would be provided an unclassified summary of the classified information involved. Ultimately, the special court would determine whether, considering the record as a whole, the Justice Department has proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that the alien is a terrorist and should be removed from the United States. Finally, any alien ordered removed under the provisions of title III of S. 735 would have the right to appeal to the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In closing, let me say that the most serious threat that our Nation faces in the post-cold-war world is the scourge of terrorism. Foreign terrorism came to our shores in 1993 with the World Trade Center bombing. Tragically, with the Oklahoma City bombing in April, we learned the bitter lesson that we face the threat of terrorism from domestic extremists as well. Now, this historic 104th Congress is doing its job by moving quickly to respond to those twin threats. I urge the prompt passage of S. 735 and, once again, I commend the sponsors for incorporating my alien terrorist removal bill into their landmark legislation.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SMITH. I thank the Senator from Utah and the Senator from Delaware. They have alleviated my concerns. We talked about this quite some period of time, and I very much appreciate it. We have gone now to the spirit and intent of what we mean by a ``terrorist,'' and I am satisfied and more than delighted to withdraw the amendment. I thank my colleagues.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. I thank the Senator from South Carolina, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, for offering this amendment, along with Senator McCain. I commend both of my colleagues for this amendment to restore much needed funds to our defense program and to do it without adding to the deficit but by setting priorities throughout the budget, including the defense budget. I might add that that also has priorities shuffled around in order to help with this amendment. I want to emphasize from the outset, again, it does not undermine the objective of a balanced budget by the year 2002. This amendment will not change that objective in any way. We still get to a balanced budget by the year 2002. But what this amendment does do is to help stave off terrible shortfalls in military readiness training and modernization. We owe it to our troops in the field to have the training and modernization that they deserve if we are going to ask them to go into harm's way. The defense reductions under President Clinton's budget, frankly, are wreaking havoc on our military capability. Most of us in this Chamber know that, especially those of us who are on the Armed Services Committee who see it every day. I hope that my colleagues would listen carefully to those of us on the Armed Services Committee in both parties who have spoken so eloquently on this matter. This body simply cannot and must not legitimize a blueprint for disaster by approving these kinds of defense numbers. Mr. President, I am troubled that the Budget Committee has endorsed the Clinton defense numbers. These spending totals are simply inadequate to safeguard our national security. And they are already having a very serious effect on readiness. I am also troubled that the President has chosen to blame Congress for current deficiencies in military readiness. I would emphasize that this is the same administration that entered office and immediately cut defense by $178 billion, the same administration that has dramatically underfunded operations, maintenance, and readiness modernization and quality of life programs for our military families. This is the same administration that has turned our Armed Forces into a 911 force all over the world on behalf of the United Nations, and yet we ask more and more and more and give them less and less and less. This is the same administration that committed our military forces to occupy Haiti without the consent of Congress, costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. This is the same administration that turned our naval base at Guantanamo into a refugee camp leaving the Defense Department stuck footing the bill to feed, clothe and bathe thousands of refugees indefinitely while subjected to the insults of many of them. This is the same administration that has pledged $4 billion in nuclear reactors for North Korea at the time we are spending tens of billions of dollars to defend against a North Korean military threat. I find these types of inconsistency preposterous. The truth is that the Clinton defense program is decimating our Armed Forces. Personnel tempo is going through the roof, our troops are being constantly deployed all over the world from Haiti to Somalia to Southwest Asia and back home, with little or no time to spend with their families, and they are out again going someplace else. I urge my colleagues to talk to them, talk to the military personnel, talk to their families and find out how tough this is. Depot maintenance backlogs are increasing; critical modernization programs are being terminated; morale is down; retention is down; 25 percent of our Army divisions were recently classified as unprepared to meet their mission requirements. Mr. President, if Senators support this blueprint, which is so devastating our military capabilities, then they ought to oppose the Thurmond-McCain amendment. It is as simple as that. If you do not want to give our Armed Forces what they deserve, then go ahead and oppose the amendment. But if you share the view of the majority of Americans that this President has gone too far with these military reductions and our international security is in jeopardy, you should support the Thurmond-McCain amendment. In conclusion, I want to emphasize this amendment does not add to the deficit, it will not undermine the balanced budget, and it will restore much needed funds back to our defense program to stave off an imminent disaster in military readiness. I yield back any time I may have.

Mr. SMITH. I thank the Senator from Texas. Mr. President, in one of his debates, Ronald Reagan said ``There you go again.'' And here we go again. This is a historic debate in this Chamber. At no point in recent times have the differences between the two political parties been more evident than right now. On the Republican side, you have somebody offering tax cuts, spending cuts, slowing the rate of growth, balancing the budget, and on the other side it is business as usual: More spending, more taxes, no alternatives. I was in this Chamber for many hours during the debate on the balanced budget amendment, and I heard it over and over and over again, speaker after speaker after speaker: We do not need the amendment. All we have to do is do it. What is the Republican plan? How come you do not tell us how you are going to do it? Well, here we are. We are saying how to do it. We are saying balance the budget. You would not give us the amendment because you would not give us enough votes. We are now offering the amendment. We are offering the opportunity to balance the budget without the amendment. What are you doing? Talking and walking. That is what they are doing, talking and walking over there. The Gramm amendment adds one more important component to the underlying Domenici proposal that has been missing, and that is very simply this. Either you want to let working Americans keep more of what they earn or you do not. You want to cut taxes for families and businesses so they can have more money to invest on their kids or in their businesses or you do not. That is what the Gramm amendment is all about. And I wish to commend the Senator from Texas for having the courage to come up with this bold proposal because the Senator from Texas knows that this is the essence of the Republican contract, the Contract With America, that was made with the American people, that put the Republican Senators in the majority in this Senate and put the Republicans in the majority in the House of Representatives. Republicans ought to be on this floor unanimously supporting the Gramm amendment today because without that contract and without that promise to the American people, you would not be in the majority. So if you want to break that contract, then vote against the Gramm amendment. I am talking to my colleagues on this side of the aisle because I know where my colleagues are coming from on the other side of the aisle. This amendment, the Gramm amendment, allows for a 3-percent growth in the overall budget--not a cut. The Domenici plan is 3.3. So for 0.3 percent, Senator Gramm is offering businesses and families more money to invest and to provide for growth. The Gramm amendment makes a statement. It says we need to enact incentives for Americans to save and invest, penalty free withdrawals for homes, for education, medical expenses, marriage penalty tax credit, cut the capital gains rate, and index it for inflation, and a $500 a child tax credit. This is the essence of the difference between the two parties, Mr. President, as I said. The tax cuts in the Gramm proposal are paid for with spending cuts. It does not undercut the Domenici proposal. It simply provides deeper cuts to provide the tax benefits to the American people. We have seen a lot of polls lately that suggest the American people really do not want tax cuts. They are asked whether we would rather have tax cuts or deficit reduction. Well, of course, people will say we would like to have both, and you can get both right here in this proposal. When it is offered either/or, they will say, fine, balance the budget. We do not need the tax cuts. We will sacrifice. Balance the budget. This is both. This is both. Ask the American people if they would support a budget that reaches balance and gives them a capital gains tax. Ask the American people if they would support a budget that reaches balance and allows penalty-free withdrawals for education or a downpayment on a loan. Ask the American people if they would support a budget that reaches balance and provides a $500 tax credit for each child. Ask them that and see what the answer is--not either/or, both. And that is what the Gramm amendment is all about. The choice is not between tax cuts and a balanced budget. The question is are you willing to cut spending enough to do both. And again, the word ``cut'' is used very loosely because we are asking our colleagues on the other side of the aisle and some of the colleagues on this side of the aisle to support a proposal that limits the growth of the U.S. Government over the next 7 years to 3 percent. That is what we are asking you to do. You were out in the Chamber time after time after time during that balanced budget amendment debate saying give us your plan; give us your plan; we do not need an amendment. All right, we did not get the amendment. Where is your plan? You defeated your President's plan 99 to nothing joining with us on the Senate floor. I have not seen yours. I am hearing all this talk, but I do not see any plan. Frankly, I think the American people are sick of it. They were sick of it in the elections in 1994, and they are going to be even sicker of it after this debate. We have an opportunity here. History shows us that tax cuts create jobs. It is not the Government's money. It is your money. You provide it to the Government. Give the Government less. Leave it in your pocket, and you will create jobs, and you will employ more people, and we will have more tax revenues, and we will balance the budget even more quickly. In closing, Mr. President, let me just say every Republican Senator and House Member, as I said, voted against that budget, the President's budget. The tax cuts included in the Gramm package total $173 billion. We are getting $173 billion back out of the $250 billion tax increase the President provided us last year. We do not even get as far at cutting taxes as Clinton went [[Page S7172]] in raising taxes. Now, that is not really too much to ask. So, Mr. President, let me conclude by complimenting Senator Domenici for his courageous decision to meet this head on, and again to compliment Senator Gramm for adding what I believe is a stronger amendment to this package to balance the Federal budget and to cut taxes, to do what the American people asked us to do when they elected us into the majority in November. I yield back the remainder of any time I may have. Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Dole, Senator Thurmond, Senator Helms, Senator Grassley, Senator Gramm of Texas, Senator Campbell, and Senator Thomas, and myself, I rise to introduce a joint resolution entitled ``The Vietnam POW/MIA Full Disclosure Act of 1995.'' I understand a similar resolution is being introduced in the House this week by Congressman Ben Gilman, the Chairman of the House International Relations Committee. This resolution is aimed at getting the maximum amount of information possible from Vietnam on Americans still missing from the Vietnam war. Specifically, the resolution prohibits both the establishment of diplomatic relations with Vietnam and the extension of most favored nation trading status to Vietnam unless the President informs Congress that we are getting full cooperation and full disclosure by Vietnam on the POW/MIA issue. If the Communist Government in Vietnam is continuing to withhold information that would account for missing Americans, as I believe they are, then now is not the time to normalize relations. I am very pleased that this resolution is supported by the distinguished majority leader and the distinguished chairmen of both the Armed Services Committee and the Foreign Relations Committee, among others. I know Senators Dole, Thurmond, and Helms have been closely involved with this issue for many, many years, and they share my concerns. Perhaps most importantly, this resolution is supported by virtually all of the families of the 2,205 Americans still unaccounted for from the Vietnam war. It is also consistent with the resolutions that have been passed in recent years by our national veterans organizations. Will every single American support the approach to resolving the POW/ MIA issue outlined in this resolution? [[Page S6929]] Of course not. Indeed, there are Vietnam veterans in this body other than myself who advocate a different approach, or have a different view on the cooperation we are getting from Vietnam. Some have said that we should normalize relations with Hanoi because Vietnam is being fully cooperative on the POW/MIA issue. Others say we should normalize relations because it would give an incentive for Vietnam to increase its cooperation. I still have not figured out which reason the President used when he lifted our embargo on Vietnam last year. Nonetheless, I reject both these positions and would simply point out that the position of the majority of our Nation's veterans and the POW/MIA families is very clear--they want the Communist Government in Hanoi to come clean on the POW/MIA issue before we normalize relations. In my judgment, using every reasonable standard I can come up with-- and I have worked on this issue for 11 years in the Congress--Vietnam has not come clean on the POW/MIA issue. The Communist Government in Hanoi continues to withhold relevant politburo and military records pertaining to American POWS and MIAS from the war. There is no disputing that fact. Earlier this week, they dribbled out more records for a high-level administration delegation. They have done this for years. I suspect Vietnamese officials looked the administration delegation in the eye and said ``we just located this information.'' In 1993, they did the same thing when documents surfaced in Russian archives indicating that more Americans were held than those who came home. They suddenly came up with records they had withheld for 20 years. They just pulled it off the shelf. This ``timed'' release of documents, only when it is deemed important enough for Vietnam, proves to me that Hanoi's Communist Politburo is continuing to manipulate the POW/MIA issue for its own political advantage. As a result, Vietnam is prolonging the anguish and uncertainty of MIA family members. I wrote a letter today, signed it today, and sent it out from a family who still is anguishing over this with new information that they received, even as recently as this month. Mr. President, the American people are not naive. They know that many records could have been turned over long ago. If they held back the most recent set of records until the right moment surfaced, what else are they still holding? And why, Mr. President, has this administration failed to vigorously seek access to Vietnam's wartime central committee records on POWs? Every historian knows that those records might conclusively answer the most nagging and haunting questions that keep this issue alive and have kept the family members waiting for so many years. And why is it that there are family members of MIAs who are being denied visas to go to Vietnam to look for answers? Is this a country that is cooperating? I do not think so. I though when the President lifted the embargo in 1994, we were supposed to get unprecedented access and cooperation, and the family members who have loved ones missing cannot get a visa to get into Vietnam. My colleagues do not have to accept Bob Smith's judgment on whether there's been full disclosure by Vietnam on missing Americans. Under the resolution we have introduced today, the President is required to make the final judgment, whoever the President is, after consultation with the Director of Central Intelligence. If he feels we are getting full disclosure, then he can move forward, so long as he notifies Congress. That is all we are asking. I would remind the President, However, that he was the one who stated, following his election in 1992, and I quote, ``I have sent a clear message that will be no normalization of relations with any country that is at all suspected of withholding information on missing Americans.'' I submit to you that there is still information being withheld. The resolution we have introduced today asks the President to keep the promise he made to the MIA families and our Nation's veterans during his last campaign. And that's really what this is all about, Mr. President--keeping our commitment that we will not let Vietnam off the hook until there has been full disclosure on the fate of our POW's and MIA's. Revisionists are in full bloom these days. There has been a lot of revisionist history and frankly a lot of propaganda recently as we marked the 20th anniversary of the Communist victory over South Vietnam. But make no mistake about it--Vietnam needs us more then we need Vietnam. And if the last 20 years have taught us anything about Communist Vietnamese behavior, it is this--Vietnam only responds on the POW/MIA issue when it is clear to them that the United States will go no further to meet Vietnam's agenda. If Vietnam is that desperate for American business investment and diplomatic relations, then let them come clean on the POW/MIA issue. Unfortunately, there have been mixed signals, which have been fueled, in part, by certain lobbyists in the American business community who want to put business over principle. My response to this lobbying effort is let us put principle over profit, not vice-versa. The only business we should be doing with Vietnam is the business of getting Hanoi to come clean on the POW/MIA issue. Then and only then, should we normalize or restore any type of diplomatic relations. It is only fair. Think of the suffering of these families. How could we possibly want to do anything else but honor them? There have also been statements from some administration officials seem eager to move forward with Vietnam by lowering the priority that was placed on the POW/MIA issue by Presidents Reagan and Bush. Perhaps these officials have become exhausted. I can understand that. It has been a long, long time. Maybe they are embarrassed by their inability to convince Hanoi to come clean on the POW/MIA issue before we normalize. Maybe they would like this issue to go away. I know the families would like it to go away. But it ought to go away on honorable terms, honorable terms, a full accounting, a full accounting. That is the only way the issue should go away. In this environment, I would not be surprised if Vietnam might be thinking that they can hold out on disclosing their central committee records and meeting our intelligence community's expectations on what they can still do to help resolve this issue. They might think that they can achieve their economic and political goals just by waiting us out. That is the message we are sending. Mr. President, I would simply say that I am not going to stay silent and let that happen. I have a responsibility here. This week, the President's top defense official on the POW/MIA issue, Deputy Assistant Secretary Jim Wold, stated that the decision on whether to move forward with Vietnam ``will be made by the President alone.'' The resolution we have introduced today states that Congress expects to be informed on whether there has been full disclosure by Vietnam on POW's and MIA's before the President moves forward. That is a very reasonable requirement. I am confident that the American people want this question answered before normalizing with Vietnam. That is a reasonable requirement, and I am confident the American people would like an answer to this question before we move forward with Vietnam. I would remind my colleagues of something the English novelist Aldous Huxley once said--``Facts do not cease to exist just because they are ignored.'' Our intelligence community has made assessments of what Vietnam could still do if it truly wanted to come clean on the POW/MIA issue. Those facts exist. Those facts are a matter of public record in some cases, and in other cases where they are not public, they are available for my colleagues to see. This Chamber is also awaiting a final response from the Secretary of Defense on the total number of POW/MIA cases where the likelihood is greatest that Vietnam could produce additional information or remains, or perhaps in some cases possibly even a live American. This was a requirement, which I originally sponsored in last year's Defense Authorization Act. In February, we were told that only 50 percent of to wait several more months just to get a complete list of names. We should have a chance to review this information required by law, Mr. President, before we even consider further overtures to Vietnam. Finally, I would point out that President Clinton himself stated on January 26 of this year that he is not fully satisfied that progress on the POW/MIA issue has been sufficient to justify moving beyond the steps agreed to last year when we lifted the embargo. I would say to the President, ``Keep your promise, Mr. President, because they have not made the progress that you asked for since we lifted the embargo.'' On that point, I would agree with the President. For those who take the time to really study this issue, as I have, it is difficult to see how you can come to any other conclusion--there has not been full disclosure by Vietnam. With that in mind, I would urge my colleagues to join with the majority leader, and our distinguished committee chairmen and others by cosponsoring this resolution. Let us send a clear signal to Vietnam. Let us tell them that, while we appreciate some of the cooperation we have received to date, we will accept nothing less than full disclosure on the POW/MIA issue before agreeing to normalize relations. That is the way to honor the men and women who served, and the men and women who are missing, and the families of the missing.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Madam President, I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Smith pertaining to the introduction of S.J. Res. 34 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'') Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I would like to compliment the Senator from New Mexico. I think his amendment is helpful. I intend to support it. It provides additional flexibility for the States to more closely tailor their own individual problems. One-size-fits-all Federal regulations do not always work. Many times they do not work. I think the Senator has hit on an area here that improves the bill. It would be helpful, certainly, for very small communities in very remote areas, which we find everywhere in almost every State in the country. One area the Senator did not mention which would have a positive impact on his amendment is many rural areas used to burn their garbage, a lot of it. Of course, when it is burned and not buried, we do not have the methane buildup. So this would give those communities great flexibility because you do not need to monitor where you did not bury and you did burn. So I think that is another dimension which is really attractive and, frankly, the main reason I support this amendment. So this Senator will be voting for the amendment, and I congratulate the Senator on his amendment. I yield the floor.