[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 98 (Tuesday, July 13, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8328-S8335]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         LEAVING THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, A DECISION OF CONSCIENCE

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, as many of you know, it 
has been a very difficult period of time for me these past several 
days. I want to recognize the sacrifices of my wife and three children 
over the past several weeks as I agonized through this gut-wrenching 
political decision. My wife, Mary Jo, and my daughter, Jenny, and son, 
Bobby, and son, Jason, have had to endure the ups and the downs and the 
difficulties of making such a decision. I am deeply grateful to them 
for their support and comfort because, without

[[Page S8329]]

them, I could not really have gotten through it all.
  My first political memories are of talking to my grandfather, who was 
a died-in-the-wool Republican. He always said he would vote for a 
gorilla on the Republican ticket if he had to. I remember conversations 
with him about the Dewey-Truman campaign. He was obviously for Dewey. 
It didn't work out very well. But I can also remember having 
conversations with my classmates, telling them that I, too, was for 
Dewey and explaining why I was for Dewey in that election.
  At that time I was 7 years old. Years went by, and, in 1952, in the 
Eisenhower-Stevenson election, I was 11 years old. I bet a friend, who 
lived down the road and had a farm, a dollar versus a chicken that 
Eisenhower would win the election. I won, and my grandfather 
immediately drove me down to my neighbor's farm to pick up the chicken 
I had won. The young man's parents graciously acknowledged that I won 
the bet and provided me a nice barred rock hen that laid a lot of eggs 
over the next year or so.
  In 1956, I volunteered to pass out literature for Eisenhower, and, as 
a college student, I worked for Nixon in 1964. But 1964 was the first 
election I voted in. Barry Goldwater's campaign was the one that really 
sparked my conservative passions. I worked as a volunteer in the Nixon 
campaigns in 1968 and 1972, but it wasn't like the Goldwater campaign. 
I remember walking into the booth, saying, this is a man I really 
believe in, and I said I really felt good about that vote.
  In 1976, these conservative passions were again awakened while I 
worked for the conservative Ronald Reagan in the New Hampshire 
primaries against the incumbent President of the United States, Gerald 
Ford--not an easy thing to do for a lot of us who were basically 
grassroots idealists, if you will, who believed that Ronald Reagan 
should win that primary. In those days I was not a political operative; 
I was not a Senator; I was not a candidate; I was not an elected 
official. I was a teacher, a coach, a school board member, husband, 
father, small businessman--just an ordinary guy who cared about his 
country. I got involved because I cared, and I believed deeply in the 
Republican Party.
  I came to this party on principle, pretty much initiating with Barry 
Goldwater but certainly finalized with Ronald Reagan. I was 
disappointed in Reagan's loss in 1976 because I believed that 
grassroots conservatives in the party, who had worked so hard for 
Reagan, lost to what I considered the party elitists, the 
establishment, who were there for Ford because he was President, not 
with the same passion that was out there for Reagan.
  Watching that convention in 1976, I remember those enthusiastic 
grassroots party members who were unable to defeat that party machinery 
that was so firmly behind the incumbent President. I remember seeing 
the tears in their eyes, and the passion. It was a difficult decision. 
It was close, as we all remember--just a few delegates. That was 1976. 
At that time, as a result of the election, it inspired me to run for 
political office for the first time.

  When Reagan sought the nomination again in 1980 I ran in the primary, 
hoping to be part of this great Reagan revolution. Reagan was pro-life. 
He was for strengthening our military. He was anti-Communist. He was 
patriotic. He brought the best out in the American people. I was 
excited. In all those years that Reagan was President, the criticism, 
the hostile questions, the political cheap shots, he rose above it all. 
And most of them, indeed probably all who criticized him, weren't 
qualified to kiss the hem of his garment. He rose above them all. He 
was the best.
  As a result of that, I began a grassroots campaign in 1979, and I 
lost by about a thousand votes with seven or eight candidates in the 
race, including one candidate, ironically, who was from my hometown. It 
was tough, but I decided to come back again in 1982, after losing, 
because I still wanted so much to be a part of the Reagan revolution. 
So I did come back in 1982. And that, my colleagues and friends, is 
when I had the first taste of the Republican establishment.
  I had a phone call that I thought was a great sign. I had a call from 
the National Republican Party. Boy, was I excited. They told me that 
some representatives wanted to come up to New Hampshire from Washington 
to meet with me. They came to New Hampshire. We sat down at a meeting. 
It was brief. They asked me to get out of the race, please, because my 
opponent in the primary had more money than I did and had a better 
chance to win. I had been a Republican all my life, a Republican in 
philosophy, but that was my first experience with what we would call 
the national Republican establishment. I did not get out of the race. I 
beat my wealthy opponent in the primary, and I received the highest 
vote percentage against the incumbent Democrat that any Republican had 
ever received against him, and it was 1982, which was a pretty bad year 
for Republicans, as you all remember.
  In 1984, several candidates joined the Republican primary again for 
an open seat in the Reagan landslide. Now everybody wanted it because 
the seat was open. I was just a school board chairman from a small town 
of 1,500, no political power base, no money, but I beat, in that 
primary, the president of the State senate, who was well known, and an 
Under Secretary of Commerce who was well financed. They still do not 
know how I did it, but it was door to door, and I fulfilled my dream of 
coming to Washington as part of the Reagan revolution in Congress.
  I then had successful reelections in 1986 and 1988 and, of course, 
was elected to the Senate in 1990 and 1996. In the Reagan era, as in 
the Goldwater era, the pragmatists took a back seat to those who stood 
on principle. Idealists ruled; those who stood up for the right to 
life, a strong national defense, the second amendment, less spending, 
less taxes, less government. Man, it was exciting. Even though we were 
a minority in the Congress, it was exciting because Reagan was there. 
Principles in, pragmatism out. Man, it was great to be a Republican.
  In 1988, a skeptical--including me--conservative movement rallied 
behind the Vice President in hopes that he would continue the 
revolution.
  The signal that this revolution was over was when the President broke 
his ``no new tax'' pledge. We let pragmatism prevail. We compromised 
our pledge to the voters and our core principles, and we allowed the 
Democrats to take over the Government.
  In 1994, idealism again came back. The idealistic wing of the party 
took charge. Led by Newt Gingrich, we crafted an issues-based campaign 
embodied in the Contract With America. We put idealism over pragmatism, 
and we were rewarded with a tremendous electoral victory in 1994, none 
like I have ever seen. I remember sitting there seeing those results 
come in on the House. I was happy for the Senate, but I was a lot 
happier for the House. Those of us who were there know how it felt.
  As we moved into the 1996 elections, we again began to see this tug-
of-war between the principal ideals of the party and the pragmatism of 
those who said we need ``Republican'' victories. Conservatives became a 
problem: We have to keep the conservatives quiet; let's not antagonize 
the conservatives, while the pragmatists talked about how we must win 
more Republican seats. Conservatives should be grateful, we were told, 
because we were playing smart politics, we were broadening the case. 
Elect more Republicans to Congress, elect more Republicans to the 
Senate and win the White House. What do we get? Power. We are going to 
govern.
  In meeting after meeting, conference after conference, the pollsters 
and the consultants--and I have been a part of all of this. Mea culpa, 
mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. I have been involved in it. I am not 
saying I have not, but the pollsters and consultants advised us not to 
debate the controversial issues. Ignore them. We can win elections if 
we do not talk about abortion and other controversial issues, even 
though past elections have proven that when we ignore our principles, 
we lose, and when we stick to our principles, we win. In spite of all 
this, we continued to listen to the pollsters and to the consultants 
who insisted day in and day out they were right. Harry Truman, a good 
Democrat--my grandfather did not like him, but I did--said, ``Party 
platforms are contracts with the people.'' Harry Truman was right.
  Why did we change? We won the revolution on issues. We won the 
revolution

[[Page S8330]]

on principles. But the desire to stay in power caused us to start 
listening to the pollsters and the consultants again who are now 
telling us, for some inexplicable reason, that we need to walk away 
from the issues that got us here to remain in power. Maybe somebody can 
tell me why.
  Some of the pollsters who are here now who we are listening to were 
here in 1984. Indeed, they were here in 1980 when I first ran. I had 
always thought the purpose of a party was to effect policy, to advocate 
principles, to elect candidates who generally support the values we 
espouse, but it is not.
  Let me be very specific on where we are ignoring the core values of 
our party.
  ``We defend the constitutional right to keep and bear arms,'' says 
the platform of the Republican Party, but vote after vote, day after 
day, that right is eroded with Republican support. I announced my 
intention to filibuster the gun control bill. Not only does it violate 
the Republican platform, but it violates the Constitution itself, which 
I took an oath to support and defend.
  Then I hear my own party is planning to work with the other side to 
allow more gun control to be steamrolled through the Congress which 
violates our platform. Not only does it violate our platform, it 
insults millions and millions of law-abiding, peaceful gun owners in 
this country whose rights we have an obligation to protect under the 
Constitution.

  The Republican platform says:

       We will make further improvement of relations with Vietnam 
     and North Korea contingent upon their cooperation in 
     achieving a full and complete accounting of our POWs and MIAs 
     from those Asian conflicts.

  Sounds great. So I got up on the floor a short time ago and offered 
an amendment saying that ``further improvement of relations with 
Vietnam are contingent upon achieving a full and complete accounting of 
our POWs and MIAs. . .''--right out of the platform word for word. 
Thirty-three Republicans supported me. The amendment lost.
  The platform says:

       Republicans will not subordinate the United States 
     sovereignty to any international authority.

  Only one--right here, Bob Smith--voted against funding for the U.N. I 
can go through a litany--NAFTA, GATT, chemical weapons, and so forth. 
Vote after vote, with Republican support, the sovereignty of the United 
States takes a hit in violation of the platform of the Republican Party 
and the Constitution.
  The establishment of our party and, indeed, the majority of our party 
voted to send $18 billion to the IMF. Let me make something very clear. 
I am not criticizing anybody's motives. Everybody has a right to make a 
vote here, and there is no argument from me on that. But I am talking 
about the relationship between the platform and those of us who serve.
  This $18 billion came from the taxpayers of the United States of 
America, and it went to a faceless bureaucracy with no guarantee that 
it would be spent in the interest of the United States. We have no idea 
where this money will go and no control of it once it goes there.
  Meanwhile, while $18 billion goes to the IMF, I drive into work and I 
find Vietnam veterans and other veterans lying homeless on the grates 
in Washington, DC, in the Capital of our Nation. How many of them could 
we take care of with a pittance of that $18 billion?
  As Republicans who supposedly support tax relief for the American 
family, can we really say that $18 billion to IMF justifies taking the 
money out of the pocket of that farmer in Iowa who is trying to make 
his mortgage payment? Can we really say that? I do not think so.
  Another quote out of the Republican platform:

       As a first step in reforming Government, we support 
     elimination of the Departments of Commerce, Housing and Urban 
     Development, Education, and Energy, the elimination, 
     defunding or privatization of agencies which are obsolete, 
     redundant, of limited value, or too regional in focus. 
     Examples of agencies we seek to defund or privatize are the 
     National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for 
     the Humanities, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and 
     the Legal Services Corporation.

  That is right out of the Republican platform. If I were to hold a 
vote today to eliminate any of these agencies, it would fail 
overwhelmingly, and it would be Republican votes that would take it 
down. Every Republican in this body knows it.
  Can you imagine how much money we could save the taxpayers of this 
country if we eliminated those agencies and those Departments that the 
platform I just quoted calls for us to eliminate? It is not what I call 
for; it is what our party platform calls for. Why don't we do it? The 
answer is obvious why we don't do it: because we do not mean it, 
because the platform does not mean it. We do not mean it.
  In education, our platform:

       Our formula is as simple as it is sweeping: The Federal 
     Government has no constitutional authority to be involved in 
     school curricula or to control jobs in the workplace. That is 
     why we will abolish the Department of Education, end Federal 
     meddling in our schools, and promote family choice at all 
     levels of learning. We therefore call for prompt repeal of 
     the Goals 2000 and the School to Work Act of 1994 which put 
     new Federal controls, as well as unfunded mandates, on the 
     States. We further urge that Federal attempts to impose 
     outcome- or performance-based education on local schools be 
     ended.

  If I were to introduce a bill on the Senate floor to end the 
Department of Education, to abolish it, how many votes do you think I 
would get? How many Republican votes do you think I would get?
  If, as Truman said, it is a contract, then we broke it. Where I went 
to school, breaking a contract is immoral, it is unethical, and it is 
unprincipled, and we ought not to write it if we are going to break it. 
Let's not have a platform.
  Our party platform says also:

       We support the appointment of judges who respect 
     traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human 
     life.

  Listen carefully, I say to my colleagues.
  In 1987, when President Ronald Reagan nominated Robert Bork to the 
Supreme Court, six Republicans voted against him, and he was rejected. 
What was Robert Bork's offense? That he stood up for what he believed 
in, that he was pro-life? He told us. He answered the questions in the 
hearing. God forbid he should do that. But when President Clinton 
nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg, an ACLU lawyer who is stridently pro-
abortion, only three Republicans voted no--Senator Helms, Senator 
Nickles, and myself.
  Of course, all of the Republicans who voted against Bork voted for 
Ginsburg. I voted against Ginsburg because, as the Republican platform 
says, I want judges who respect the sanctity of innocent human life. I 
want my party to stand for something. Thirty-five million unborn 
children have died since that decision in 1973--35 million of our 
best--never to get a chance to be a Senator, to be a spectator in the 
gallery, to be a staff person, to be a teacher, to be a father, a 
mother--denied--35 million, one-ninth of the entire population of the 
United States of America. And we are going to do it for the next 25 
years because we will not stand up. And I am not going to stand up any 
more as a Republican and allow it to happen. I am not going to do it.
  Most interestingly, since that Roe V. Wade decision was written by a 
Republican, I might add, a Republican appointee, and upheld most 
recently in the Casey case, it is interesting there was only one 
Democrat appointee on the Court, Byron White, who voted pro-life. He 
voted with the four-Justice, pro-life minority. Five Republican 
appointments gave us that decision.
  We are to blame. This is not a party. Maybe it is a party in the 
sense of wearing hats and blowing whistles, but it is not a political 
party that means anything.
  About a week ago, my daughter, who works in my campaign office, told 
me the story of a 9-year-old girl whose dad called our office to say 
that his little daughter, 9-year-old Mary Frances--I will protect her 
privacy by giving only her first name--had said that she was born 
because of an aborted pregnancy, not an intentional one, an aborted 
pregnancy, a miscarriage at 22 weeks--22 weeks, 5\1/2\ months--and she 
lived.
  She is 9 years old. She said: I want to empty my piggy bank, Senator 
Smith, and send that to you because of your stand for life because I 
know that children who are 5\1/2\ months in the womb can live.
  That is power.

[[Page S8331]]

  Let me read from the pro-life plank of the Republican Party:

       [W]e endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth 
     Amendment's protections apply to unborn children.

  Anything complicated about that? Anything my colleagues don't 
understand about that?

       We endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth 
     Amendment's protections apply to unborn children.

  We are not going to apply any protections to unborn children. We will 
pass a few votes here, 50-49, if you can switch somebody at the last 
minute. I have been involved in those. Yes, we will do that, but we 
will not win. We are not going to commit to putting judges on the 
courts to get it done. Oh, no, we can't do that because we might lose 
some votes. So meanwhile another 35 million children are going to die.
  This year I sponsored a bill out of the platform that says the 14th 
amendment's protections apply to unborn children. Do you want to know 
how many sponsors I have? You are looking at him. One. Me. That is it. 
Not one other Republican cosponsor.
  In his letter to me--nice letter that it was--from Chairman 
Nicholson, he claims that ``every one of our Republican candidates 
shares your proven commitment to life''--he says. Gee, could have 
fooled me. Then how come every candidate isn't endorsing the bill or 
speaking out on the platform if they don't want to endorse the bill?

  The party, to put it bluntly, is hypocritical. It criticizes Bill 
Clinton, a Democrat, for vetoing partial-birth abortion and for being 
pro-abortion, but it does not criticize our own. It does not criticize 
the Republicans who are pro-choice. So why criticize Bill Clinton? Or 
why criticize any Democrat? We cannot get it done. We don't say 
anything about those people.
  How about the Governors who vetoed the bill, the partial-birth 
abortion bill? You know, there are a lot of fancy words in the 
Republican platform. Every 4 years we go to the convention and we fight 
over the wording. Sometimes even a nominee says: Well, I haven't read 
it. At least he is being honest. Or, which is probably more the truth, 
we just ignore it. It is a charade. And I am not going to take part in 
it any more. I am not going to take part in it any more.
  In the movie ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,'' after his own 
political party has launched attacks on him for daring to raise an 
independent voice, Jimmy Stewart's character is seated on the steps of 
the Lincoln Memorial, and here is what he says: ``There are a lot of 
fancy words around this town. Some of them are carved in stone. Some of 
'em, I guess, were put there so suckers like me can read 'em.''
  You ought to watch the movie. It is a good movie. It will make you 
feel good.
  Mr. President, I have come to the cold realization that the 
Republican Party is more interested in winning elections than 
supporting the principles of the platform. There is nothing wrong with 
winning elections. I am all for it. I have helped a few and I have won 
some myself, and there is nothing wrong with it. But what is wrong with 
it is when you put winning ahead of principle.
  The Republican platform is a meaningless document that has been put 
out there so suckers like me and maybe suckers like you out there can 
read it. I did not come here for that reason. I did not come here to 
compromise my values to promote the interests of a political party.
  I came here to promote the interests of my country. And after a lot 
of soul-searching, and no anger--no anger--I have decided to change my 
registration from Republican to Independent. There is no contempt; 
there is no anger. It is a decision of conscience.
  Many of my colleagues have called me, and I deeply appreciate the 
conversations that I have had privately with many of you on both sides, 
but I ask my colleagues to respect this decision. It is a decision of 
conscience. Millions and millions of Independents and conservative 
Democrats and members of other political parties have already made this 
decision of conscience. As a matter of fact, there are more 
Independents than there are Republicans or Democrats.
  I would ask you to give me the same respect that you give them when 
you ask them to vote for you in election after election. Indeed, we win 
elections because of Independents.
  I found a poem, written by a man by the name of Edgar Guest, which my 
father, who was killed at the end of the Second World War, when I was 3 
years old, had placed in his Navy scrapbook in 1941, just prior to 
going off to war in the Pacific--newly married about 2\1/2\ years. I 
can imagine what was going through his mind. But he placed it in his 
scrapbook and highlighted it.

  I am just going to quote one excerpt. The poem is entitled, ``Plea 
for Strength.''

       Grant me the fighting spirit and fashion me stout of will,
       Arouse in me that strange something that fear cannot chill.
       Let me not whimper at hardship.
       This is the gift that I ask.
       Not ease and escape from trial,
       But strength for the difficult task.

  Many have said that what I am doing is foolish. I have heard it from 
a lot of people--friends and colleagues. But you know what Mark Twain 
said--I think the Chaplain will like this:

       I am a great and sublime fool. But, then I am God's fool. 
     And all His works must be contemplated with respect.

  I called Senator Lott last week personally. It was the most difficult 
telephone call I think I had ever made.
  I told him it was my intention to continue to vote in caucus with the 
Republicans, if he wanted me, provided that there was no retaliatory or 
punitive action taken against me. He was very gracious. He didn't like 
it--I don't blame him--but he was gracious. I appreciate his 
understanding, and I appreciate the compassion and understanding of 
many of my colleagues on both sides who have spoken with me these past 
few days.
  I made another phone call, Mr. President. I called the chairman of 
the Republican Party, Mr. Jim Nicholson, last week to inform him of my 
decision and asked him if he could please maintain confidentiality 
until I had a chance to make my decision public. Before I had a chance 
to do that--indeed, about 20 hours after I had made the call--my home 
was staked out in New Hampshire. Where I was going to visit friends, 
their homes were staked out, sometimes until late into the evening, by 
the media, because the chairman put out a letter attacking me 
personally.
  I am not going to dignify the letter by reading it here on the Senate 
floor. I do ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed into the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                Republican National Committee,

                                     Washington, DC, July 9, 1999.
     Hon. Robert C. Smith,
     Dirksen Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Smith, I am writing concerning published 
     reports that you have decided to abandon the Republican party 
     and seek the Presidential nomination of a third party 
     instead.
       I believe this would be a serious mistake for you 
     personally, with only a marginal political impact--and a 
     counterproductive one, at that.
       This would not be a case of the party leaving you, Bob, but 
     rather of you leaving our party. Far from turning away from 
     the conservative themes we both share, the party has 
     championed them--and become America's majority party by doing 
     so.
       I truly believe, Bob, that your 1% standing in New 
     Hampshire doesn't reflect Republican primary voters' 
     rejection of your message, but rather its redundancy. Every 
     one of our Republican candidates shares your proven 
     commitment to life and to the goals of smaller government, 
     lower taxes and less regulation of our lives and 
     livelihoods--as does the party itself. In other words, I hope 
     you do not confuse the success of our shared message with 
     your own failure as its messenger.
       I also urge that you reconsider turning your back on your 
     many Republican friends and supporters, people who've always 
     stood by you, even in the most difficult and challenging 
     times. Most of all, I hope you will think of your legacy: it 
     would be tragic for your decades of work in the conservative 
     movement to be undone by a short-sighted decision whose only 
     negligible impact would be to provide marginal help to Al 
     Gore, the most extreme liberal in a generation.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Jim Nicholson,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I will only characterize the letter in 
the following way: It is petty, it is vindictive, and it is insulting. 
It is beneath the dignity of the chairman of any political party. It is 
an affront to the millions of voters who choose not to carry

[[Page S8332]]

a Republican membership card but have given the party its margin of 
victory in election after election.
  Remember that little girl I talked to you about a little while ago, 
Mary Frances? I do not know what she is going to grow up to be. She 
might be a Democrat. She might be a Republican. Maybe she will be an 
Independent. Maybe she won't vote. I don't know. But I'll tell you 
what, in the old baseball tradition, I wouldn't trade her for 1,000 Jim 
Nicholsons, not in a minute.
  There was talk on the shows this weekend that I might be removed as 
chairman of the Ethics Committee. I must say, I was disappointed at the 
intensity of the attacks on me by unidentified sources, I might add, in 
the Republican Party. Interestingly, one of those reports was that the 
party is considering suing me for the money it spent during my 
reelection.
  I want to make it very clear, because press reports were inaccurate 
on one point. Senator McConnell called me personally yesterday to 
clarify that this particular report of a lawsuit is not true, and I 
accept his answer as absolute fact with no question. But some faceless 
party bureaucrat had a really good time writing that and then leaking 
it to the press. That is what is wrong with politics. He ought to be 
fired, but you will never find out who it is.
  Another interesting report was that a different party operative 
presumed to suggest that ``Smith should be booted out of the conference 
altogether if he is not a Republican; he shouldn't be in the Republican 
caucus.'' I wonder how much he is being paid to sit up there using up 
the party faithful's contributions to write that kind of garbage.
  The chairman of the New Hampshire Republican Party, where for 15 
years I have been a member, went on ``Crossfire'' the other night to 
debate Bob Smith, but Bob Smith wasn't there to answer for himself. He 
took the anti-Bob position. He attacked me viciously, saying it was a 
selfish move and that it meant the end of my political career.
  There is something a little strange in that. If it is selfish and I 
am throwing away my political career, maybe somebody can explain what 
he means. Not a mention of 15 years of service to the State and to the 
party. Even Bill Press said: Can't you find something nice to say about 
Bob?
  That is what is wrong with politics. It is the ugly. It is the bad. 
It is the worst. It is the worst.
  In 1866 Abraham Lincoln said this--it is a very famous quote:

       If I were to try to read, much less answer, all the attacks 
     made on me, this shop might as well be closed for any other 
     business. I do the very best I know how, the very best I can, 
     and I am going to keep right on doing so until the end. If 
     the end brings me out all right, what is said against me 
     won't amount to anything. If the end brings me out wrong, 10 
     angels swearing I was right will make no difference.

  Lincoln really knew how to say it. In a way, perhaps Chairman Duprey 
is right about my being selfish. I am putting my selfish desire to save 
my country ahead of the interests of the Republican Party, and some 
nameless, faceless bureaucrat in the party machinery decides to take 
off on me. I wish he would surface. I would like to meet him.

  If that is selfish, then Duprey is right. If putting your country 
ahead of your party, if standing up for the principles you believe in 
is wrong, maybe it is time to get out of politics.
  Over the past 15 years I have traveled all over America helping 
Republican candidates. I don't very often ask for help. I don't 
remember ever asking for help from the Republican Party to do it. I 
spent hours and hours on the phone raising money. And the party has 
helped me; I will be the first to admit it. Some have made a big deal 
out of that. They should help me. I think that is what the party is 
there for. I went to California, Louisiana, Iowa, Missouri, and North 
Carolina during the last year on behalf of Republican candidates. It 
had nothing to do with my Presidential campaign; it was entirely on 
behalf of other candidates. When the chairman of the senatorial 
committee asked Members to pony up money, he gave me a bill. He said: 
You have X in your account, and you owe me $25,000. I wrote him a check 
the next day. Everybody didn't do it though, did they, Mr. Chairman?
  I have a bureaucrat out there somewhere in the party saying throw me 
out of the caucus. Frankly, I gave without hesitation because I 
believed things were changing. I don't take a back seat in my 
willingness as a Republican to help candidates in need. But oh, no, I 
have committed the unforgivable sin here in Washington; I have exposed 
the fraud. It is a fraud, and everybody in here knows it.
  It is true in both parties that the party platform is not worth the 
paper it is written on. That is why I am an Independent. That is why I 
am going to stay an Independent, whatever happens in the future. I am 
still the same formula. I am still Classic Coke. I am not a new Coke. I 
am the same ingredients. I have merely redesigned the label. It is the 
same Bob Smith. My colleagues over there looking for help, you are not 
going to get it. You know where my votes come from, so don't get 
excited.
  In my travels, I have attended hundreds of Republican Party events, 
but the most consistent message I hear from the voters is one of 
frustration, deep frustration that the party is not standing on 
principle. Last year CQ published a list of leading scorers on party 
unity. This is a list they do every year, ranking the most loyal 
Republican votes.
  It is interesting because I don't look at them as loyalty votes. I 
just make the votes. Well, guess what. Let's see--Larry Craig was here. 
He is not here right now. Larry Craig and I were No. 1--very 
interesting, when you look down the list. So I am No. 1 in party 
loyalty. How many major committee chairmen in the conference are on the 
list? Take a look at the list. I am not going to embarrass colleagues.
  I am the most reliable Republican vote in the Senate, but I am 
attacked--not by colleagues, not by colleagues. It is obvious from 
these kinds of attacks that it is not about me. What it shows is a 
complete and final divorce between the party machinery and the 
principles for which it professes to stand. I say, with all due respect 
to my colleagues in the Senate, whether you are running a campaign for 
President or whether you are in the House or something else, we have to 
stop it. We have to get a handle on it. I think it is true in the other 
party as well.
  We have to get a handle on it. They don't represent us well. It is an 
injustice to the candidates who run for and the people who serve in the 
Republican Party, and it has to stop. It is a cancer, and it is eating 
away at the two great political parties that rose to power; in this 
case, the Republican Party that rose to power on the moral opposition 
to slavery; and it killed the Whig Party, because it wouldn't stand up 
against slavery. It will kill the Republican Party if it doesn't stand 
up for what it believes in, especially against abortion.
  I told you I watched the movie ``Mr. Smith Goes To Washington'' again 
over the weekend. I remember talking to Mike Mansfield, who was here a 
few weeks ago for one of the seminars that the leader puts on. He said 
that after he left the Senate was the first time he really went around 
and looked at the monuments; he read the writings; he took the time to 
smell the roses. He said: These just aren't hollow words or statues 
anymore; they have meaning to me.
  This morning--I am not trying to be melodramatic--but I did it. I 
left early, about 5:45. I took Jimmy Stewart's example from the movie 
``Mr. Smith Goes To Washington.''
  I went to the Lincoln Memorial, the Jefferson Memorial, the Vietnam 
Wall, and the Arlington Cemetery where my parents are buried. I tried 
to smell the roses. Do you know what? These aren't memorials to people 
who fought for political parties. Lincoln helped to destroy his own 
political party. On that visit to Arlington this morning, I stopped at 
my parents' grave site. My father didn't fight for a political party. 
He didn't die for a political party. He fought for his country, as 
millions of others have done, and the ideals for which it was founded. 
I looked out at those stones all across Arlington Cemetery, and I 
didn't see any R's or D's next to their names. Then I went to the 
Vietnam Wall, and I didn't see any R's or D's next to anybody's name 
there. How about that?
  Like Jimmy Stewart's character in the movie, I stand right here at 
the desk of Daniel Webster, one of the greatest lawyers of all time, 
one of the greatest Senators of all time, whose

[[Page S8333]]

picture is on statues everywhere. Most people probably could not even 
tell you what party he belonged to, unless you are a history buff. Who 
cares what party he belonged to? You will remember that he stood up 
against slavery, and his quote, ``Nothing is so powerful but the 
truth.'' And the opposite was John C. Calhoun, Henry Clay, the great 
orators of their time. You remember them for what they were and what 
they said, not for their party. Webster was an abolitionist and Calhoun 
the defender of slavery.
  Calhoun said:

       The very essence of a free government consists in 
     considering offices as public trusts, bestowed for the good 
     of the country, and not for the benefit of an individual or a 
     party.

  We have lost sight of it. Man, there is so much history in this 
place. My wife conducts tours for people from New Hampshire and at 
times people she finds on the streets. If we would just take a few 
moments away from the bickering and the arguing and look around and 
enjoy it, do you know what. It would inspire us. It inspired me today. 
Maybe I should be doing it every day. Every year, a Senator is chosen 
to read Washington's Farewell Address. I have been here 9 years and was 
never asked. I never understood how that person gets picked, but they 
do. How many of us have actually taken the time to sit and listen to 
that Farewell Address? Well, Washington, in that Farewell Address, 
warns us that:

       The common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party 
     are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise 
     people to discourage and restrain it.

  He spends a large part of his speech expounding on this point, and I 
encourage my colleagues to read it.
  I ask unanimous consent that the relevant sections of Washington's 
Farewell Address be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my 
remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. In the spirit of what Washington is 
saying, I think we need to rid ourselves of the nastiness and the 
partisanship that has destroyed the comity of this great body and has 
become a barrier to a full and spirited discussion of the issues in 
America generally. You may say: That is pretty good coming from Smith; 
he is as partisan as they come. There is a time and place for 
partisanship. Harry Reid knows when I put the partisanship at the door. 
He knows, as cochair of the Ethics Committee with me.
  Americans deserve an honest debate, an honest exchange of ideas. They 
want us to put these partisan interests aside. It is not partisan if 
somebody is against abortion or is for abortion; it is issue generated.
  Americans want people who will lead, not follow polls. The American 
people are losing the faith in their ability to effect change, and 
rightfully so.
  Since I came to Washington, I have seen Senators and Congressmen come 
and go. Do you know what. I will tell you what doesn't go. I refer to 
the entrenched political industry that is here to stay. Oh, it changes 
a little bit at the top when somebody else becomes the chairman. But 
the entrenchment is still there. The pollsters, the spin doctors, and 
the campaign consultants are all there. They all have their hands in 
your pockets, and they are doing pretty well.
  They run the show, for the most part. They don't directly choose 
candidates in the sense of a smoke-filled backroom, but they do 
influence it because they are the ones who tried to talk me out of 
running in 1980--the same ones.
  Some of the pollsters in the party have been around since I first 
came to town. Every time there is a Republican retreat--and I assume it 
is the same for the other party--and often at Republican conferences 
here in the Senate, we hear from the professional consultants and 
pollsters. They tell us what the message should be. They tell us how to 
make ourselves look good and how to make the other guys look bad.
  We need to get out the fumigation equipment. We need to clean out the 
pollsters, the consultants, the spin doctors, and the bloated staffs 
who tell us what to say, how to say it, when to say it, and how long to 
say it. The American people elected us. Isn't it time we start thinking 
for ourselves and leading?

  This well-paid political industry, let me tell you, colleagues, is 
not interested in whether or not you believe in the issues of your 
party. Don't kid yourselves. This is about power, access, and jobs. I 
can have tea and crumpets with the President of the United States if I 
help him win it. As long as you look like a winner, it doesn't matter 
what you believe. Don't kid yourselves. They seek out the candidates 
who have the package they want--name ID, money, slickness. But, most 
importantly, they want candidates who won't make waves, or say anything 
controversial about an issue that might cost us a seat. They package 
you, wrap you up, put a little bow on it, tell you what to say, and 
then they sell you to the American voters.
  The political professionals tell us all the time, ``Don't be 
controversial; it can cause you to lose your election.''
  Why are we afraid of controversy? Was Lincoln afraid of it? Was FDR? 
Was Calhoun? Was Washington? With controversy comes change--positive 
change sometimes. Imagine Patrick Henry, striding up to the podium in 
1773 before the Virginia Assembly, prepared to give his great speech: 
``Give me liberty or give me . . .'' and then he turns to his pollster 
and says: I wonder whether they want liberty or death. I better take a 
poll and find out.
  Let's not declare our independence; that is pretty controversial. 
They could have said that in 1776. Let's not abolish slavery; that is 
controversial.
  In the 1850s, the great Whig Party said:
       Let's not talk about slavery, it's too controversial. Let's 
     put the issue aside and focus on electing more Whigs.
  But a loyal Whig Congressman named Abraham Lincoln thought otherwise.
  The pollsters come into the hallowed Halls in meetings of Senators to 
tell us how we can talk to people, to all the men who are 35 and over, 
what to say to them; and women 25 and under, what to say to them; to 
Social Security people; to black people; and what we should say to 
Hispanics; or white people; what do we say to pro-choice or to pro-
life. Pollsters, pollsters, pollsters.
  We are looking at polls to decide whether or not to go to Kosovo. We 
take a poll to decide whether or not we should send our kids to die in 
a foreign country. Did Roosevelt do a poll on whether or not to 
retaliate against the Japanese? Partisanship is poisoning this town. 
The pollsters are poisoning this town. Help members of your own party 
and destroy the other guy.
  My proudest moment in the Senate in the 9 years I have been here--
other than some of the meetings Harry Reid and I have had together 
where we have to discuss the futures of some of you quietly--was when 
we went into the Old Senate Chamber and talked during the impeachment 
trial. You know it, all of you; it was the best moment we have had 
since we have been here. We took the hats off and we sat down and 
talked about things, and we did it the right way.
  I wanted to have every caucus that we had on the impeachment trial 
bipartisan; I didn't want any separation. But we didn't get that. Boy, 
what a delight it would have been had we done that. I am not saying it 
would have made the difference; maybe it would not have. But that is 
not the purpose of bringing it up. It is my belief that if we had come 
together and looked at the evidence--you never know.
  I am proudest of my service on the Senate Ethics Committee where six 
Senators, including my good friend, Senator Reid, and I, discuss issues 
without one iota of partisanship.
  When we investigated Bob Packwood, a fellow Republican came up to me 
after that vote in which we voted to expel a colleague, and he was 
angry. He was a powerful Republican, and this was not an easy 
conversation. He scolded me, saying, ``I can't believe that you would 
vote to expel a fellow Republican. It's outrageous. How can you do 
that?'' I said, ``You will have the opportunity to sustain or overrule 
that vote on the floor of the Senate very shortly.''
  He came back later and said: Thank you for saving me a difficult 
vote.
  We on the committee ignored the partisan mud balls. We did what was 
right.
  I am not ashamed of being a member of a political party. The question 
is, Does party take precedence over principle? I want the 21st century 
to be remembered for debating important and

[[Page S8334]]

controversial issues in public: Abortion, taxes, size of government, 
restoring our sovereignty, gun control, moral decadence, freedom. Don't 
avoid these issues simply to help our own political fortunes or to 
destroy our opponents.
  Lt. William Hobby, Jr., wrote a poem called ``The Navigator'' during 
the Second World War. I think it captures the vision and spirit of what 
I believe America should be.

     The Morning Watch is mustered, and the middle watch withdrawn
     Now Ghostlike glides the vessel in the hush before the dawn.
     Friendly gleams polaris on the gently rolling sea,
     He set the course for sailors and tonight he shines for me.

  We have the opportunity to take America into the 21st century of 
freedom, morality, support for the Constitution, respect for life, 
respect for the sacrifices made for us by our founders and the millions 
of veterans who have given so much of their precious blood. Politics 
should be about each one of us joining together to rediscover our moral 
compass, to reignite the torch of freedom, to return to our 
navigational chart: The Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, 
and the Bible.
  In conclusion, in the movie ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,'' Jimmy 
Stewart portrayed a U.S. Senator who believed that America was good, 
that politics was good, and that the American people deserve good, 
honest leaders. I agree.
  Chaplain Ogilvie said to me a few weeks ago:

       Our time in History is God's gift to us. What we do with it 
     is our gift to him. Let's not squander it with petty partisan 
     politics.

                               Exhibit 1

              Excerpts from Washington's Farewell Address


                   To the people of the United States

  Friends and Fellow Citizens: The period for a new election of a 
Citizen, to administer the Executive Government of the United States, 
being not far distant, and the time actually arrived, when your 
thoughts must be employed in designating the person, who is to be 
clothed with that important trust, it appears to me proper, especially 
as it may conduce to a more distinct expression of the public voice, 
that I should now apprise you of the resolution I have formed, to 
decline being considered among the number of those, out of whom a 
choice is to be made.
  I beg you, at the same time to do me the justice to be assured, that 
this resolution has not been taken, without a strict regard to all the 
considerations appertaining to the relation, which binds a dutiful 
citizen to his country--and that, in withdrawing the tender of service 
which silence in my situation might imply, I am influenced by no 
diminution of zeal for your future interest, no deficiency of grateful 
respect for your past kindness; but am supported by a full conviction 
that the step is compatible with both.
  The acceptance of, and continuance hitherto in, the office to which 
your suffrages have twice called me, have been a uniform sacrifice of 
inclination to the opinion of duty, and to a deference for what 
appeared to be your desire.--I constantly hoped, that it would have 
been much earlier in my power, consistently with motives, which I was 
not at liberty to disregard, to return to that retirement, from which I 
had been reluctantly drawn.--The strength of my inclination to do this, 
previous to the last election, had even led to the preparation of an 
address to declare it to you; but mature reflection on the then 
perplexed and critical posture of our affairs with foreign Nations, and 
the unanimous advice of persons entitled to my confidence, impelled me 
to abandon the idea.--

                           *   *   *   *   *

  I have already intimated to you the danger of Parties in the State, 
with particular reference to the founding of them on Geographical 
discriminations.--Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn 
you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the Spirit 
of Party, generally.
  This Spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having 
its root in the strongest passions of the human mind.--It exists under 
different shapes in all Governments, more or less stifled, controuled, 
or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its 
greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.--
  The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by 
the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different 
ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is 
itself a frightful despotism.--But this leads at length to a more 
formal and permanent despotism.--The disorders and miseries, which 
result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose 
in the absolute power of an Individual: and sooner or later the chief 
of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his 
competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own 
elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.
  Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which 
nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and 
continual mischiefs of the spirit of Party are sufficient to make it 
the interest and duty of a wise People to discourage and restrain it.--
  It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the 
Public administration.--It agitates the community with ill-founded 
jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against 
another, foments occasionally by riot and insurrection.--It opens the 
doors to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated 
access to the Government itself through the channels of party passions. 
Thus the policy and the will of one country, are subjected to the 
policy and will of another.
  There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks 
upon the Administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the 
Spirit of Liberty.--This within certain limits is probably true--and in 
Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, 
if not with favour, upon the spirit of party.--But in those of the 
popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not 
to be encouraged.--From their natural tendency, it is certain there 
will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose,--and 
there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force 
of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it.--A fire not to be 
quenched; it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a 
flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.--
  It is important likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free 
country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its 
administration, to confine themselves within their respective 
constitutional spheres; avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one 
department to encroach upon another.--The spirit of encroachment tends 
to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to 
create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism.--A just 
estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which 
predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the 
truth of this position.--The necessity of reciprocal checks in the 
exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into 
different depositories, and constituting each the Guardian of the 
Public Weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by 
experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under 
our own eyes.--To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute 
them. If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification 
of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be 
corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution 
designates.--But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, 
in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary 
weapon by which free governments are destroyed.--The precedent must 
always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient 
benefit which the use can at any time yield.--
  Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political 
prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports.--In vain 
would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to 
subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of 
the duties of Men and Citizens.--The mere Politician, equally with the 
pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them.--A volume could not 
trace all their connexions with private and public felicity.--Let it 
simply

[[Page S8335]]

be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, 
if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the 
instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with 
caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained 
without religion.--Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined 
education on minds of peculiar structure--reason and experience both 
forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of 
religious principle.--
  'T is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary 
spring of popular government.--The rule indeed extends with more or 
less force to every species of Free Government.--Who that is a sincere 
friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the 
foundation of the fabric?--
  Promote, then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for 
the general diffusion of knowledge.--In proportion as the structure of 
a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that the 
public opinion should be enlightened.--

                           *   *   *   *   *

  Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations. Cultivate peace 
and harmony with all. Religion and Morality enjoin this conduct; and 
can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it?--It will be 
worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great 
nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a 
People always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence.--Who can 
doubt that in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan 
would richly repay any temporary advantages, which might be lost by a 
steady adherence to it? Can it be, that Providence has not connected 
the permanent felicity of a Nation with its virtue? The experiment, at 
least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature.--
Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?
  In the execution of such a plan nothing is more essential than that 
permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and 
passionate attachment, for others should be excluded; and that in place 
of them just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated.--
The Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred or an 
habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its 
animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it 
astray from its duty and its interest.--Antipathy in one nation against 
another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay 
hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, 
when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur.--Hence frequent 
collisions, obstinate, envenomed and bloody contests.--The Nation 
prompted by ill-will and resentment sometimes impels to War the 
Government, contrary to the best calculations of policy.--The 
Government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and 
adopts through passion what reason would reject;--at other times, it 
makes the animosity of the Nation subservient to projects of hostility 
instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious 
motives.--The peace often, sometimes perhaps the Liberty, of Nations 
has been the victim.--
  So likewise a passionate attachment of one Nation for another 
produces a variety of evils.--Sympathy for the favourite nation, 
facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases 
where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the 
enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the 
quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or 
justification: It leads also to concessions to the favourite Nation of 
privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the Nation 
making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to 
have been retained, and by exciting jealously, ill-will, and a 
disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are 
withheld; and it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens, 
(who devote themselves to the favourite Nation) facility to betray, or 
sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes 
even with popularity:--gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense 
of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a 
laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of 
ambition, corruption, or infatuation.
  As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments 
are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent 
Patriot.--How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic 
factions, to practise the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, 
to influence or awe the public councils! Such an attachment of a small 
or weak, towards a great and powerful nation, dooms the former to be 
the satellite of the latter.

                           *   *   *   *   *

  Relying on its kindness in this as in other things, and actuated by 
that fervent love towards it, which is so natural to a man, who views 
in it the native soil of himself and his progenitors for several 
generations;--I anticipate with pleasing expectation that retreat, in 
which I promise myself to realize, without alloy, the sweet enjoyment 
of partaking, in the midst of my fellow-citizens, the benign influence 
of good Laws under a free Government,--the ever favourite object of my 
heart, and the happy reward, as I trust, of our mutual cares, labours 
and dangers.
                                                  GEO. WASHINGTON.
  United States,
      17th September, 1796.

  Mr. LOTT. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________