Bob Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Senator Lott, if you would yield for just a second, I thank you for your friendship and your leadership. I am glad to see you back in the majority. I know you will make good use of it. I will miss not being here to help you, but I will be rooting for you on the outside, as you know. You did mention family. I think it is important for all of us to reflect and understand, without my wife Mary Jo and my daughter, Jennifer, and my sons, Bobby and Jason--without their support over the years, it would not have been possible. You know how difficult this job is, living in a fishbowl. We all have our families to thank, so I want to pay a special tribute to my family for supporting me all these years and loving me and still loving me after all of this. I thank you again, leader, for your remarks.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I thank the Senator.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I single out three or four people. My chief of staff, Pat Petty, who is no longer my chief of staff, but who served me for about 15 years, I recognize his service to the Senate, to the country. My current chief of staff, Dino Carluccio, who started in my office as basically an intern and went off to Europe to study in Italy sent me a note saying: You need me in your office. And I remember saying to my current chief, my chief of staff at the time, anybody who has that much self-confidence we ought to hire. We did. Now he is the chief of staff. He worked his way up in the true sense of the word. He is a great American. Lisa Harrison worked for one of my opponents in my primary, the first primary, the first time I won in 1984. She was working for the other guy, but I liked her. I thought she had a good personality, she was smart, and she was one of the few people on the other campaigns who said hello to me when I walked into the room. She got a job and has been with me for 18 years and is one of the best communication directors in the Senate. Ed Corrigan, my legislative director, has been with me for 10 years, a real conservative, committed guy. He knows the rules of the Senate, inside and out, a great American, great patriot. And Dave Conover, who is my chief of staff at the Environment and Public Works Committee, has done an outstanding job there. We had a great run for a year and a half. We preserved the Everglades and passed brownfields and MTBE legislation and other bills to make our air, land, water, and our wildlife habitat cleaner. I am proud to have served with them all. I had two people in my State staff, Dorothy Vatize and Marti Jones, who have served with me for 18 years, all 18 years I have been here. One is retiring and the other is leaving to do other things. It has been an honor to serve here--again, the highest honor of my life. I will never forget it. I am not sure what comes next, but as has been said many times, Chaplain Lloyd Ogilvie has said it a number of times to me, God closes one door and he opens another. He did close one, I am sure of that. The other one is not yet open, but we will find it. Having mentioned the chaplain, there is no finer person in the entire world than Lloyd Ogilvie. He is one of the most Christian men and such an inspiration to all of us in the Senate, a friendship I will have with me forever. I say thank you to all my colleagues and friends and others I have made here, and thank you to the people of New Hampshire for allowing me the privilege of serving you in this body and in the House of Representatives for 18 years. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, when I came to the Senate in 1991, we were faced with Saddam Hussein and Iraq. Actually, my first speech on the floor was about Iraq and the war and the fact that we had to make a very difficult vote. As I leave the Senate, here we are still facing--12 years later-- Saddam Hussein and an imminent war with Iraq. So there is some irony there, I guess. Before I make some closing remarks about my tenure here and leaving the Senate, I want to make a few remarks about something that I think has been somewhat ignored over the past several years in this body and, indeed, in the country, and that is the future of space and how space will help us to protect our national security and also not only our national security but just the pure science of space and the fascination with space and what we will find as we continue the exploration of space. I hope the 21st century will be the one that takes us into space to help protect our Nation and, indeed, perhaps the world. I believe whoever controls space will control peace here on earth. I made these statements several years ago and got some negative editorials for it. I was called spaceman by one of the more, if you will, ``prominent'' newspapers in my State. As Harry Truman said, ``If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.'' Sometimes a price is to be paid for leadership. I believe if they can say about me that I was one of the folks here that promoted space and the good things that can come to our Nation as a result of space--if I can be remembered for that--I would be very happy. I want to draw my colleagues' attention to our Nation's future security in space. In 1998, I delivered a speech at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University on November 18, just 4 years ago. In that speech, I spoke about the challenge of space power. I labeled space the ``permanent frontier.'' Some say it is the ``final frontier.'' It is not final, it is permanent. That is the fascinating part about space. I remember looking at the stars as a kid and thinking this goes on forever. It is a permanent frontier. There is no limit to how far we can go in the exploration of space. When I came to the House in 1985, I served on the Space Subcommittee of the Science and Technology Committee until my election to the Senate in 1990. I had the pleasure of being in Congress during the Reagan administration. I remember with pride and emotion President Reagan's firm leadership and his commitment to rebuilding our military after years of neglect. He, too, offered a promise of space power, with his visionary Strategic Defense Initiative. Despite tremendous opposition and ridicule, with cynics and critics calling SDI ``star wars,'' his vision is being fulfilled today. It was a vision. The ABM Treaty is on the waste heap of history, where it belongs. Mutual assured destruction has been exposed for the sham that it was, and we are moving toward deployment of a robust, multilayered ballistic missile defense system and toward providing the American people the protection they need from the growing and imminent threat of ballistic missiles in the hands of rogue states such as North Korea, Iran, Iraq, and others. We stand now at a very uncertain time--perhaps on the brink of a greatly expanded war on terrorism. And while we try to find and eliminate terrorists and their cells, we are at risk in our cities, in the heartland, of more devastating terrorist attacks. In the heartland of our country, never before have we felt threatened like this. None of us wish to be at war. I have served in war. I don't want to be in war. But we are in a state of war. I enlisted to serve in the Navy in Vietnam. I know what the horrors of war bring. But if this Nation has to go to war with Iraq, or anywhere else, to ensure our liberty, to ensure our freedom, to ensure that our lives are free of the threats of aggressive, dangerous dictators and the global terrorist network, I will support our President and I will support our troops, whether or not I am in the Senate. All of my efforts in national security over my career in the House and Senate have been focused on ensuring that our troops--the men and women who put the uniform on and defend us every day--are well organized, trained, and equipped for war. Nothing less than that is satisfactory. If we are going to show the world that we are strong and we are prepared for war, few would choose the risky path of challenging us, and that is the message we must send. The task of organizing, training, and equipping our forces is not a one-time effort; it is a continuously evolving challenge that must be attended with the same aggressiveness and unyielding commitment that our warfighters apply on the battlefield. The threats we face are constantly changing, as we saw on September 11, and our approach to warfighting must change as well. As we have so vividly demonstrated in our prosecution of the global war on terrorism, we now have to protect our cities in our own homeland--our own buildings, the very buildings where we are sitting now. My colleagues, I say to you, as I leave, that it is our job as leaders representing this great Nation to make sure our military is properly organized, trained, and equipped to meet its future challenges, and nothing we do here is more important. In the early years of this Nation, we relied on the power of our Army and our Navy. In the early years of the last century, we saw the emergence of air power--which was also criticized when it first started--that has dominated our initial application of force in recent conflicts. But times are changing. The threats we face are changing. GEN Chuck Horner, commander of our troops in Desert Storm, said after the conflict that we have witnessed the first space war--that was in 1991, tanks and troops navigating flawlessly through a featureless desert. That was the war against Iraq in 1991. Unprecedented intelligence; advance warning of incoming missiles; bombs dropped precisely on targets; command, control, and communications synchronizing a military scattered across a vast theater of war in the Middle East--all of these contributions were made possible by the use of space systems in 1991. Had we not had those space systems and had we not had control, or had Iraq had control, the whole outcome may have been different. This was not a real space war that General Horner was referring to. There were no shots fired in space. What we witnessed was an awakening to the enormous benefits that space systems provide our military. It is important to remember that we are not the only witnesses. The world and our potential adversaries watched us and learned from our prosecution of that war and every conflict since. Like General Horner, General Krulak, former Marine Commandant, and a soldier greatly respected by me and by his marines and fellow officers, said that ``between 2015 and 2025, we have an opportunity to put a fleet on another sea. And that sea is space.'' That is a very far-reaching and visionary statement, Mr. President, from a great American, Chuck Krulak. Our troops deserve every advantage we can give them. We ought to lay up at night thinking about what advantages we can give these men and women. If we are to preserve our current space advantage, then we must protect our space systems from any attack and deny our adversaries that same use of space. We must maintain space control. We also must do more than maintain the current status quo. Space offers our warfighters so much more; a space-based radar that tracks enemy movements behind the lines without risking air crews, a space plane that can project force anywhere on earth in 45 minutes or less, a low orbit space plane, new ways of looking for new threats. I fought to save that space plane, and it was cut during the 8 years of the Clinton administration. The space plane, I believe, is beginning to receive the attention it deserves within the hierarchy of the Air Force Space Command. The MSP, the military space plan, could access virtually all orbits and with specific upper-stage systems could help protect our extensive and vital space-based assets. This plan could provide platforms to support potential air, sea, and ground operations through its intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance sensor payloads while also providing potential precision long-range strike capability without putting men and women in uniform in harm's way--a tremendous asset to our arsenal. Yet it has been slowed down; it was cut. We now need to bring it back. As we look even further into the future, visionaries see capabilities--this is always what I like to talk about, what the future will bring. It is fun to hear these visionaries talk, but in the future we are going to see capabilities like special operations troops delivered rapidly from one location to another through space and lasers, destroying targets instantaneously deep inside the enemy's territory. When the missile is fired, we blow it up with a laser over their territory, not ours. Not only do these visions offer fast and effective military action, they offer the possibility of putting fewer men and women forward deployed with their lives at risk. We cannot forget we must invest today to develop these and all the other capabilities if they are to be available for our future fighting men and women. In 1999, with the support of my colleagues, I chartered the Space Commission to make recommendations to reorganize Government to better deliver the military space capabilities this Nation needs for the future. That Commission brought together this Nation's best defense and space leaders. One of them was Donald Rumsfeld. He led the group just before he became our current Secretary of Defense. I would like to believe he was selected in part because he did such an outstanding job with the Space Commission--I hope that is one of the reasons why President Bush selected him as Secretary of Defense--and earlier with the Ballistic Missile Threat Commission. Secretary Rumsfeld and his fellow commissioners found that future space warfare is a ``virtual certainty,'' and that we had better be prepared for it. The Space Commission's report warned about the ominous possibility of a ``space Pearl Harbor.'' It called for protecting satellites essential for military operations and developing space weapons to deter attacks in or from space and to defend against attacks if they occur. The U.S. is now heavily dependent upon satellites with hundreds in orbit serving commercial as well as military uses. We are more dependent on space than any other nation in the world. Think about your cell phone. Were it not for space, you would not be using it. In 1998, a Galaxy IV satellite malfunctioned. It shut down 80 percent of U.S. pagers and video feeds for cable and broadcast transmissions. It took weeks to restore service. In 2000, the U.S. lost all information from satellites for 3 hours when computers in ground stations malfunctioned. These incidents served to show how critical space has become to us. The Space Commission recognized space weapons to deter attacks from space would be essential because we cannot protect satellites adequately without weapons in space. Remember that. Let me repeat it: We cannot protect our satellites in space without weapons in space. A weapon in space does not have to be an offensive weapon; it can be a defensive weapon. The resulting space management reorganization stemming from the work of the Space Commission is nearly complete. The various stakeholders have decided which of the Space Commission's recommendations it will implement and how. Frankly, though, I am still skeptical that the changes that have been made will be effective in delivering the space capabilities this Nation needs. Over the course of the last year, we have discovered that most of our current space programs are ``broken,'' severely underfunded, and behind schedule, and that is not good. I am not naive, and I do not blame the recent reforms for the current problems. However, I am not convinced the reforms that have been implemented are capable of making the tough choices that both, A, fix the problems with our current space programs and, B, keep us aggressively pressing forward with developing new technologies and capabilities we need for the future. When we won the war in the Persian Gulf in 1991, it was with highly sophisticated weapons. Somebody 20, 30 years ago had the vision to build them. They did not crawl under a rock and say: That is just too far in the future; we are not going to deal with it--precision bombs and precision ordnance. Somebody had to think about it. Somebody had to put it on the drawing board. Somebody had to pay for it and build it. If the Air Force cannot or will not step up to its responsibilities as the executive agent for military space, then Congress must do it, as the space commissioners noted, and create a separate space force to become that strong advocate. I have spoken of the need for the Air Force to build a dedicated space warfare cadre of younger space-trained officers and to stop assigning nonspace officers to lead space billets in space organizations. I predict that early in this 21st century, there will be a space force just as there now is an Air Force. There will be a space force. For far too long, the Air Force's space institutions and commands have been led by officers not specializing in space. That must change if we are to move into this space era. I have been a long-time advocate for the potential of national security space on the Hill. I know being an advocate for space is not easy. Believe me, I know. I have been ridiculed for it. These capabilities are complex, and they are not cheap, although I believe space power ultimately could be more cost-effective than some of our legacy systems. I have also learned that some of the needed space capabilities, such as the Kinetic Energy Antisatellite or KE ASAT Program, can take longer than a career in Congress to deploy. Today we are only a modest amount of funding short of being ready to flight-test KE ASAT, one of our near-term space control programs. KE ASAT offers the promise of complete space control at minimal cost to the taxpayers and delivers the essential 4 Ds--i.e., the ability to disrupt, degrade, deny, and destroy--required to deal with the enemy threat. The old Soviet Union built a co-orbital satellite killer that it tested in space at least 20 times and which was operational with Soviet strategic forces for a decade. China is reportedly developing a hunter- killer microsatellite that would attach itself to an adversary's satellite and destroy it. Imagine the disruption that could cause us both militarily and commercially. We must be ready to protect against the deployment and use of such systems. We cannot shy away from, nor shortchange, our commitment to transform our military for the future. This is our challenge. I have carried the space banner through many tough fights, including the line-item veto by President Clinton of our emerging space power programs. Missile defense has survived, KE ASAT has survived, and the space plane, too. But these programs need ongoing commitment and funds toward deployment and real security for our Nation and our service men and women. They need to be reviewed at the highest levels of DOD, by the Secretary, by Under Secretaries Aldridge and Teets, and by the Secretary's trusted aide who served at the Space Commission as its Director, now at PA&E, Steve Cambone. Some of my friends have asked why I focused on space since there is not a strong space constituency in my home State of New Hampshire. I beg to differ. There is a major constituency in New Hampshire that demands a strong, cost-effective national defense. In fact, I would argue that same constituency stretches all across America--a constituency that supports our military every day, not just during trying times. If it is the right thing to do, whether you have a constituency in your State for it, we are here to lead. We are here to lead this Nation. New Hampshire also is proud of its high-tech industry. New Hampshire is also the State that sent astronaut Alan Shepard and Christa McAuliffe to participate in the National Space Program. Christa lost her life aboard the Challenger in 1986. Both of them had ``the right stuff,'' and they created a surge of enthusiasm for space exploration. As I prepare to leave the Senate, I look around and ask myself: Who is going to pick up the space banner I have carried? Who will advocate today for the needs of our future fighting men and women in space? Forty years ago, and spurred in part by the shock of the Soviet success with Sputnik in 1957, President Kennedy challenged the Nation to look into space. He criticized Republicans--the Eisenhower administration--in fact, for letting the Russians get ahead in space. President Kennedy recognized even in those early days of space exploration the criticality of space that General Horner witnessed in Desert Storm. President Kennedy told us the Nation that controls space will come to dominate the world. In a speech to Rice University in 1962, John F. Kennedy said the following: The exploration of space will go ahead, whether we join in it or not. And it is one of the great adventures of all time, and no nation which expects to be the leader of other nations can expect to stay behind in this race for space. We mean to lead it, for the eyes of the world now look into space, to the moon and to the planets beyond; and we have vowed that we shall not see it governed by a hostile flag of conquest, but by a banner of freedom and peace. That was well said by a Democrat President. He was absolutely right. Who do you want to control the satellites in space? Who do you want to control what goes on in space: Communist China, Iraq, North Korea, Libya, or the United States of America? The day before his assassination, President Kennedy spoke at a dedication of the Aerospace Medical Health Center at Brooks Air Force Base in Texas, and he noted: This Nation has tossed its cap across the wall of space and we have no choice but to follow it. What a great visionary President Kennedy was on this issue. Leveraging space to ensure our freedom and to protect our allies is not a partisan issue. It is our moral obligation, pure and simple, just like it was to respond to the attacks of the Japanese and the Germans during World War II. It was our moral obligation to stop the killing by the Nazis, to stop the Bataan death marches, to stop the tyranny and the aggression. It is now our moral obligation to protect this Nation from the threat from space. In his now famous speech at the Citadel, candidate George W. Bush said: We need to skip a generation of technology. And in space, We must be able to protect our network of satellites essential to the flow of our commerce and the defense of our country. He called for a new spirit of innovation and recognized the fact that many officers express impatience with the prevalent bureaucratic mindset that frustrates--and, I would argue, fails to reward-- creativity. We must reward creativity. George Bush called for a culture of command where change is welcomed and rewarded, not dreaded. To do that, we need to break with the past, get out of the box, put in charge people who are visionaries, who are ready to fulfill the President's and the Secretary of Defense's vision, to fulfill Ronald Reagan's vision for peace using space for peace. Even President Reagan, the hard-core conservative, offered to provide to the Soviet Union the technology to bring peace to the world if that was what it took. As we stand now on the brink of an expanded war with Iraq, I ask myself whether we have provided our sons and daughters, husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, all the best technology that this country has to help them accomplish their mission quickly and bring them home safely. Have we? I do not think we have, with all due respect. We have the opportunity to do it if we will think about it now. I think we can do better. I believe this body has the vision, the expertise, the knowledge, and the good people in it to ensure that we organize, train, and equip our military for the future, a future that leverages the full potential of space that we have only begun to realize. But we must exercise stringent oversight. We must serve as the catalyst to push a grudging--and it is a grudging--bureaucracy and military industrial complex into fulfilling that potential. Bureaucracies are not innovative. They basically exist. They do not like change. We need to give them change. We need to impose it upon them. President Reagan, speaking to the Young Astronauts program in 1986, told the participants that they were on ``the edge of our known world, standing on the shores of the infinite.'' What a statement: We are standing on the edge of our known world, on the shores of the infinite. He called for them to touch the mystery of God's universe and to set sail across its waters into the most noble adventure of all. President Reagan achieved because he dreamed, because he motivated and he inspired. He understood that Americans, by nature, are dynamic people. They are good people. The change they bring is for the good, for the best of America, and that is all he worked on--for excellence, to rise to the challenge, the shining city on the hill, undaunted by threats, and with hope and optimism. That was President Reagan, following the words of President Kennedy. Through enormous sacrifice, America has preserved her own freedom and freed millions around the world. We go to far off countries, serve in combat, die on fields in countries we have never heard of, day in and day out, year after year. As leaders in Congress, we are committed to preserving these freedoms for future generations, but to achieve that goal we must reach into space with gusto for its science, for its mystery, for the security it can offer us. Control of space is more than a new mission to consider funding, it is our moral legacy. Moving into space is our next manifest destiny. It is our chance to create sanctity and security for centuries to come. It is our chance to do it. As I leave the Senate, I want to inspire my colleagues to pick up that cause because it is the right thing to do. Senate Service I know there are others who wish to speak, but I am going to take a couple of minutes, because I am leaving the Senate, and close on a few personal thoughts. I do respect my good friend, Senator Sessions. I will be only a few minutes. I remember when I came down to the floor to sign the book in December of 1990. Senator Byrd was there, as he always is, and he watched as I signed 1,794. He said: Senator Smith, you are the new Senator from New Hampshire. You want to remember there are tens of millions of people--I will never forget this--who have been part of the United States of America since 1776, and you are 1 of only 1,794 to have served in the Senate. I will never forget it, and I never have. Senator Byrd is one of the finest people to ever walked on to this floor. I admire him greatly. It has been an honor and privilege to serve with him, but it has been a great honor to serve the people of New Hampshire for 18 years, 12 in the Senate and 6 in the House. It has been an extraordinary privilege to occupy this desk, the desk of Daniel Webster, for 9 years. There is a very interesting story about this desk. Actually, Daniel Webster represented Massachusetts in the Senate, although he was from New Hampshire. He was a New Hampshire native. So when Senator Kennedy, Ted Kennedy, gave up the desk to take his brother John's desk, the desk became a free spirit, and Senator Norris Cotton passed a resolution in the Senate that the Webster desk will forever more belong to the senior Senator from the State of New Hampshire. That is a long time, forever more. So nobody else is going to get it. I have etched my name in the drawer, from Webster coming down through those great people who occupied this seat, down to where I have etched my name. It is a reminder, as I sit at this desk--these desks open from the top like so. There are very few desks in this Chamber that do not open that way, and one is Daniel Webster's because he did not want to pay to have it done because it cost too much money. It cost $5 to $10 in those days, and he said taxpayers should not have to pay for that, so it just has a drawer in it. Webster was a frugal person. He was also a great orator. Next to Webster's desk is the desk of Jefferson Davis, which is now occupied by Senator Cochran of Mississippi. I am reminded of the great speech Jefferson Davis gave with so much emotion that he left the Senate to go back to his home State of Mississippi during the Civil War. There is so much history in this Chamber. One of the things you do when you are leaving the Senate, you take time to smell the roses a little bit and you look around. President Reagan said history is a ribbon, always unfurling. History is a journey. Every one of us, Senator Sessions, Senator Inouye, my great friend who now occupies the chair, they are all part of history. It is unfurling as we stand. What we say today is a memory tomorrow. Life is nothing but memories. But we have a chance to make part of that history, to chart that course, for America, 1 of 100 people to do it at any given time in American history. I have learned more about friendship, patriotism, and loyalty in the last 18 years while a Member of Congress, from people in my State, my family, the Senate, so many wonderful people, good friends, than I could ever have imagined. Senator Reid indicated a few moments ago he was sorry I did not win, but I am reminded of Theodore Roosevelt who won and lost his share of elections. This is a great quote for you young people. Think about it because you are going to be facing challenges. All the pages who are sitting here, you are going to win some and you are going to lose some. You will have great disappointments and you will have great successes. That is what life is. It is a heck of a lot more fun to win than it is to lose. I speak from experience on that. Teddy Roosevelt said: Far better it is to dare mighty things, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows not victory or defeat. You can't succeed if you are afraid to fail. You have to fight the fight. You have to fight for the cause. The cause will go on. People will depart the stage. Webster departed; Lincoln departed; many people have departed the stage of running the United States of America--or even the world, Churchill--but others must step up. Maybe they don't step up quite at the level of the ones who are following but they step up. That is why America must go on. I want 500 years from now the Senator from Alabama--Senator Thurmond might be here--but Senator Sessions and I won't--I want those two Senators from New Hampshire and Alabama to be here on this floor in this great country, still the free country it is, having good debates just as we have done so many times. There are so many things one gets the opportunity to do as a Senator. What I have enjoyed the most is helping people, constituent service, working every day with people in the State. Somebody lost their medal that they deserved from World War II or perhaps they are trying to get a child from another country. We do these things every day. That is what I enjoy the most. That is what I will miss the most. I remember a young man who had leukemia. He was dying. He called my office and said his dream was to see a space launch at Cape Canaveral. He could not afford to go and he was very sick. I made it happen and arranged with NASA to have him go and see the space launch. He came back home and died. It is little things such as that. We did not ask for any press on it. Those are the things that I will remember. When you say you are a strong conservative--and people want to lock you in as somebody who does not care or who is not compassionate--I like to help people who sometimes cannot help themselves. Captain McVeigh, the Navy captain of the U.S.S. Indianapolis, who was wronged, who eventually committed suicide because of a terrible ordeal he went through where he was unfairly blamed for the loss of his ship, we cleared his name, thanks to the help of Senator John Warner, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Fighting so many issues--the POW/MIA, dealing with families of those people; serving as the chairman of the Ethics Committee, in the Senate, chosen by all of you to have that high honor--I could go on and on-- chairing the Environment and Public Works Committee. I believe I came here on principle. My motto was Jimmy Stewart's in the movie ``Mr. Smith Goes To Washington.'' He went to right a wrong. They were going to flood some Boy Scout camp with a big dam. He came down and stopped it. That kind of ambition and enthusiasm and concern about your fellow man is what I brought here. I came with principle. I came here to Congress under Ronald Reagan. I am a Reagan Republican. I am leaving the Congress a Reagan Republican--a Republican who stands on his platform, who runs on that platform, not away from the platform. And, yes, that includes the right-to-life, that includes the right to protect the second amendment, that includes cutting taxes and spending and living within your means, helping our veterans, a strong national defense. That is what it means. That is our platform. I don't run from it. I don't run from it here in the Senate; I never have. That may be one of the reasons why I am leaving--involuntarily. A friend of mine, Mel Thompson, the former Governor of New Hampshire, said you stand for something or you stand for nothing. I can proudly say I have tried to stand up for what I believe in while I have been here. It has been a great honor, the highest honor of my life, to be here, to serve here, to make the friends I have made here. I will never, ever forget it. I say thank you in closing to several members of my staff. I know some have come onto the floor today since it is my last speech, unless I come back again--you never know. I appreciate them, and I ask unanimous consent that a list of my staff, both on the Environment and Public Works Committee and my personal staff, be printed in the Record to honor their service to our country.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I want to say to my friend from Nevada before he leaves the floor, what an absolute privilege and honor it has been for me to serve with him in the U.S. Senate. He is an example of bipartisanship and friendship, which I will always treasure. We have had private conversations about many issues here and while serving on the Ethics Committee, which is kind of like purgatory. I will never forget you, Senator Reid, and I very much am going to miss you. I hope I will get a chance to see you from time to time as the years go by.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, on behalf of the leadership at this time, I have to object.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I rise today to commend and honor New Hampshire resident Mr. Otok Ben-Hvar for his achievement in serving his country and spreading the message of patriotism and unity in the United States and throughout the world. As a retired U.S. Army, 82nd Airborne Division paratrooper, Mr. Ben- Hvar has served as an ambassador of American goodwill for more than 25 years. He has traveled throughout the world to deliver toys and trinkets to poor, young children, many of whom are victims of war. During the Balkan War, Mr. Ben-Hvar spent months in Bosnia and Croatia delivering toys, food, clothing and medical supplies to those in need. His tireless effort, while on the front lines of battle, earned him status as the first American to receive honorary citizenship in Croatia. He has been nicknamed ``America's Santa to the World,'' and I can think of no more appropriate title to match his kind and heroic deeds. Mr. Ben-Hvar has returned to embark on a mission to plant America's first National Tree. Collecting and using the native soil of every American state, territory and commonwealth, as well as Washington, D.C., Mr. Ben-Hvar planted and nurtured the seed of his `American Tree'. Since its planning in 1999. Mr. Ben-Hvar has escorted the tree, a sugar maple, to each of the states and territories from whence its soil came--a trip of 103,928 miles, taking close to three years. The tree brings with it a great message of national harmony, and has been treasured by those who see it. This gesture of patriotism and unity from Mr. Ben-Hvar truly deserves to be honored--which is why I am sharing his effort with the Senate today, and asking the President to respond to his request to have the tree permanently planted on the White House lawn. This tree will stand as a testament to the great strength and character of our nation. My home state of New Hampshire is renowned for its forested beauty. However, Mr. Ben-Hvar's tree indeed belongs to the entire United States. It is my distinct honor to represent Mr. Otok Ben-Hvar in the United States Senate and to recognize him now for his tribute to our country.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Joseph R. Devine, Chief of Police in Merrimack, NH. Joseph has faithfully served our country for the past 28 years, first in the United States Army and then as a member of the Police Force. Joseph began his career in law enforcement in 1956 with the Johnston, Rhode Island Police Department. During his tenure then, Joseph proved to be a valuable asset and was rewarded with numerous promotions. Hired originally as a Special officer, Joseph was promoted to Full Time Officer 2 years later, followed by another 3 promotions, eventually leaving him with the rank of Deputy Chief in 1970. His 14 years of dutiful service in Johnston prepared him for his future duties, giving him valuable experience and on the job training. Joseph later served as the Chief of Police for both St. Johnsbury and Claremont, New Hampshire before settling in the Town of Merrimack. It was there that he has spent the past 21 years making the streets safe for children and adults, patrolling our neighborhoods, and faithfully serving the residents of Merrimack. He will be sorely missed by those who he protected for so many years. Throughout his career, Joseph received numerous awards celebrating his distinguished career, from the VFW Certificate of Appreciation for Community Service to the Life Membership Award from the International Association of Chief of Police to the Professionalism in Law Enforcement Award. Joseph serves as a positive example to those in law enforcement and to all Granite Staters. He has served his country well and made his family proud. The Town of Merrimack has benefitted greatly from his expertise, and I am confident that in years to come, Joseph will make his expertise and knowledge readily available to the Police Department. It has been an honor and a privilege representing you in the United States Senate. I wish you continued happiness and success in the years to come.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Dorothy Vattes upon her retirement from service with the Federal Government. Dotty has been a member of my staff for 18 years as a senior caseworker and immigration specialist. She has been a trusted friend and outstanding employee. She is committed to the people of New Hampshire, and has helped hundreds of citizens with problems they may have had with the Federal Government. She has helped re-unite families, helped seniors receive the benefits they deserve, and has exhibited tireless devotion to serving the people. Dorothy Burnham Vattes, was born in Manchester, NH. She has been married for 41 years to John, also a good friend. They have four children, Wendy, Lori, Mark and Shane. I have seen her children grow into wonderful, responsible, adults--most of them also work in Government service. Her son Mark, who also works on my staff, and his wife Kathy, gave Dotty her greatest joy last year--a grandson, Benjamin. Dotty began work in the 1960s, which was followed by a career as a legal secretary. She stayed at home to raise her family for 7 years, but returned to work in a law firm until 1981 when she began her career in public service. She worked for Senator Gordon Humphrey, who held this seat before me, and then came to work for my office when I was elected to the House in 1984. Dotty's retirement will enable her to spend the time doing what she enjoys: traveling, crafts, and community activities like the Manchester Federated Republican Women's Club and the National Association of Retired Federal Employees, NARFE. She and her husband will spend winters at their home in Florida, and summers back in New Hampshire. Dotty's service to the people of New Hampshire will be missed by all of those whose lives she touched. Her commitment, devotion, and the special way in which she helped so many, will not be forgotten. I commend her on her years of service, and her excellence as a valuable member of my staff. Best wishes, Dotty, for a wonderful retirement.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I thank the Chair. Madam President, I can recall 11 years ago--12 years ago actually--I made my maiden speech on the floor of the Senate. It was about Saddam Hussein and going to war with President Bush in office. Here we are 12 years later doing the same thing. I rise today to again support the President in his duty, I believe, to stop Iraq from bringing weapons of mass destruction throughout the world. When I addressed this topic in January of 1991, I said then that there was a lot of talk about George Bush--President Bush 41--leading us into war. What I said then, and I will say now, is that was wrong. It is Saddam Hussein who is leading us into war. The same holds true today as it did 12 years ago. Those voices against the Desert Storm operation, some of whom are repeating this same antiwar rhetoric today, are simply wrong. The warmonger is Saddam Hussein. He is now moving us toward another major military engagement with the stakes even higher than they were 12 years ago. Unfortunately, Desert Storm did not finish the job. There has been some criticism about that. Given the data and facts President Bush had at the time and with the U.N. resolution, he did what he had to do. If we calculate the costs of air operations, no-fly zones, and other activities over these past 12 years, containment has not worked. In this age of weapons of mass destruction, relying on a policy of containment and deterrence is a risk we cannot and must not take. I pulled out a copy of the speech I made in 1991. I do not know anyone in this body who wants war. I do not know anyone in America who wants war. I certainly do not. The President does not. Nobody wants war. Yet we heard today on the floor that President Bush is leading us into war, and that is wrong. Thomas Paine, who is often quoted, over 200 years ago said: These are the times that try men's souls. This is the time that American service men and women are keenly aware of the enormous burden which the world events have placed upon us. I said that in 1991, and it is true today. Unfortunately, Saddam Hussein is still with us. The stakes are high. We are in a virtual state of war now with Saddam Hussein and with Iraq, but it has not produced the necessary results. Saddam is again developing the potential to threaten us with weapons of mass destruction and with terrorist attacks. This threat has to be met. It just simply has to be met head on. And the only answer is the overthrow of Saddam's regime one way or the other--domestically if possible, militarily if necessary. The stakes are simply too high not to do it. I served in Vietnam. Others have served in war. We all know the stakes. If we do not do this, people may die. If we do this, people will die. Imagine the tremendous burden that is placed now upon the President of the United States. Democracies do not threaten democracies, and democracies do not start wars. We would all be much safer nations if everybody believed the way we did, but that is not the way it is. We have learned much in the wake of the vicious attack upon our country on September 11. Frankly, we were pretty much asleep. We were complacent. The terrorist attacks in Africa, the U.S.S. Cole, Khobar Towers, our barracks in Saudi Arabia--these losses were largely inflicted on our military and on our State Department personnel, but we were still largely oblivious to the risks we faced right here on American soil. We were not prepared for the devastation of 9/11 and the lives of nearly 3,000 innocent Americans lost. The total costs are immeasurable. Some say as much as a trillion dollars, but how about in the human loss? All the children orphaned, young people, men and women who were embarking on careers--what they might have contributed to America over the next several years we will never know. What Saddam Hussein is doing has to be met. He is a threat to the people of the world. He is indeed a threat to the world. I know. I have seen enough intelligence on this over the past several years to know-- not only to believe it but to know it. Weapons of mass destruction-- nuclear, biological, and chemical, whatever they may be--can kill millions in insidious ways throughout the world. We simply cannot let this stand. I know, having been there, the enormous burden felt by young men and women in uniform who will be there when and if this happens. They need our support. Have the debate, get the debate behind us, and get behind our men and women because they are going to have to do the work, and they deserve our support, unlike Vietnam when the troops did not get that support. We need to find out where the links to al-Qaida are. They annihilate innocent people by virtue of their religious faith or their national identity. That is what they are doing. They will do it with terrorist bombs on their backs. They can do it with nuclear missiles or biological or chemical missiles as well. If there are some in doubt, I urge them to go down to the Holocaust Museum and take a look and see what the cost of doing nothing is: 6 million innocent lives annihilated because we stood by as a world and let it go too long, and then we finally stopped it. We cannot let this go too long. Six million lives lost the way Hitler took them is horrible, and as despicable as it was, it is nothing compared to the number of lives that can be taken in more evil and despicable ways now. Some say we should not take preemptive action. Preemptive action? There is already action taken against the United States of America. Remember the 3,000 people dead. This is not preemptive. We are reacting. Our survival as a nation is at risk. Earlier this year in the wake of the unprecedented and vicious attack in the United States and world by al-Qaida, President Bush came before the American people in his State of the Union Address and unveiled his advocacy for regime change in Iraq. That is a sound policy. And this is a terrible dilemma. How would you like to be the President of the United States today, sitting in the White House contemplating what has to be done? Criticized if you take action, criticized if you don't; risking death if you do, risking death if you don't. There is no time in American history where a decision has been more important. There is no more important debate, ever, in my view, in American history where the stakes are higher than they are right now. I am standing right now at the desk of Daniel Webster. He probably from this desk made some of the greatest speeches in the history of this body, but none of them, whether they were about slavery or all the great issues of the day of the 1830s and 1840s, even come close to the impact of what could happen by allowing this man, this despot, to move forward in the world unchecked. We cannot rely on the United Nations, weapons inspectors, or Saddam's word that he is going to comply with inspections and disarm. I wish we could. Neville Chamberlain thought that about Hitler, didn't he? Saddam Hussein's brutal dictatorship has reigned for 30 years. During these three decades, we have seen him attack Iran in a war that took a million lives; we have seen him repress, through murder and terror, ethnic and political elements in Iraq; We have seen him use weapons of mass destruction on 250 occasions against the civilian population. He had come close to producing a nuclear device before the gulf war and is successfully continuing these efforts despite several years of failed weapons inspections. He has breached international law. He has invaded Kuwait. He set oil wells on fire. He has threatened the stability of the world. He prompted the use of military force to contain him, and Saddam Hussein has tried to assassinate a former President of the United States of America. He is a sponsor of Islamic terrorism throughout the world, and his regime has harbored the likes and established relations with Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida. What more evidence do we need to act? This resolution also touches my heart in another way. This resolution makes very brief mention that Iraq has failed to account for an American serviceman. It might be a small matter compared to the big issue of war with Iraq, but Captain Speicher, who was shot down over Iraq, was the first pilot lost in the war. He was pronounced dead by the Pentagon, but there is no evidence that he is dead. The information was incorrect. His status changed in January 2001. I worked for 7 years to change that status and President Clinton, to his credit, prior to leaving office, changed that status. I give him great credit for that because he very well may be a prisoner held by Saddam Hussein today. In short, whether he is a prisoner or not, Saddam Hussein knows what happened to him. We do not. This is simply unacceptable. By not seeking a regime change in Iraq, by not backing our policies with military force, by not dismantling Saddam's regime and weapons of mass destruction, I am concerned America will repeat its folly and give Saddam the breathing room to produce a nuclear device, proliferate it, threaten to use it, or use it. He will continue to support terrorism which devastated our Nation. I supported the resolution on Iraq during the administration of President Bush 41, and I will support the resolution of this President Bush to give him the power to authorize the use of military force against Iraq. I will close with a comment I made in my closing remarks in 1991: Stand with the Commander in Chief. Have the courage to stand with him who was elected by all of the American people. Stand with him, and stand with our sons and daughters in the Persian Gulf. Do not give Saddam Hussein a reason to doubt our resolve. Stand together. Let us discard Saddam Hussein on the garbage heap of history along with the other despots like Khrushchev, Stalin, and Hitler. That is where he belongs, and that is where we are going to put him sooner or later. Unfortunately, it is a little bit later than we expected. We need not fear. We are the greatest Nation in the world, with the greatest people, and I believe it is the right thing to confront this monster and do it now. That is why I will be supporting President Bush. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate the Taiwanese people in celebrating the 91st National Day of the Republic of China on October 10, 2002. Taiwan is, and has been, a loyal ally and trading partner in Asia. Its people participate and fully subscribe to the principles of freedom and democracy. The Taiwanese people have worked with the United States on issues ranging from endangered species, trademark infringements to global terrorism. They look to us for cooperation, guidance and protection. President Bush will soon be meeting with PRC President Jiang Zemin in the United States. I ask my colleagues to join with me in urging President Bush not to enter into any agreement which would restrict Taiwan or compromise its growing democracy. Better relations with the PRC must not come at the expense of the 23 million people on Taiwan, who must depend on America to defend their interests. I am, however, pleased to see that on September 26 Congress passed the Foreign Relations Authorization Act which contains a few Taiwan- friendly clauses. While the act is not legally binding, this is a goodwill gesture towards Taiwan by the United States. It is apparent that Congress has reached a consensus that ``the Taiwan Strait issue must be peaceful and must include the assent of the people of Taiwan.'' I totally agree with many of my colleagues that as long as the PRC has not renounced the use of force against Taiwan, we must continue to help Taiwan defend itself by selling submarines, patrol aircraft, and advanced destroyers to Taiwan. In addition, the PRC must be left with no doubt that we will provide military support to Taiwan if it is attacked. In fact, the PRC's military buildup in recent years has made it not only a threat to Taiwan but to other neighboring Asian countries as well. Mr. President, the October 10 celebration should mark the continuance of the close cooperation in all areas between our two countries, as well as the founding of a nation. Again, I congratulate Taiwan on the occasion of its National Day.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate Senator Strom Thurmond on his remarkable tenure as a U.S. Senator. As a history teacher, I taught my students about Senator Thurmond. As a Congressman, I always admired Senator Thurmond's leadership, and his willingness to speak out for his beliefs. As a Senator, it has been an honor to serve with Senator Thurmond. He is a true patriot, a true civil servant. He has served his country in countless ways, and in every case, he has pursued this service with vigor. He showed his dedication to the United States by serving in the army during World War II. Senator Thurmond originally signed up for an administrative position, but he eventually went to both the European and Pacific theaters. He served with the storied 82d Airborne Division and landed in Normandy on D-Day. His combat service earned him eighteen citations, including the Bronze Star for Valor, a Purple Heart, the Belgian Order of the Crown, and the French Croix de Guerre. He continued his military career as a Major General of the U.S. Army Reserve. He also acted as National President of the Reserve Officers Association. It is easy to forget this heroism, because it was so long ago and he has accomplished so much since them, But, for me, as a Veteran, and as someone who lost his father in service to his country, I believe we each owe Senator Thurmond our gratitude for his courage in his military service. Senator Thurmond was first elected to the Senate 48 years ago. It was then, in 1954, that the people of South Carolina elected Senator Thurmond by a write-in vote, the only time in history that this has ever happened. However, Senator Thurmond had made his mark well before he was elected to the Senate. He showed his dedication to South Carolina by serving as city and county attorney, State senator, circuit judge, and Governor. As a former teacher, coach, and school board chairman, I believe there is no more noble public service than teaching. Between heroic military service and a half century of political service, Strom Thurmond managed to set aside time to teach future generations. He was a teacher in South Carolina. He was also an athletic coach. He later went on to serve as the Superintendent of Education for Edgefield County, SC. As a U.S. Senator, Strom Thurmond has accomplished numerous achievements. As you all may know, in 1996 Senator Thurmond became the oldest serving Senator in history. A few months later, he became the longest serving Senator in United States history. In 1998 Senator Thurmond cast his 15,000th vote on the Senate floor. While these milestones are significant, it is what he did with this time that makes these records important. Senator Thurmond well remembers the great baseball Hall of Famer Lou Gehrig. They used to call him the Iron Horse. He never missed a game. He always gave 100 percent. He was the essence of sportsmanship. Strom Thurmond is the Iron Horse of the Senate. He is the essence of statesman, of public servant. He has given 100 percent for his entire career, and those of us who are privileged to know him draw energy and inspiration from his example. I will always remember any time I came in early in the morning to open the Senate. It was always Senator Thurmond presiding. As President pro-tempore, he did not have to do that. He could appoint someone else to do it. But, that's just how Strom Thurmond is. It is part of his character. Of course, I have always admired his dedication to his conservative values. Throughout his life Senator Thurmond was a Democrat, a Dixiecrat, and a Republican, but most importantly he was always a patriot. His unflinching devotion to his country manifested itself in his service and chairmanship of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Moreover, his unflagging dedication to justice was represented by another chairmanship, that of the Senate Judiciary Committee. As a Senator who has served with Senator Thurmond on both of these committees, I have had the privilege of seeing a great legislator in action. As a veteran, I am thankful for all that Senator Thurmond has done, such as serving on the Veterans' Affairs Committee for over 30 years. As a former teacher, I commend his work with the youth of South Carolina when he was an educator. As a Senator, I admire his forthrightness and dedication to his principles. As an American, he makes me proud. Senator Thurmond, thank you for your many years of devotion to this country and the ideals that make it strong.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, over the course of our lives, many of us have role models. Role models mold and shape us as human beings. Who we choose for role models can leave an indelible mark on our character. As a young boy, I had several role models. When I was 3 years old, I had a dad who lost his life at the end of the Second World War. He was certainly a role model for me. My mother worked very hard to try to keep the family together; she never remarried. She was a Navy widow who kept my brother and me and the family together all of those years. I had a granddad who worked hard to try to keep us on the straight and narrow, helping my mother. They were all my heroes and role models. Politically, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan come to mind as role models, as well as former Gov. Mel Thomson of New Hampshire, who once told me you stand for something or you stand for nothing, which brings me to Jesse Helms. He is a man who has been a treasured friend, a confidant, a great Senator, and my role model for all the years I have been in the Senate. His steadfast example has helped shape who I am as a Senator and as a person. I remember talking to Senator Gordon Humphrey of New Hampshire, your former colleague. I asked him one time: What is Jesse Helms like? And he said: Jesse Helms is the nicest person in the Senate. He was right; you are. Others have said that about you as well, including the elevator operators and pages and so many people you are nice to. I have seen you on so many occasions talking to students and posing for pictures with people who were not always from North Carolina. You would stop and say, Where are you guys from? And then you would talk to them. And I would hear them after you walked away and the things that they said. It really is a shame that all Americans do not know you personally, Senator Helms, because you are one fine man. You have a long, distinguished record of service to your country and service in so many areas before you came to the Senate, and you did a lot of charitable work after you came to the Senate. Since he was first elected to the U.S. Senate by the people of North Carolina nearly 30 years ago, Senator Helms has tirelessly served the people of North Carolina and this nation. Before that, the Senator's tenure of service to the United States of America began in the 1940's. Serving in the U.S. Navy during the second world war, Senator Helms pledged his loyalty and love to the United States. I lost my own father in WWII and understand and respect the passion that the men and women of the Greatest Generation has and still have for the United States. No one embodies these ideals better than the senior Senator from North Carolina. Upon returning from battle in WWII, Senator Helms got his first taste of Washington politics by serving as an administrative assistant to both Senator Willis Smith and Senator Alton Lennon. Senator Helms took his experience in the Senate and began his own historical career in his home State of North Carolina. Before going to Washington Senator Helms served the people of his community and home State in many ways. He served his community for two 2-year terms on the Raleigh city council, as well as being the president of both the Raleigh Rotary Club and the Raleigh Executives Club. As a man full of compassion for his fellow man, Senator Helms further served his State as the director of the North Carolina Cerebral Palsy Hospital in Durham, the Director of the United Cerebral Palsy of North Carolina, and the Director of the Wake County Cerebral Palsy and Rehabilitation Center in Raleigh. As a man who cares deeply for the future generations of this country, Mr. Helms has served as a deacon and a Sunday School teacher, sat on the Board of Trustees of Meredith College, John F. Kennedy College, Campbell University and Wingate College. The thing I am going to remember is that you used your life experiences and your faith, and they were your guiding principles in the Senate. The kind of person you are is the kind of Senator you are. You were a veteran and you used that in your capacity as the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. You have been an unflinching proponent of a principled foreign policy throughout the world for so many years. There is no greater supporter of human rights, no more steadfast defender of American sovereignty, no stronger advocate for our national interest than you, Senator Helms. I have been in so many meetings--and I see the assistant leader in the Chamber as well, Senator Nickles, who can vouch for this. So many times in meetings we have said: Senator Helms, do you think maybe we could have your support to let this nominee go through, and Senator Helms would never raise his voice but he would say, no, can't do it. It was always disagreeing without being disagreeable. That is why you have so much respect, and that is why there are so many people here to honor you. When faced with a policy that you feel is counter to your values, you are like a rock. Even your opponents marvel at your fortitude. You are the irresistible force for justice and human liberty. You are an immovable object against big spending and immorality. You are not afraid to stand up on the floor time after time--and I am proud to have stood with you on many occasions, Senator Helms. You are a man of great personal faith. This has led you to be a crusader for the lives of the unborn. Not too many people come down to talk about that issue these days, but you inspired me to weigh in on this. This, I believe, will be the defining moral issue. This will be the slavery issue of the 20th century and perhaps even the 21st century. You were right to defend the unborn. History will judge you as being right, and I am proud to follow in those big shoes of yours, Senator Helms. Being a conservative Republican has led Senator Helms to fight for the rights of taxpayers, small businessmen, and the constitutional rights of all Americans. Most importantly, Senator Helms has used his experience as a husband, a father, and a grandfather, to promote strong family values and to guide this country over the last 30 years. You have never shied away from controversy. You always do what is right, never even considering the political consequences to yourself. Whether you are fighting for the right of students to pray in school, the right of the Boy Scouts of America to organize and inspire young boys to join, or the right of the taxpayers not to have their hard- earned money wasted, you do not worry about the opponents or distorted reports by the news media. You follow your heart. I have always admired Senator Helms' dedication to his conservative values. The example that Senator Helms sets is something that we all as conservatives need to follow. There has been no senator as outspoken on the conservative agenda over the past three decades. Jesse was recognized in 1980, 1981, and 1983 as the ``Most Admired Conservative in Congress''. He also received the ``Conservative Caucus 97th Congress Statesman Award'' in 1983. It will be one of the fondest memories in life to know I sat here and served with you in this body. The news media used to call him ``Senator No,'' because he never compromised his values or beliefs, and that is something for him to be proud of and the rest of us to admire. While Senator Helms, always full of humor, embraced the reputation, I think those of us who know him understand that the media did not tell the whole story. I believe they should have called him ``Senator Yes.'' Because when Congress was trying to waste the taxpayers' money, Jesse Helms stood up and said ``yes'' to the taxpayers. When the unborn were being threatened, he said ``yes'' to human life. While some were saying ``no'' to human rights, to personal freedom, to limited Government, to morality, to family values, Jesse Helms always stood up with a resounding ``yes.'' And even when his more ardent opponents in the Senate will vouch for the fact that there is not a more decent human being in the entire Senate. Always a smile on his face, always time for schoolchildren, always courteous, always a friend. As an American, I am truly grateful for Jesse Helms' patriotic service to his country. But, personally, what I will most treasure is 12 years of friendship. Jesse, you were always there for me, and while I bid you a fond farewell as we both part from our Senate service, I will always stay in touch. I will always consider you one of my best friends. Senator Helms has pledged a lifetime of loyalty, love and service to the United States. The senator is a patriot in every sense of the word. Thank you, Senator Helms, for serving this country as you have over the past three decades. May God bless you and your family. I want to close on a couple of points. The news media gave you a name, and I know you had some fun with it. For those of you who have not been in Senator Helms' office, it is just plastered with all these cartoons. Some of them are pretty rough. But they always called him ``Senator No.'' There are two ways to look at that because you never compromised on your values or your beliefs. So oftentimes you were down here voting no when others were compromising those values and beliefs. That is something of which I am going to be proud. The thing I am most proud of remembering about you--always full of humor, always embracing the reputation--but those of us who really know you understand that the media had it wrong. You were not Mr. No. You were Senator Yes because you were right. It was ``yes,'' to try to stop wasting taxpayers' money and stand up for them. It was ``yes,'' the right thing to do, to stand up for the unborn. It was ``yes,'' to stand up for human rights, personal freedom, limited Government, morality, family values. It was not Mr. No, it was Senator Yes. Each of your most ardent political opponents in the Senate--you heard Senator Wellstone--will vouch for the fact that there is not a more decent human being who ever lived in the United States of America, or ever served here. I am standing now at the desk of Daniel Webster. There are going to be a lot of people following the Senator from North Carolina, from North Carolina, who are going to be standing at the desk of Senator Helms. I am proud to serve with you, my friend. You are a great American, a great patriot, and I wish you the best in the years to come. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise to speak about Taiwan's First Lady, Madam Chen Wu Sue-jen, who is visiting Washington this week for the first time in her capacity as First Lady. As a dear friend of Taiwan, and on behalf of my colleagues in the United States Senate, I would like to welcome Madam Chen Wu to Washington. I hope her visit is pleasant and productive. Mr. President, Madam Chen Wu is truly a delightful and remarkable lady. I am in awe of her courage in the face of adversary. I am especially moved by her refusal to allow being a victim of an automobile accident, which rendered her disabled, from ending her outspoken advocacy for democracy in Taiwan. Madam Chen Wu successfully ran for office herself, becoming a lawmaker. She later focused her efforts to make her husband one of Taiwan's eminent political figures. Her dreams and hopes for him became fulfilled when Chen Shui-bian was elected president of the Republic of China in 2000. Since taking office, President Chen has exhibited great leadership and courage in the face of the People's Republic of China's constant menace. President Chen has also shown his compassion and friendship to the American people in the wake of the tragic attacks on the citizens of the United States of America. I am certain these fine traits have been honed in part through the example Madam Chen Wu has played in his life. To this day, First Lady, Madam Chen Wu has not changed. She is still the same Chen Wu Sue-jen of years ago: an innocent schoolgirl from Matou, Tainan County, Taiwan. She has retained all the charm and grace of a young Taiwanese girl who later became a wife, mother, politician and First Lady. The United States of America welcomes you, Madam Chen Wu.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senators Tim Hutchinson, Craig Thomas, and Strom Thurmond as original cosponsors, and I thank my colleague from South Carolina for his cooperation. I appreciate it very much. I again thank my colleague, Senator Boxer, for her leadership, and I thank Senator Reid for his cooperation as well.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I reiterate: This amendment trains and arms commercial pilots with a firearm to defend the cockpit of our Nation's commercial aircraft from acts of terrorism. The amendment also provides for increased training for flight attendants and communications devices for pilots and flight attendants to have the latest communications and video monitoring devices. Today, there are no defensive capabilities our Nation's pilots. No firearms. Only Federal air marshals, on a very small percentage of commercial flights, are armed to defend against terrorism. When all else has failed to defend a commercial aircraft, the only option for the defense of the public from the use of a commercial aircraft as an instrument of mass terror is for the United States military to shoot down that commercial aircraft. I firmly believe that we should give our Nation's pilots & flight attendants a fighting chance against terrorists before our Government resorts to shooting commercial aircraft out of the sky. I am proud to have joined a bipartisan coalition including Senator Zell Miller, Senator Conrad Burns, Senator Frank Murkowski, and Senator Barbara Boxer in introducing our bill, S. 2554, the ``Arming Pilots Against Terrorism and Cabin Defense Act of 2002.'' On July 21, 2001, the FAA limited the carriage of weapons of aircraft to certain law enforcement officers. September 11, 2001--the worst terrorist attack in U.S. History. That attack could have been prevented if pilots were armed. I was convinced of this fact by a wonderful and brave woman--Ellen Saracini of Pennsylvania. Over one month ago, I spoke at a press conference with Ellen Saracini. Ellen is the wife of the late Captain Vic Saracini. Captain Victor Saracini was the pilot of United Flight 175 on its way from Boston to Los Angeles when it was commandeered on September 11 and crashed into the World Trade Center Tower 2. Vic supported armed pilots before September 11th and Ellen has continued that support. Our nation has suffered a great loss with the loss of the pilots, flight attendants and thousands of victims of September 11th. I never ever want to see an event like September 11th happen again and I firmly believe that armed pilots will be an effective tool to prevent any future contemplated acts of terrorism. What we learned from September 11th is that a military jet shooting down a commercial aircraft is not only possible, it is now commonly considered as a part of airline security. We also recently learned that the military contemplated ramming commercial jets with military aircraft if they were hijacked weapons of mass destruction. On September 11th, I understand that the shooting down of commercial aircraft may have been necessary at the time. Today, there is no excuse not to arm pilots before we allow our military to shoot down commercial aircraft. At the time it was the right decision, because the despicable acts of September 11th were unthinkable--not anymore. Since September 11th, there have been some advancements in commercial airline security, yet, the most common sense legislation to train and arm commercial airline pilots, has yet to be implemented. The Aviation and Transportation Security Act was approved and signed into law. This act authorizes air carrier pilots to carry a firearm in the cockpit if: (1) the Undersecretary for TSA approves; (2) the air carrier approves; (3) the firearm is approved; and, (4) the pilot has received proper training. This law was passed as a result of my amendment in the Senate and a provision passed by the House. I was unhappy with the language, but I had the hope that the Department of Transportation would give adequate consideration to the issue of armed pilots. The FAA published a request for comments on whether pilots should be allowed to be armed on December 31, 2001. By March 15, 2002, the FAA had received over 7,500 comments and according to the FAA's analysis, more than 96% of the comments favored armed pilots. As a result of the open comment period, the TSA decided to agree with the 4% of respondents who disapproved of armed pilots and ignored the comments of 96% of respondents. This is a critical point in the debate today. Today, the Transportation Security Administration is authorized to start training pilots in the proper use of a firearm to defend the cockpit. One pilot said that the current inaction on the part of TSA and the Department of Transportation is a criminal act of negligence. Maybe this inaction is a political act of negligence that needs to be addressed by the Senate today. On May 21, 2002, the former Under Secretary for Transportation Security, John Magaw, testified that he would not approve the arming of commercial pilots. The House passed a strong armed pilots bill by an overwhelming margin--today the Senate finally considers an amendment to train and arm pilots. The bottom line is that armed pilots are the first line of deterrence and last line of defense to terrorism. First line of deterrence, because terrorists will never target American commercial aircraft again, if terrorists know that an armed pilot will end an attempted hijacking with deadly force. Last line of defense, because an armed pilot is the last line of defense before an F-16 or other military aircraft shoots down a hijacked aircraft full of innocent civilians. It really is that simple. Nonlethal weapons are a great supplement to a firearm--but it is not an alternative. Our nation's air marshals are armed with a firearm. Maybe they should also be given a stun gun or a tazer, but nobody in this chamber would argue that our nation's air marshals should only have a stun gun. Tazers and stun guns are good to disable one or two terrorists, but a firearm is the best alternative to defend against a September 11th style attack. The pilots and the flight attendants want safer travel. My understanding is that the Department of Transportation initially opposed arming pilots because of liability issues. Our amendment grants the airlines a limited liability shield to protect from aggressive trial lawyers. Our amendment will ensure that the pilots and airlines are not held liable for actions taken to protect the lives of the crew and passengers from terrorist attack. A commercial aircraft is not going to crash as a result of the discharge of a firearm on a commercial aircraft. On May 2, 2002, Ron Hinderberger of the Boeing Company testified before the House Committee on Transportation. Hinderberger said: ``The risk of loss of an aircraft due to a stray round from a hand gun is very slight.'' The cost of this program is not going to be too much to bear. The cost that I never want this nation to pay again--is another September 11 style attack on the United States of America. I am willing to work with the good members of the Senate to keep the cost of this program to a minimum. My office has consulted some private training facilities including Gunsight in Arizona and Blackwater Lodge in North Carolina. Both have assured my office that the cost would be minimal. Gunsight quotes the cost at about $2000 per pilot for initial training and about $700 per pilot for recurrent training. The amendment contains findings that we inserted at the request of Senator Barbara Boxer that a Federal air marshall should be on all high risk flights. The amendment creates a Federal Flight Deck Officer Program to train and arm pilots. Ninety days after the bill is passed the Undersecretary for Transportation shall establish a program to deputize qualified pilots who volunteer for the armed pilots program. The bill grants pilots the authority to use force and provides a liability protection for pilots acting in scope of their duties as Federal Flight Deck Officers. The amendment establishes the Aviation Crewmember Self-Defense Division within the TSA to train flight attendants to prepare them for terrorist and criminal threats. Another provisions states that the air carriers shall provide flight and cabin crew with a discreet, hands free wireless method of communicating. The purpose of this device is to provide a method for the pilot to communicate with the flight attendant to understand if there is a threat to a commercial aircraft. Also, another provision was added at the request of Senator Boxer to provide a real time and cost effective video monitoring device for the pilot to monitor the activities in the passenger's cabin. This gives a pilot a view of any possible threat to the pilot's cockpit without having to open the cockpit door. Today it is an honor to be fighting on behalf of the pilots, flight attendants, commercial airline passengers, and the American people who support the idea of armed pilots and trained flight attendants on the floor of the United States Senate. If my state of New Hampshire is any barometer of the popularity of Armed Pilots--the Congress would pass this amendment by Unanimous Consent right now. The House of Representatives conducted hearings, marked up and passed an armed pilots bill by a margin of 310-113 on July 10th. Today, the Senate is considering a similar armed pilots amendment and it is my hope and prayer that this amendment is passed by the anniversary of September 11th. One year is long enough for the American people to wait for this common sense and reasonable amendment to arm pilots and train flight attendants. Also, I want to thank the Allied Pilots Association, the Airline Pilots' Security Alliance, the Air Lines Pilots Association, the Coalition of Airline Pilots Associations, the Southwest Airlines Pilots' Association and the Association of Flight Attendants for the leadership and hard work these groups have completed to help the Congress draft and pass an armed pilots and trained flight attendant's bill. Yesterday, we learned that many different reporters investigating airport security were able to smuggle small knives and pepper spray through the checkpoints of 11 airports over Labor Day weekend. These airports included Newark International, Logan Airport in Boston, Dulles Airport, O'Hare, LaGuardia and Kennedy, among others. These are our largest and busiest airports, where security should be the tightest. Anbd this report is certainly not the only instance where weapons have passed through security without detection. But we have to assume that occasionally mistakes happen, even at our biggest and busiest airports. Some sort of weapon could be smuggled aboard an airplane. All it took on September 11th was a few box-cutter knives. This recent example of screening insecurity is just another reason why airline pilots need to be armed. Because they will provide the first line of deterrence and the last line of defense. In other words, if terrorists know that the pilots have firearms, then they will be less likely to attempt a takeover. But if the unthinkable happens and a terrorist gets through security with some sort of weapon and then tries to take over a plane, the plan is to start descending to land the plane immediately, and to use the firearm if the terrorists try to get into the cockpit. The terrorists will not be able to get into the cockpit with armed pilots. And the lives of passengers and the crew, as well as perhaps thousands of Americans on the ground, will be saved.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I absolutely agree with the Senator. We do; we have more than enough information. I certainly do not think it is worth having a test program to wait and hope that something else does not happen again. We need to cut the odds dramatically. I don't know if it can be 100 percent, but we certainly can cut the odds dramatically. We need to restore the confidence of the American people to fly again. The stories just related are incredible--.357 magnums getting on aircraft. Another thing which has not been focused on, terrorists do not necessarily have to have something we can determine as a weapon; they have bare hands. They have been trained to murder. They have gone through the Bin Laden terrorist camps. They are experts in martial arts. They can kill with their hands. Some small weapon could be helpful to a terrorist, but they could kill with their bare hands. They have to be stopped. The best way, of course, is to keep them off the planes. In the event they get on the plane, this is the last line of deterrence and defense. I am hopeful the Senate will realize this. I know it has been a long process. The House has had hearings. They marked a bill, 310 to 113, on July 10. Today we are considering essentially similar legislation--not exactly the same. The Allied Pilots Association, the Airline Pilots' Security Alliance, Airline Pilots Association, Coalition of Airline Pilots Association, Southwest Airlines Pilots Association, Association of Flight Attendants: all of these groups have not only supported this amendment but have worked very hard and talked to Members of Congress in a very informative, instructive, positive way, pleading with Congress to help them defend the people on those aircraft and the people on the ground. I have several items to print, including one from the pilots to President Bush, an editorial by Richard Cohen, and an editorial by George Will, and I ask unanimous consent these documents be printed in the Record. April 3, 2002. Hon. George W. Bush, The White House, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. President: As representatives of the largest airline pilot organizations in this country, we would like your assistance in the immediate development and implementation of a program to defend the American traveling public with voluntarily armed pilots. Public opinion polls and those within our own pilot groups indicate overwhelming support for arming flight deck crewmembers with lethal weapons. Nothing short of lethal force can stop lethal intent to hijack and destroy our aircraft and murder all on board. Yet the volunteer pilot arming provisions of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001 that you signed into law on November 19, 2001, are being ignored. To remedy this situation, we ask for your assistance in implementing a flight deck protection program that has the following characteristics: All volunteer pilots must be carefully screened, successfully trained and subsequently designated by a federal law enforcement agency such as the FBI or TSA; pilots so selected, screened and trained should be deputized or have the same indemnification and protections afforded other law enforcement officers in the employ of the U.S. government; pilots must be certificated in weapons handling, use of lethal force, carriage policy and procedure, rules of engagement in all environments, recurrent training, tort law, and other subjects deemed necessary by the governing authority; choice of weapons and ammunition will be mandated by the responsible federal agency; and certified pilots will draw their weapons only for use in direct defense of the flight deck in accordance with program ``use of force'' rules. If the unthinkable happens again, there must be a means provided for our flight crews to defeat any hijacker who breaches the flight deck with a weapon and attempts to destroy the aircraft. Otherwise, a U.S. fighter may be ordered to shoot down a commercial airliner full of innocent passengers. America's pilots must have lethal weapons as a last line of defense against well-coordinated, highly trained teams of terrorists. Each of our pilot groups has independently assessed and recommended the best way to implement a plan to arm our flight crews. Each has drawn similar conclusions closely paralleling a proposed training program developed by the FBI at the request of the Department of Justice. We have forwarded our specific recommendations through the comment process requested by the Federal Aviation Administration, and stand ready to immediately assist your administration in the establishment of such a program. Sincerely, Captain Duane Woerth, President, Air Line Pilots Association. Captain Tracy Price, President, Airline Pilot Security Alliance. Captain Jon Weaks, President, Southwest Airlines Pilots' Association. Captin John E. Darrah, President, Allied Pilots Association. Captain Bob Miller, President, Coalition of Airline Pilots Associations. [From the Washington Post, June 4, 2002] Guns . . . (By Richard Cohen) Careful readers of this column will remember when, some years back, I was burglarized. It was the middle of the night, sometime around 3 a.m., when I heard a noise--the back door being forced open. I awoke with a start, tried to quiet my thumping heart, rushed to the head of the stairs and heard someone running around the floor below. At that moment, what I wanted more than anything in the world was a gun. What I wanted at that moment--and only that moment, I hasten to add--was denied last month to airline pilots who just might have to deal with a terrorist somehow getting into the cockpit. That this decision was made by the pro-gun Bush administration only deepens the mystery. If I were a pilot, I would want a gun in the cockpit. And in every survey, most pilots say they do. The gun I would want would not be carried on my person. It would not be on me when I went to the bathroom or left the cockpit for any reason. It would be in a secure location, accessible only to someone who knew a code, and while it might be loaded with bullets that could stop a man but not penetrate the fuselage, even conventional ammo does not present an unacceptable risk. Planes don't deflate like balloons from one or two bullet holes. And, anyway, air marshals and other law enforcement officers already fly not only armed but with conventional ammo. This gun would be used only as a last resort to stop a terrorist from gaining control of the plane. It's probably not too much to say that if pilots had had weapons on Sept. 11, the attacks might have been averted. A man with a box cutter is no match for a man with a gun. The union that represents the pilots, the 62,000-member Air Line Pilots Association, favors having a weapon in the cockpit. Not all pilots agree, of course. Some of them feel that arming pilots would distract from the real job at hand-- making the cockpit as secure as possible as quickly as possible. This includes, among other things, bulletproof cockpit doors that can't be broken down. It also includes beefing up the air marshal program. After all, El Al Israel's national airline, does not arm its pilots and has not had a hijacking since 1968. It uses sky marshals. But El Al has only 34 airplanes. The United States has more 20,000 flights a day. It will be a long time, if ever, before there's a sky marshal on every flight. That cannot, of course, be said for pilots. Every flight has at least one. Back in 1995, when he was governor of Texas, George W. Bush signed a bill giving Texans the right to carry a concealed weapon. The bill insisted only that the gun-toters be at least 21, pass a criminal background check and have no history of mental illness. I can only hope that pilots already meet those criteria. If that's the case, then why is it somehow logical to allow every Tom, Dick and Harry to pack some heat but to forbid that same right to airline pilots, who, I may point out, often are ex-military people? Regardless, they would all be trained in the use of the gun, and their first duty, always, would be to fly the plane--no matter what. Only if a terrorist somehow managed to gain access to the cockpit would the pilot use the weapon. Could even a stray shot be worse than a commandeered plane on a terrorist mission? I am, like all reasonable people, in favor of the tightest restrictions on guns. I fear the things, since they are easily concealed and lethal. The more there are, the more chances they will fall into the wrong hands. That is precisely what I feared the night I was burglarized--not that the burglar had a knife (I had scissors), but a gun. But even in my most anti-NRA moods, I want the cops to be armed, since, among other things, just be being so, they deter crime. Armed pilots would also be a deterrent. A terrorist would not be dealing with the chance that an air marshal is aboard but the certainty that, in the cockpit, it is gun and a person--cool enough to be an airline pilot--who is cool enough to use it. Just one night in my life, I wanted a gun. On just one flight, a pilot might feel the same way.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I yield.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. While the Senator from California is still in the Chamber, let me thank her in a big way for the wonderful cooperation she has given us as we have worked together to bring this amendment to the floor, but also, more importantly, to bring the flight attendants and the pilots together in this effort and to have legislation that is going to help them as we get through this terrible ordeal. This has been a long, arduous effort since 9/11. I know the Senator has worked with various groups, as I have. Right after 9/11 we started to meet with pilots and flight attendants to hear from them as to what it was they believed they needed. It became very clear, as the Senator from California has said, that the flight attendants were not properly trained and believed they needed that training. They were the first to die, we believe, in those aircraft. Not only that, the pilots themselves had absolutely no defense against these terrorist attacks. In listening to the families, the flight attendants, and the pilots, we were able to piece together, work through, and develop legislation which I hope the Senate will pass this afternoon. This amendment will train and arm commercial pilots with a firearm to defend the cockpit of our Nation's commercial aircraft from acts of terrorism. It also provides for increased training for flight attendants and communications devices for pilots and flight attendants to have the latest communications and video monitoring devices. It is a terrible comment on our times that this kind of effort has to be put forth, but that is the world we live in, where people who are determined to kill us have no qualms about killing themselves. What happens, as we all know, is that these aircraft become weapons of mass destruction. They become bombs, in essence. As the Senator from California said, the option of not having guns in the cockpits or trained crews is having guns in the cockpits or, as a last line of defense, F-16s which will shoot down commercial aircraft with Americans on board, a terrible scenario to have happen, basically making the decision to take fewer lives to avoid killing more people because of what might happen on the ground. It is a terrible scenario we do not want to see happen. I am not sure we can guarantee 100 percent it will never happen, but we can cut the odds with this legislation. That is why I am so excited about its passage. Hopefully, when it goes to conference with the House--the House bill is very similar but not quite where we need it to be--we can conference this and the President will sign it. I was astonished to hear the flight attendants this morning in the press conference. They were very emotional and very articulate, I might add, in talking about the training they did not have, and they have not had any additional training since the 9/11 incident. I believe we have to give our Nation's pilots and flight attendants a fighting chance against these terrorists before our Government has to resort to shooting down an airplane and by all odds keeping the terrorists from getting into that cockpit. The cabin would be the first place the terrorists would be. At least with trained flight attendants, they can perhaps incapacitate the person or at least slow the person down. If that person gets to the cockpit with a lethal weapon, a properly trained pilot will stop that person before that person gets into the cockpit and causes the plane to lose control. We have met some wonderful people. I was taken aback this morning in the meeting with Alice Hogan. She is the mother of Mark Bingaman who lost his life on flight 93, one of the many heroes on that aircraft. It is very emotional to see these people coming to Washington and talking with us and asking us to help. They should not have to ask, but they are here, they are articulate, and they are emotional. They want help. They deserve help. We do not want any more flight 93s or flight 175s. A few weeks ago, I met Ellen Saracini whose husband Vic was the pilot of the aircraft that went into Tower 2. Ironically, she told us, she had had a conversation with her husband not too long before September 11 in which he indicated to her he wished they had better security on the aircraft, better training for flight attendants, maybe guns in the cockpit, some lethal way to stop a potential terrorist; that they did not feel comfortable with this philosophy of being a pacifist when it happens, do not make any waves and everything will be fine; the terrorist will land the aircraft somewhere. That world is gone. We are not there anymore. I remember a reporter asking Ellen, ``Do you think your husband would have survived this incident if he had had a gun in the cockpit or a trained crew?'' And she said, ``I do not know how it could have been any worse than what happened.'' I certainly concur with that. There are a lot of things we can say. I want to speak from the heart about this. We hear a lot about cost: How much is it going to cost to train the flight attendants? How much is it going to cost to train the pilots? How do you even estimate the cost of human life that happened in New York or at the Pentagon? We cannot put a cost on that. This is an emotional time for all of us. We are on the eve of the anniversary of 9/11, and what a great tribute it would be to pass this legislation now so we can try to see it does not happen again. The cost is not that bad, frankly. If an air marshal had to be put on every single flight in America--I do not know what it is, 30,000 flights a day or whatever it is--the costs would be prohibitive. So this way, the pilots are armed and the flight attendants are trained. The odds are dramatically reduced. Down the road perhaps, with better reinforced cockpits, maybe things will improve. Right now, we need this legislation, and we need it badly. I hope the Senate will pass it this afternoon and that it will go to the President's desk very shortly. One other thing I want to mention, because it has been talked about: I have not heard anything official, but there has been some rumor there may be an effort to go with a test program, or a pilot program--no pun intended--where guns would be put in the cockpit on 2 or 3 percent of the planes, maybe train the flight attendants, maybe not. We need those flight attendants trained. This is not where we need to be. This is not going to get the job done. If someone is a passenger on an airplane, they might want to know whether this is one of the 2 or 3 percent where the pilots are armed. I know I would want to ask. Ninety-seven percent of the planes are not going to have these so-called test provisions. I am thinking, what are we testing for? It is not a good idea. The House started out with this, and they left it a long time ago and moved our way on the legislation. What is so ludicrous about this is, let's say we implement a test program for 5 years. Three percent of the aircraft have trained pilots and are carrying arms, and nothing happens for 5 years--and we would hope it would not--what does that mean? We are going to wait until something happens with the other 97 percent? And when something happens, we will increase it to 15 or 20 percent? It is illogical. We need this bill to pass now. Armed pilots. The pilots want it. The flight attendants want it. The American people want it. I hope the majority of the Senate wants it, as the majority of the House.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, this amendment is offered on behalf of myself and Senators Boxer, Murkowski, Bunning, Burns, the Senator presiding, Senator Miller, and others. Because there is an agreement with some of my colleagues that we would not debate it today, I will not take any further time from the Senate, other than to say that this amendment is the Arming Pilots Against Terrorism and Cabin Defense Act of 2002, which will be an amendment that will provide help for training for those flight attendants in the cabin, and for pilots to be able to carry weapons, lethal weapons, in the cockpit to protect our country, our citizens, and those in the aircraft from the aircraft becoming weapons of mass destruction. The intention is to debate this tomorrow when my other colleagues are available, at a time to which the leaders will mutually agree. I very much appreciate the assistant leader, Mr. Reid, allowing me to offer the amendment at this time. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I ask unanimous consent that the Wellstone amendment be temporarily laid aside for the purposes of offering my amendment on armed pilots.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. The request I made was to temporarily lay aside the Wellstone amendment for the purpose of offering an amendment, which I will not debate at this time.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I ask unanimous consent the Wellstone amendment be temporarily laid aside for the purpose of offering an amendment.