Bob Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I rise today to pay tribute to James E. O'Neil of Chesterfield, NH, on being named as the Keene Chamber of Commerce 2001 Citizen of the Year. Jim has served the community of Keene for many years contributing to the overall quality of life in the region. He is involved in leadership positions with organizations including the Monadnock United Way and Center Stage of Cheshire County and is a board member for Cheshire Medical Center and Monadnock Family Services. Jim is also an executive trustee of Kingsbury's charitable foundation to benefit the Chesterfield School. Jim and his wife, Joan, have been married for 29 years and have two children: a daughter, Rachel, who resides in Cambridge, MA, and a son, Jay, a resident of Durham, NH. I commend Jim for a lifetime of community service to the greater Keene area. He is an exemplary role model for the citizens of his community and our entire State. It is an honor and a privilege to represent him in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I rise today to pay tribute to COVER, a non-profit program based in Lebanon, NH. The COVER organization works in partnership with low income, elderly and disabled citizens assisting them with urgent home repairs. The volunteers organized by COVER have successfully prevented the imminent displacement of more than 100 Upper Valley residents due to substandard or inaccessible housing. The members of COVER work together to ensure that home repair projects are supplied with recycled materials to conserve natural resources. The volunteer labor pool allows cover to build positive relationships throughout the community bringing neighbors together to accomplish the refurbishing needs of area homes. More than 700 hard working volunteers at COVER have completed more than 100 home repair projects in the Upper Valley region since 1998. I applaud the tireless efforts of the organizers and volunteers of COVER. Their valuable contributions have aided and enriched the lives of the elderly and disabled citizens in the community. The citizens of Lebanon and our entire state owe a debt of gratitude to the COVER organization. New Hampshire is a better place in which to live because of their kind acts of charity. It is truly an honor and a privilege to represent them in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I rise today to pay tribute to Alec Leveris of Kensington, NH, for his heroic service to the United States of American during World War II. On September 17, 2001, I will present Alec with the medals he so bravely earned while serving his nation in battle. Alex joined the U.S. Navy in Boston and was trained in Newport, RI. He served as an ordinary seaman on tours of duty on the U.S.S. Yorktown including the Battle of Midway and trained pilots to take off and land on the aircraft carrier, U.S.S. Alabama. Alex earned medals for his dedicated military service including: the Honorable Service Lapel Button, a Combat Action Ribbon, the European- African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medals, a World War II Victory Medal, an American Campaign Medal, the Navy Good Conduct Medal and an Asiatic- Pacific Campaign Medal. As a son of a Naval aviator who died in a World War II related incident, I commend Alex for his selfless dedication to his state and country. He is an American hero who fought to preserve liberty and justice for all citizens of the United States. It is truly an honor and a privilege to represent him in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I rise today to pay tribute to Leslie E. Roberts of Belmont, NH, who passed away on July 27, 2001. Lesile was born in Wolfeboro, NH, and served with honor in the U.S. Army during world War II with Company C, 64th Armored Infantry Battalion, 16th Armored Division in Germany. He also served with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers where he oversaw construction of major public works restoration projects during the Occupation Period. After returning to New Hampshire, Leslie joined the 368th Combat Engineer Battalion of the Army Reserve and served for more than 20 years with the reserves as a Battalion Equipment Officer. Leslie was a small business owner in Belmont, NH, in the dairy and heavy equipment hauling industries. He also served as treasurer of Roberts Cove Corporation of Alton, NH. He was an active supporter of his community and served in positions including: member and leader in the 4H club, charter member of the Belmont Historical Society and member of the New Hampshire Farm Bureau. Leslie was also a charter member of the Belmont Rotary Club and had been a Paul Harris Fellow. In 1988 he received the Citizen of the Year Award from the town of Belmont. Leslie is survived by his wife, Suzanne; his sons: Clive Roberts, Mark Roberts and Roy Roberts, and his two daughters: Lynn Wilson and Diane C. MacKey. He is also survived by 14 grandchildren, three great- grandchildren, two brothers: Preston T. Roberts and Irving R. Roberts and two sisters: Mary Goodrich and Ruth Scheneck. Leslie served his country and state with pride and dignity. As a Vietnam veteran, I commend him for his service in the U.S. Army and for his exemplary personal and business contributions to his state and community. He will be sadly missed by all those whose lives he touched. It is truly an honor and a privilege to have represented him in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I rise today to pay tribute to Bob and Estella Hughes of Bedford, NH, on the occasion of their 50th wedding anniversary. Bob and Estella are natives of Manchester, NH. Bob graduated from St. Anselm College and worked in the automobile industry for more than 40 years as a manager of financial operations prior to retiring. Estella graduated from Mount Saint Mary's College and received a master's degree in Special Education from Salem State College in Salem, MA. She worked as a school teacher until 1985, when she started Manor Home Builders, Inc. To date, Manor Home Builders, Inc. has constructed more than two hundred homes in the greater Manchester area. Since his retirement, Bob has joined Estella and their son, David, at Manor Home Builders, Inc. Bob and Estella have been strong supporters of the local community in many charitable activities. They have also been actively involved in the New Hampshire and national political arena. Bob and Estella have a large and close-knit family including: 3 daughters, Cindy, Pam and Lisa, 3 sons: David, Kevin and John, and 14 grandchildren. Mary Jo and I send our warmest congratulations to Bob and Estella on this important wedding anniversary and wish them many more happy years together. It is truly an honor and a privilege to represent them in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Yes. This is the intent of the amendment which passed this body by voice vote after a motion to table failed.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, this is a very sad time for America. The unthinkable has happened. What we always feared could happen, but prayed never would happen, has happened. I rise today to pay tribute to the men and women who lost their lives in this cowardly attack against the United States of America. I, as so many others, am overcome by the magnitude of this horrific act, a cowardly act against innocent people. It is hard to understand what would motivate people to do such a thing. But now I think we understand our hearts must go out to the victims, to their families, and all who have suffered at the hands of this evil that struck this greatest nation on Earth. May God be with those who have passed and those who are suffering. Words, I know, are of little solace in a terrible tragedy such as this in dealing with the shock and pain. I know words may ring hollow compared to the pain and disbelief that the families must be feeling. I want those families to know we are as one nation under God. We are united in our resolve, no matter who we are, to see justice done on behalf of the lives lost so senselessly. We must unite and comfort our fellow Americans in these difficult days. Their grief is immeasurable and they need our support. They will have it. My State lost many citizens in this tragedy, including Thomas McGuinness of Portsmouth who was the copilot of American Airlines Flight 11. I knew Tom personally. He was a fine man. His family and the families of all those who have lost loved ones are devastated by this tragedy. They need our prayers. I commend the efforts also of the brave men and women who are working around the clock, risking their own lives to rescue those still trapped in both the Pentagon and at the World Trade Center. We stand behind them and pray for their success. As each hour goes by, we hope to see another survivor and another family member united. I also commend President Bush and Senators Daschle and Lott and the leadership in the House for returning to this city and getting back to business, letting these people know we will not tolerate this interruption in our system, and demonstrating we will not be cowed by the actions of these despicable people. The American people understand an act of war was committed against the United States of America. Make no mistake about it, it was an act of war. You can say it is the Pearl Harbor of the new millennium, but it is far worse than Pearl Harbor. I might add, we responded to Pearl Harbor and we will respond to this. Make no mistake, the United States of America will respond to this heinous act with overwhelming force. We will find those responsible and those who supported these evil acts. They will be eradicated. This is not a question of bringing criminals to justice. This is an act of war, and it will be responded to as an act of war. After we win--and win we will--we do have some serious questions we will have to answer. What went wrong? Why didn't we have the intelligence assets we needed? How can we protect ourselves in the future without giving up the civil liberties we cherish so much? Where are our priorities? These are all important questions which need serious attention and honest answers. We must never forget the magnitude of this loss and its effect on our way of life. September 11, 2001, will always be with us. Like December 7, 1941, we will always remember where we were. In the past, we have not decisively acted against some of these terrorist attacks and threats. This will not stand any longer. Some talk about multilateral efforts to combat terrorism; that is fine. I am here today to say to the American people we will act unilaterally, if necessary, to protect our people. We need to send a clear message to terrorists and those countries that harbor them that there is no distinction, as the President has said, between the terrorists and the country that harbors them; we will decisively act against this cowardly aggression, and they will pay the full price for what they did. As our President said, America will hunt down and punish those responsible. President Bush will have my support and the support of every American to do just that. We must be on the offensive against terrorists and those states and individuals who support them. The policies of the past must change. We are at war, and this is a war that we will win. God bless America.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I thank Senator Gregg and Senator Hollings for their help. As Senator Gregg knows, American Tissue has closed its mills in Berlin and Gorham with only a few employees keeping the hydro plants in Gorham running. These employees are not being paid. The mills have supported these communities for 150 years and are the largest employers in the north country. In addition to people being out of work, American Tissue owes the towns millions of dollars in back taxes and water bills. The EDA has visited the area and has seen first hand how desperate the situation is and I would like to encourage them to do whatever they can to provide these communities with additional help.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, on behalf of Senators Harkin, Warner, Inhofe, Cochran, and myself, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, there are many things that happen in war of which, when we look back, many of us on both sides of the aisle are not always proud. But I want to point out that sometimes things happen that must be corrected just because it is the right thing to do. This amendment I am offering is likely to be mischaracterized. There will be a lot of things said about what my amendment does not do. I want to make sure everybody understands what my amendment does. This concerns something that happened during World War II. I want to refer to it before I go to the actual context of the amendment. There is an article written by Peter Maas I want printed in the Record which is entitled ``They Should Have Their Day In Court.'' I ask unanimous consent a copy of that article be printed in the Record. It is a Parade magazine article.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I think most of us are familiar with or have heard discussions about the Bataan Death March. That was a terrible experience for a lot of American GIs. But I think what happened after the Bataan Death March, to some of those same people, and others, is particularly outrageous. I want to refer to a couple of paragraphs from this article because it certainly sums up why they should have their day in court and what exactly we are talking about with regard to these American GIs and POWs. Let me read a couple of paragraphs. On April 9, 1942, a gentleman by the name of Lester Tenney, one of 12,000 POWs, American soldiers, surrendered to the Japanese at the tip of Bataan Peninsula. They were taken to a prison camp by the Japanese Army on what became infamous as the 9-day, 55-mile-long Bataan Death March during which 1,000 of them perished. I will not go into all of the details, but a few details will show why a day in court is justified and is important. The atrocities they suffered--some have been revealed; some have not--and what happened afterward, where they were forced into slave labor camps for some of Japan's biggest corporations, remains largely unknown. Frankly, until I got involved in this a few months ago, I didn't know some of this had happened. Many of these corporations have become global giants today, including some names that would certainly get one's attention: Mitsubishi, Matsui, Kawasaki, and Nippon, to name just a few. Through interviews with former POWs, we have come to learn a lot. But to my amazement, the United States Government stepped in on behalf of the Japanese and not only had lawsuits thrown out to get reparations for what happened--they moved to Federal jurisdiction--but also succeeded in getting them dismissed. I found that particularly outrageous. This is all pointed out by Mr. Maas in his article. I want to quote one paragraph as to what happened during that march and then go into a little bit about what happened after the Bataan Death March: What befell Lester Tenney as a POW was by no means unique. He got an inkling of what was to come on that April day in 1942 when he surrendered and one of his captors smashed his nose with the butt end of a rifle. Forced to stumble along a road of crushed rock and loose sand, the men--wracked with malaria, jaundice and dysentery--were given no water. Occasionally, they would pass a well. Anyone who paused to scoop up a handful of water was more likely than not bayoneted or shot to death. The same fate awaited most POWs who could no longer walk. ``If you stopped,'' Tenney recalls, ``they killed you.'' As Tenney staggered forward, he saw a Japanese officer astride a horse, wielding a samurai sword and chortling as he tried, often successfully, to decapitate POWs. During a rare respite, one prisoner was so disoriented that he could not get up. A rifle butt knocked him senseless. Two of his fellow POWs were ordered to dig a shallow trench, put him in it and bury him while he was still alive. They refused. One of them immediately had his head blown off with a pistol shot. Two more POWs were then ordered to dig two trenches--one for the dead POW, the other for the original prisoner, who had begun to moan. Tenney heard him continue to moan as he was being covered with dirt. Tenney was one of 500 POWs packed into a 50-by-50-foot hold of a Japan-bound freighter. The overhead hatches were kept closed except when buckets of rice and water were lowered twice daily. Each morning, four POWs were allowed topside to hoist up buckets of bodily wastes and the corpses of anyone who had died during the night. . . . This is what happened to them after the Bataan Death March. When they survived that, they were put on these freighters and taken into these coal mines and basically made slaves. Vicious beatings by Mitsui overseers at the mine were constant. Tenney's worst moment came when two overseers decided he wasn't working fast enough and went at him with a pickax and a shovel. His nose was broken again. So was his left shoulder. The business end of the ax pierced his side, just missing his hip bone but causing enough internal damage to leave him with a permanent limp. Most of us are familiar enough with stories that came out of the Bataan Death March to know what happened there. But to think of surviving that 55-mile trek over a 9-day period, basically being bayonetted if you helped a friend who fell down or beaten or whatever, to survive all of that and then be placed into camps, slave labor camps on behalf of these corporations by these corporations. I want to read the amendment I am offering because it is important to understand what the content is. All it says is: None of the funds made available in this act may be used by the Department of Justice or the Department of State to file a motion in any court opposing a civil action against any Japanese person or corporation for compensation or reparations in which the plaintiff alleges that, as an American prisoner of war during World War II, he or she was used as a slave or forced labor. All this says is that no funds will be used to block the right of these folks to go to court. It doesn't provide any money to anybody. It doesn't assume that anybody is going to win this case. It doesn't do any of that. We are probably going to hear that. That is not the case. All it says is that the State Department stays out of it, the Justice Department stays out of it, and these folks are allowed to have their day in court. Let me explain why I introduced this amendment. As I said, to go through what they went through in the Bataan Death March, and then to be put into slave camps by Japanese companies was atrocious. I want to make clear what I mean by Japanese corporations. War is a terrible reality. I have said that. What happens during war is tragic, and sometimes it just happens. There is not a heck of a lot you can do about it. What happened in World War II at the hands of these private Japanese companies is especially tragic because there has never been anything done about it. We are not talking about the Japanese Government torturing American prisoners. I want to make that clear. The war is over. A treaty was signed. Whatever happened, happened. That is behind us. What we are talking about is private Japanese corporations, many of which exist today, corporations that Americans know and trust, who used Americans as slaves, who should have been offered protection under the Geneva Convention--not the Japanese Government, please understand, the Japanese corporations. Out of the 36,000 U.S. soldiers who were captured by the Japanese, 5,300 roughly are alive today. They are not getting any younger. Several of those veterans live in New Hampshire. I was astounded to find out that eight or nine of them do actually live in New Hampshire. I am sure they can be found in every State in the Union. I met with some of those veterans during the August recess. It was a very emotional meeting, but the interesting thing about it, there was no anger presented to me about what happened in the war. The anger and frustration that was expressed to me was what happened with these private companies that went beyond what happened in the war. Arthur Reynolds from Kingston, NH, spent 3\1/2\ years as a POW, 2 years of which he spent shoveling coal under unspeakable conditions for a private Japanese company. He lost 100 pounds in captivity and weighed less than 100 pounds when he was liberated. He survived on barely 500 calories a day, suffered countless beatings. Now he is being told by his Government--not the Japanese Government, the United States Government--that they are on the side of the Japanese corporation that enslaved him. I say to my colleagues, that is just flat out wrong. Whatever happens in the courtroom happens in the courtroom. That is why we have lawyers on both sides. But what we are talking about here is the right to sue. That is what we are talking about--not the right to have a victory when you sue, just the right to sue. However you feel, I have some very strong feelings that they should win this case and many Americans-- most, I hope--also do. We are not asking for a victory, as much as I would like to see it. We are asking for the right to sue. Arthur is 85 years old. How much longer is Arthur going to live? Manford Dusett from Seabrook, NH, spent 3\1/2\ years as a POW. Like Arthur Reynolds, he is a survivor of the Bataan Death March and the so called hell ships that transported the prisoners to Japan. He was forced to work in a coal mine for 10 to 12 hours a day, with almost no food and under the worst imaginable conditions. He suffered a broken leg in the mine. Frankly, he is lucky to be alive today. He was able to get just enough medical treatment to survive. Manford, as his colleague, weighed less than 100 pounds when he was released. There were others from New Hampshire. This gentleman in the picture here is Roland Stickney from Lancaster. I met with him. There are others from New Hampshire: Roland Gagnon from Nashua, Roland Stickney from Lancaster, Arthur Locke from Hookset, Wesley Wells from Hillsburo, Bill Onufrey from Freedom, Ernest Ouellette of Boscawen, and I am sure I missed a few. I tried to find everybody. My colleagues who might be familiar with the plight of these veterans, I have submitted for the Record the Parade magazine article. It is important you read that to understand not only what happened to them in the Bataan Death March but, after that, how they survived when they were put on those ships. Imagine being taken in those ships to the coal mines and other places where they were reported to work as slaves. These veterans are seeking compensation through our legal system-- that is all they are doing--from the Japanese corporations that used them as slave laborers. That is all they are doing. Yet, believe it or not, our Government, the U.S. Government, is trying to stop that. They are opposing veterans' efforts to seek proper redress through our judicial system. Is that constitutional? Should our Government be stopping a private citizen from seeking his or her day in court for a grievance? I don't think so. I think it is wrong. I am, frankly, ashamed it is happening, which is why I am on the floor of the Senate. I am not here to redebate the war, refight the war, or bring up and point out the atrocities of the war. That is not why I am here. I don't think the veterans would want me to do that. The State Department facilitated, ironically, a recent agreement between German companies and their victims who were used as slave laborers during World War II. I commend them for that. That was the right thing to do. Last year this body passed S. Con. Res. 158, introduced by my colleague and good friend, Senator Hatch, and urged the Secretary of State to facilitate discussions between these veterans and the guilty corporations. But the State Department chose to ignore this recommendation, unlike what they did in the German case. When it comes to the Japanese case, they chose to ignore this. In the case of the Japanese companies, the State and Justice Departments argued--listen carefully--that the private claims of the veterans were waived by the 1951 peace treaty with Japan. I will repeat that because it is very important to the whole discussion of this case. The State and Justice Departments argued that the private claims of veterans were waived by the 1951 peace treaty with Japan. I am going to say, with the greatest respect, that that is flatout wrong. Their rights were not waived. Why do they maintain this position then? Let me read from the 1951 peace treaty, article 14(b). Let me read from article 14(b) in the 1951 peace treaty: [E]xcept as otherwise provided in the present Treaty, the Allied Powers waive all reparation claims of the Allied Powers, other claims of the Allied Powers and their nationals arising out of any actions taken by Japan and its nationals in the course of the prosecution of the war and claims of the Allied Powers for direct military costs of occupation. If I had only read article 14(b), which I just read, I might have agreed--and probably would have--that the claims of these veterans were waived by the treaty because that is what it sounds like. But the issue is a lot deeper than that. So if someone is going to read article 14(b) on the Senate floor and say, therefore, these claims are waived, then we have to go beyond that. Let me go beyond that: Article 14(b) does not waive private claims against private Japanese companies. Don't be mistaken. The State Department knew this in 1951 when the treaty was signed. In fact, John Foster Dulles, the chief negotiator for the treaty--prior to his being Secretary of State--orchestrated a confidential exchange of diplomatic notes between the Japanese and the Dutch to address this very issue in 14(b). In short, the Dutch didn't want any part of 14(b). They refused to waive the private claims of their nationals because, as the United States--remember the fifth amendment?--the Dutch were constitutionally barred from doing so without due process of law. So they had a constitutional problem like we have. They can't waive the private claims. Fortunately, the diplomatic notes--and this is what burns me up, frankly, if I may say it as nicely as I can. We find so much information classified in Government. It is the old cover-your-you-know-what routine. That is why we keep it classified. There are legitimate reasons to classify materials, but 50 years later we finally get the truth declassified. All these guys, for all these years, were being denied their day in court when the truth was buried in the classified files. It is just absolutely unbelievable. I am not saying I am the first to find it. I know lawyers have found it for the others, for those doing this, those who are suing. But let me go right at it. What did those diplomatic notes say? We have it right here. This is September 7, 1951, just declassified in 2000, 50 years later, after all these guys have fought all these years trying to get reparations, and most of them have died. Only 5,300 remain out of 12,000. Here we are. I will read this letter: Dear Mr. Prime Minister, I beg to draw the attention of Your Excellency to the paragraph in the address to President and Delegates of the Peace Conference I made yesterday, reading as follows: ``Some question has arisen as to the interpretation of the reference in article 14(b) to ``claims of Allied Powers and their nationals''-- It sounded as if we waived everybody's rights-- which the Allied Powers agree to waive. It is my Government's view that article 14(b) as a matter of correct interpretation does not involve the expropriation by each Allied Government of the private claims of its national so that after the Treaty comes into force these claims will be non-existent. The question is important because some Governments, including my own, are under certain limitations of constitutional and other governing laws as to confiscating or expropriating private property of their nationals. Signed by the Prime Minister of Japan. This one is signed by Dirk Stikker, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands. A copy was sent to the Japanese Government. It says, in part: Also, there are certain types of private claims by allied nationals, which we would assume the Japanese Government might want voluntarily to deal with in its own way as a matter of good conscience or of enlightened expediency . . . . And so forth. To get to the fourth chart, this is from the Prime Minister of Japan to the Dutch, and I will read this portion outlined: With regard to the question mentioned in Your Excellency's note, I have the honor to state as follows: In view of the constitutional legal limitations referred to by the Government of the Netherlands, the Government of Japan does not consider that the Government of the Netherlands by signing the Treaty has itself expropriated the private claims of its nationals so that, as a consequence thereof, after the Treaty comes into force these claims would be nonexistence. The Japanese Government is saying that: However, the Japanese Government points out that, under the Treaty, Allied nationals will not be able to obtain satisfaction regarding such claims, although, as the Netherlands Government suggests, there are certain types of private claims by Allied nationals which the Japanese Government might wish to voluntarily deal with. These two documents remained classified for 50 years while these guys tried for 50 years to get their day in court. Our own Government would not give these documents to our own soldiers. What an outrage that is. That is an absolute outrage. The 1951 peace treaty in no way obligates the Government of Japan to pay any private claims. I admit that. It does not obligate them to do anything. We are not talking about the Government of Japan. At the same time, the treaty does not waive private claims against private Japanese companies, as the State and Justice Departments would like you to believe, and it is right there in declassified documents finally after 50 years. How is an exchange of diplomatic notes between the Government of Japan and the Government of the Netherlands relevant to the United States and its citizens? Good question. The answer lies in article 26 of the peace treaty, and this is what article 26 says: Should Japan make a peace settlement or war claims settlement with any state granting that state greater advantages than those provided by the present treaty, those same advantages shall be extended to the parties of the present treaty. In other words, if they make a deal with the Netherlands, it does not involve anybody else who has the same constitutional problems. This occurred in an exchange of diplomatic notes. Japan made it clear the treaty did not waive the private claims of Dutch citizens, and article 26 automatically extends this to American citizens. Pure and simple. End of story. This would have been resolved 20 or 30 years ago if somebody had just declassified these documents. If somebody can please tell me why these documents were classified for 50 years because of national security, I will be happy to say we should classify them again. The Departments of State and Justice are on the side of Japanese corporations. That is what this amendment is about: Are you on the side of our Justice Department and State Department that are on the side of the Japanese corporations that did this to our Americans, against the intent of that treaty, or are you on the side of the American GIs and POWs who for 50 years have been denied their day in court? That is it. There is nothing complicated about my colleagues' vote on this one. That is it: You are either for the American GIs who served and were prisoners and were slaves or you are on the side of the Japanese corporations that put them in slave camps and your own Justice Department and State Department which kept the documents classified for 50 years so they could not get their day in court. Whose side are you on? That is it. There is nothing complicated about it. What has happened is wrong. It goes against the historical record, and my amendment simply prevents the unnecessary interference of the Departments of State and Justice in this case. I repeat, because it is very important to understand, I do not predetermine the outcome with my amendment. Before I yield the floor, I want to repeat what the amendment says so that everybody understands it: None of the funds made available in this act-- The underlying legislation, the Departments of Commerce, Justice, State-- None of the funds made available in this Act may be used by the Department of Justice or the Department of State to file a motion in any court opposing a civil action . . . . In other words, we do not want Justice and State to come in now and oppose the action of this court, of these men, mostly men. Why? Because for 50 years these documents were classified and they did not even have the opportunity to do it. We did them a disservice. These are men who fought and suffered horribly in a terrible war. I urge my colleagues to please read my amendment when you come down to the Chamber to vote to give these men--brave men, heroes--the opportunity to go to court under the terms of the 1951 treaty, and give them an opportunity to be heard. That is all we are doing. I also want to point out in all that--I did not say it at the time, but to give a little bit more credence to the argument, guess who drafted the memos we are talking about between the Dutch and the Japanese. Who was involved in that draft? None other than John Foster Dulles. That is the great tragedy of this. John Foster Dulles himself participated in the draft of those documents. We have all the evidence to that as well. I hope my colleagues in the Senate will say to Justice and State: Step aside; it is the right thing to do. You kept this secret all these years by classifying documents and did not allow our guys a day in court. Step aside; do the decent thing and let these men go to court, as it is determined under the treaty we now know, and allow them to sue. If they lose, they lose. If they win, they win, but just let them go to court. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I wish to respond briefly to a couple of the points my colleague from South Carolina made. The argument that our former POWs have already been compensated under the War Claims Act and 1951 peace treaty is ridiculous, to be candid about it. POWs who were enslaved by private Japanese corporations received next to nothing in compensation. Many POWs received nothing--nothing, zippo. A Federal judge who dismissed many of the lawsuits wrote in his opinion--listen to this: The immeasurable bounty of life for themselves and their posterity in a free society services the debt. That is what he said. If that is not a ridiculous statement, even if it did come from a judge, I have never heard one. Here it is again: The immeasurable bounty of life for themselves [POWs] and their posterity in a free society services the debt. It is true under the War Claims Act POWs could receive minimal compensation--a dollar a day--for their claims against the acts of powers. They could not be compensated for claims against private corporations and nationals who were not agents. I want to make it clear to my colleagues that a treaty that is signed between the United States and another government that says that a U.S. citizen cannot sue another U.S. citizen--excuse me, another citizen in a foreign country without due process--it is wrong. You can't do that. You cannot deny due process. John Foster Dulles realized it when they wrote the side agreement and they wrote this memorandum of understanding and then buried it. They classified it. Senator Inouye and others have pointed out what article 14(b) says. I read it, and I agree. If article 14(b) is read alone without knowing any other background, then one could make the case these folks should not have that opportunity to proceed. This is right out of the memorandum of understanding, and this was partially written by Dulles himself: Following the conversation of September 3, 1951, between the Secretary of the Dutch Foreign Ministry . . . Dutch Ambassador, and others, we emphasize that the purpose of this statement was not to obligate the Japanese actually to pay out any money to the claimants. He realized fully this was an unlikely possibility. He emphasized, however, the statement he had made to the Secretary the day before that the Dutch Government was faced with a difficult legal problem; namely, without a proper interpretation agreed to by the Japanese, it would appear the Dutch Government was, by the act of signing the Japanese peace treaty, giving up without due process rights held by Dutch subjects. That is the same issue with the United States, and Dulles realized it. You cannot sign a treaty that says we have no due process against another citizen in another country. You simply cannot do it. Talk about sticking to the Constitution and defending the Constitution. That is exactly what I am doing, and that is exactly what John Foster Dulles and others were doing because they realized article 14(b) was wrong. Then in an effort to cover it all up to satisfy the Dutch, he buried it. He classified it and kept it classified for 50 years to keep these people from having the right to go to court. That is what he did. That is what the U.S. Government did. That is wrong, and we need to correct it. We can correct it right here today. We cannot say we are not defending the Constitution. We are not only defending the Constitution, we are defending the rights of individuals who live under this Constitution to have due process. That is what we are doing, and that is what this debate is about. I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, it is my understanding we have the vote on the Smith amendment at 5:30. Is that correct?

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I say to my colleagues who are also here to speak, I will be very brief in deference to those on both sides who wish to speak. I want to say what the Smith amendment does. It says: None of the funds made available in this Act may be used by the Department of Justice or the Department of State to file a motion in any court opposing a civil action against any Japanese person or corporation for compensation or reparations in which plaintiff alleges that, as an American prisoner of war during World War II, he or she was used as slave or forced labor. All this says is that no funds in this act will be used to block that lawsuit. That is it. We are not making any editorial comment on the merits or demerits of the lawsuit or who should win it. I have personal feelings about who should win it. I believe the Ameican POWs should win the lawsuits. That is up to the courts. All we want to do is let that process proceed. I also want to make it very clear that this amendment does not abrogate the 1951 peace treaty with Japan. I repeat, It does not abrogate the 1951 peace treaty with Japan. It merely limits the State and Justice departments from interfering in the veterans' lawsuits. Why does it not do it? Because article 26 makes it very clear that if the Japanese should enter into any agreement that is more advantageous, then the same terms apply to all the signatories to the treaty. That is what it says. Should Japan make a war claims settlement with any state granting that state greater advantage than those provided by the present treaty, those same advantages shall be extended to the parties to the present treaty. Did that happen? The answer is, yes, it did--right here in an agreement that was written between the Japanese Government and the Dutch. The point is it did happen. We are not violating the treaty. Article 26 is part of the treaty. We are simply complying with the treaty. The bottom line is we are not only not abrogating it, but we are complying with the treaty. This is about whether or not we are going to side with Japanese companies or American war heroes. That is the bottom line. That is the issue. As Senator Hollings said a while back, this is about the Constitution and about the treaty; it is not. We are complying with the treaty with this amendment. This is about siding with Japanese companies in this lawsuit or with American war heroes. That is the issue. We are not even doing that. We are just allowing the process to move forward because American war heroes can have their day in court. That is all we are doing. The treaty allows for that very clearly. As I indicated in my previous remarks today, John Foster Dulles, when he did the background and memorandum of understanding and wrote some of this language, understood it, too. Then this was classified for 50 years. We didn't know about it. The lawyers who are trying to present these lawsuits on behalf of American war heroes--the greatest generation-- didn't have access to this information until it was declassified a year ago. That is what this is about, pure and simple. There is nothing complicated. You are either for allowing American war heroes who were in the Bataan Death March and who were forced into slave labor camps to have their day in court--you don't even have to be for them winning, as I happen to be, and as I know many others are. You just have to be for allowing them their day in court as is prescribed under that 1951 treaty, period. That is what it is about. You are either for that or you are for the Japanese companies that basically forced them into slave labor. That is the difference. That is what we are talking about in this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Senator Harkin wishes to speak.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, just a unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Wayne Allard be added as a cosponsor to the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, before the motion is made, I have one more unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Ben Campbell also be added as a cosponsor to the amendment.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I want to associate myself with every single word the Senator from Iowa just said regarding our colleague, Senator Inouye. I want to state for the record that Senator Inouye has earned the right to say anything he wishes on the floor of the Senate with his distinguished service to our country. I think we have a difference of opinion on what the treaty said or didn't say. That is it as far as I am concerned, to make the record clear. I want to respond to the point on the abrogation of treaties because I think it is important we understand that, in my view--and I think in the view of many--it doesn't abrogate the treaty at all. It limits the State and the Justice departments from interfering. That is all. The courts will decide the true intent of the treaty. That is what courts are supposed to do. But they should be able to do so without what I would consider unnecessary meddling. Article 26 of the treaty makes it very clear that the Japanese entered into a more advantageous agreement than those terms apply to all the signatories of the treaty. We are not abrogating the treaty. We are fulfilling the treaty. I think it is very important to understand those points that were made in the exchange between the Japanese Government and the Dutch Government and article 26 in the sense that the person who offered those documents, John Foster Dulles, made it very clear that we don't want to deny individuals under a constitutional government the right to have their constitutional rights fulfilled. I would respond quickly to three or four points that were made by the opponents and then yield the floor. We just talked about those who say it undermines the treaty obligations. It merely prevents the State and the Justice departments from distorting the true facts. I am not saying the State and Justice departments in any way directly are responsible for holding back documents. The truth is our own Government for 50 years never released these documents. Had these documents been available 50 years ago, I think this matter would have been resolved. For all these years our veterans never had the opportunity to have this information and take it to court. The judicial branch is perfectly capable and within its rights to interpret treaties without any assistance from or deference to the views of the executive branch or frankly, the legislative branch. This is law. That is how things are settled. In any event, the amendment does not prevent the executive branch from executing the treaty. I want to make that very clear. It does not prevent the executive branch from executing the treaty. It merely prevents the executive branch from advocating a certain interpretation in court. All we are doing with my amendment and that of Senator Harkin and others who cosponsored it is to say we are not going to provide taxpayer dollars to allow that argument to be fought. Let it go to court. That is all. I think it is very important that we understand that. Some say the amendment impairs the ability of the courts to interpret treaties. The courts are perfectly capable of interpreting treaties without the assistance of the executive branch. They are not bound by executive interpretation. In fact, the Supreme Court noted in one of its opinions that the courts interpret treaties for themselves. The courts remain the final arbiter of a treaty's meaning and have the right to interpret a treaty. The courts observed that the views of the executive branch regarding a treaty are entitled to no deference of any type when they appear to have been adopted either solely for political reasons or in the context of any particular litigation. I believe we are dealing with the latter in this case. Let me also get to the point of damaging relations with Japan. No one wants to do that. I want to make it very clear that I believe Japan is a valuable ally in the Far East and that they are very important to us, especially as we look at the emergence of China and the threat of the Chinese. This is not about the Japanese Government. It is not about replaying the war. It is about interpreting a treaty the way it was intended and allowing people to have their day in court without losing their constitutional rights. That is for all of us. It should not change our relationship with Japan. I do not know of anybody who wants to do that. We are strong allies. We are close friends. We are going to continue to be close friends after this. This should not, in any way, be construed as an unfriendly act. Secretary Powell, I think, recently called Japan our Pacific anchor. I think he is right. But it does send a serious message that as long as these veterans are with us, this is going to be an area of contention. Frankly, I think it is better for Japanese-American relations to get it behind us. Let's move on. And the best way to do it is to allow these men to come to court without the interference of the Justice and State Departments; let them come to court, have their day in court, and get a decision. That was the right thing to do when the State Department did that in relation to the activities in the German case, and I think it is the right thing to do in this case. Last year, again, as I said earlier in my statement, this body passed S. Con. Res. 158, offered by Senator Hatch, which urged the Secretary of State to facilitate discussions between the veterans and the Japanese. Unfortunately, though, the State Department chose to ignore that. All we are trying to do is to move forward and not have it hang out there any longer. Again, this is an issue between private Japanese companies and private United States citizens who have been wronged by those companies. It is also important to remind people that we do have a Constitution and every single one of us has constitutional rights. Under the fifth amendment: ``No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.'' The Supreme Court has ruled that the Federal Government can take or espouse private claims of United States citizens against foreign governments and their agents, but this case involves private claims against private corporations that are not agents of the Japanese Government. There are no constitutional or legal precedents for the Federal Government to take or espouse the private claims of its citizens against private foreign entities. In fact, if you read article 14(b), which we have done a couple times, to mean ``private versus private claims,'' this raises very serious fifth amendment concerns. The Federal Government does not have the right to espouse private versus private claims. There is an important difference between the private versus Government claims, which the Federal Government can espouse, and the private versus private claims, which the Federal Government cannot espouse. That is a big difference. Just like the United States Government, the Dutch were faced with the same problem. The Dutch had a constitutional issue, which is why they raised the issue at the time, which is why article 26 was written. John Foster Dulles certainly had a hand in writing both of those letters and the exchange of letters between the Japanese and the Dutch. He understood both sides of it. And he understood it completely. That is why the letters were written and why the Dutch raised the question. And that is why they made certain that if another country raised similar objections, such as the United States, they would have the opportunity to have their citizens have their day in court. So I hope that as we get to whatever point the leadership decides to call a vote on this, we understand that this is not about bringing up some old war stories or replaying the war or anything at all. It is simply about the right of an American citizen, who happened to be a POW, to get his or her day in court against a private company in another country and not be interfered with by our own Government. All our amendment does is say that no funds under this act shall be used by our country or our Government to interfere with that claim. That is it. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the Ovarian Cancer National Alliance of Washington, D.C. during Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month of September. The Alliance has been instrumental in implementing a three phase public education program targeting key constituencies to deliver crucial information about ovarian cancer. The information provided to the public about ovarian cancer has allowed the Alliance to successfully develop the tools, strategies and relationships necessary to educate women about the symptoms, risks and treatment of ovarian cancer. The main thrust of the education program was the development of a pilot awareness program in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area. Working closely with the Ovarian Cancer Coalition of Greater Washington, the Alliance trained more than 30 volunteers to go into the community to give educational presentations and partnered with area gynecologic and oncology physicians and nurses to do similar presentations in the medical community. The combined aspects of the program have reached several hundred healthcare professionals and tens of thousand of women. The pilot program has made a marked impact in raising ovarian cancer awareness in the Washington, D.C. area. The Alliance has begun to identify other communities around the country in which it will conduct similar educational campaigns to heighten awareness of ovarian cancer. I commend the Ovarian Cancer National Alliance for its selfless dedication to the education of women concerning ovarian cancer and applaud the efforts to reach thousands of women in our country with life saving information. It is truly an honor and a privilege to represent you in the United States Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Upper Connecticut River Partnership Act of 2001. This legislation is a truly locally-led initiative. I believe it will result in great environmental benefits for the Connecticut River. The Connecticut River forms the border to New Hampshire and Vermont and provides for a great deal of recreational and tourism opportunities for residents of both States. This legislation takes a major step forward in making sure this River continues to thrive as a treasured resource. To understand just how significant this legislation is, I would like to share with my colleagues some history about the Connecticut River program. In 1987-88, New Hampshire and Vermont each created a commission to address environmental issues facing the Connecticut river valley. The commissions were established to coordinate water quality and various other environmental efforts along the Connecticut river valley. The two commissions came together in 1990 to form the Connecticut River Joint Commission. The Joint Commission has no regulatory authority, but carries out cooperative education and advisory activities. To further the local influence of the Commission, the Connecticut River Joint Commission established five advisory bi-state local river subcommittees comprised of representatives nominated by the governing body of their municipalities. These advisory groups developed a Connecticut River Corridor Management Plan. A major portion of the plan focuses on channeling federal funds to local communities to implement water quality programs, nonpoint source pollution controls and other environmental projects. Over the last ten years, the Connecticut River Joint Commission has fostered widespread participation and laid a strong foundation of community and citizen involvement. As a Senator from New Hampshire and the ranking Republican of the Environment and Public Works Committee, as well as someone who enjoys the beauty of the Connecticut River, I am proud to be the principal author and cosponsor of this locally led, voluntary effort that accomplishes real environmental progress. Too often we depend on bureaucratic federal regulatory programs to accomplish environmental success. This bill takes a different approach and one that I bet will achieve greater results on the ground. I hope that other communities and neighboring states will look at this model as an example of how to develop and implement true voluntary, on the ground, locally-led environmental programs. I want to thank my colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, and the two distinguished Senators of Vermont, Senators Leahy and Jeffords, for joining me as original cosponsors to this legislation. I look forward to working with them as we move this important legislation through the Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Upper Connecticut River Partnership Act of 2001. This legislation is a truly locally-led initiative. I believe it will result in great environmental benefits for the Connecticut River. The Connecticut River forms the border to New Hampshire and Vermont and provides for a great deal of recreational and tourism opportunities for residents of both States. This legislation takes a major step forward in making sure this River continues to thrive as a treasured resource. To understand just how significant this legislation is, I would like to share with my colleagues some history about the Connecticut River program. In 1987-88, New Hampshire and Vermont each created a commission to address environmental issues facing the Connecticut river valley. The commissions were established to coordinate water quality and various other environmental efforts along the Connecticut river valley. The two commissions came together in 1990 to form the Connecticut River Joint Commission. The Joint Commission has no regulatory authority, but carries out cooperative education and advisory activities. To further the local influence of the Commission, the Connecticut River Joint Commission established five advisory bi-state local river subcommittees comprised of representatives nominated by the governing body of their municipalities. These advisory groups developed a Connecticut River Corridor Management Plan. A major portion of the plan focuses on channeling federal funds to local communities to implement water quality programs, nonpoint source pollution controls and other environmental projects. Over the last ten years, the Connecticut River Joint Commission has fostered widespread participation and laid a strong foundation of community and citizen involvement. As a Senator from New Hampshire and the ranking Republican of the Environment and Public Works Committee, as well as someone who enjoys the beauty of the Connecticut River, I am proud to be the principal author and cosponsor of this locally led, voluntary effort that accomplishes real environmental progress. Too often we depend on bureaucratic federal regulatory programs to accomplish environmental success. This bill takes a different approach and one that I bet will achieve greater results on the ground. I hope that other communities and neighboring states will look at this model as an example of how to develop and implement true voluntary, on the ground, locally-led environmental programs. I want to thank my colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, and the two distinguished Senators of Vermont, Senators Leahy and Jeffords, for joining me as original cosponsors to this legislation. I look forward to working with them as we move this important legislation through the Senate.