Bob Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Virginia, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. The ``U.S.S. Warner'' has been under siege on the floor for the last few days, but, as usual, he holds up well under hostile fire and keeps his ship on course. If anyone needs to be reminded, this is a debate supposedly about the bill to fund the operation of our armed services. It is a good bill for our military. It doesn't do everything we would like, but it certainly makes a vast improvement over what we have been doing. I rise to show support for that bill. As a member of the committee, I helped to write it, and also to show support for my chairman who has endured some hostile fire, I think, unfairly. During the recess last week, the Members had the opportunity to remember those who fought for the freedom that we enjoy in this Nation, and remember those who paid the ultimate price in giving their lives. That was the Memorial Day recess. I think in deference to those and to those who now serve us, I think we ought to stay focused, as the chairman has tried to do here, on the issue at hand. This is not a debate about campaign finance, nor should it be. We owe it to the soldiers, sailors, and airmen who serve today, who will serve in the future, and to those who have already served, to get this bill passed, and to do so quickly. I think we should be reminded that this bill authorizes over $300 billion in defense spending--a 4.4-percent real increase--reversing some 14 years of neglect. You can go down the list: But aircraft, helicopters, submarines, surface ships, many other weapons systems, and missile defense, on and on--not to mention addressing some real critical needs in readiness. The bill adds about $1.5 billion for key programs in readiness, including ammunition, spare parts, maintenance, operation, and training. This is very important. I think it is below the dignity of those who have served and will serve and who are serving to reduce this debate to something other than what the issue is at hand. That is what disturbs me. I understand and fully respect the right of any colleague to offer an amendment that is within the rules, and I respect it. But I also don't think it is good judgment to do it. This bill is going to modernize our forces. It will allow us to develop the technologies that we need to address the threats that we face in the coming century in areas such as missile defense. My colleague, Senator Allard, who chairs the subcommittee I used to chair on strategic forces, has done an outstanding job in addressing that, as have so many of my other colleagues. This will allow us to address the quality of life of our service men and women and their families. There is a 3.7-percent pay raise in this bill. I am not commenting on the importance or lack of importance of the other issues that we debate here. But it is not the appropriate place to do it. Is it within the rules of the Senate to do it? Yes. In that sense, I suppose you can say it is appropriate. But is it the right thing to do on a military budget and on the defense budget of the United States? I don't think so. I think it does not dignify the debate. I think it reflects badly on the Senate. That is my honest opinion. I know the frustrations. We have had debates on campaign finance and the proponents of campaign finance reform have lost, repeatedly. I understand the frustration. I have been on the losing side on many of debates many times. I look forward to the day some of the debates will have a majority to win. Maybe that is the approach we ought to take, rather than, with all due respect, dragging this defense bill into this debate. I will highlight a couple of other things. As chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, this bill has $1.27 billion for environment restoration. I thank the chairman for his outstanding leadership in putting this together, as well as Senator Levin. The bill also authorizes additional funds for programs important to New Hampshire and the Nation. These programs address unfunded military requirements, continue or enhance current promising Department of Defense programs, or support the technology base needed for future military systems. Inclusion of these additional funds is testament to the technical expertise and successful competition for DOD contracts of defense companies and institutions in my home State of New Hampshire. In addition to authorizing a $350 million increase for important missile defense programs that I support, this bill provides important funds that the President neglected in his budget that are important for the U.S. to maintain its leadership in military space power. It authorizes $25 million for the Kinetic Energy Anti-Satellite (KE-ASAT) program that will provide a last-resort ``hard-kill'' capability for the U.S. to protect our troops from enemy surveillance. It authorizes an additional $15 million for the Space Maneuver Vehicle to leverage the NASA X-37 investment in an area that also holds great promise for military applications. It also authorizes an additional $12 million for micro-satellite technology that demonstrates key future space-control concepts. The bill also pays a fitting tribute to our former President Ronald Reagan and his vision for our nation's missile defense by renaming the Kwajalian missile test range in his honor--a facility we use to test and refine our missile defense concepts making an NMD deployment possible today. Finally, it includes additional tasks for the Space Commission which is just getting started not only to assess the organizational and managerial changes needed to ensure U.S. space power in the years ahead but also address the cultural issues in the military that dampen our ability to become a true space power. I will mention one other item before I yield the floor. I have an amendment I have offered that has not yet been voted on. I will highlight it for a minute. The amendment was modeled on the restrictions which have been placed on gun ownership. It says if you are a felon, you don't get a security clearance. That is the essence of it. It is pretty well refined. The language is a little tighter than that so the definition of ``felon'' is restricted. It is very interesting that under current law you can have access to some of the highest ranking military secrets, about some of the biggest weapons in America's arsenal, but you can't buy a handgun. What does that say about the security clearances we are issuing, if you can't have access to a pistol or rifle, but you can have access to the most lethal weapons in America's arsenal? It is happening now. Murderers, robbers, and pedophiles are getting security clearances, and they couldn't have access to a handgun. I think it is pretty interesting that we are in this situation. My amendment, which, hopefully, will be added to the bill, prohibits security clearances for persons actually sentenced to over a year--in essence, a felon. If you plead, bargain down a sentence to under a year, you can still never own a firearm but you could, without my amendment, get a security clearance. I hope we will pass my amendment. I look forward to a vote on that amendment. If it is accepted, that will be fine. If it is not accepted, I look forward to the vote. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, to refrain from the debate that might delay the passage of this legislation, and send a message to our troops that we care about them, we are ready to help their readiness, we are ready to help with the new weapon systems they need, and we are ready to give them the pay raise they deserve. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, in his letter, Hashimoto confirmed his court-martial testimony by stating that he could have sunk the Indianapolis whether it had zigzagged or not. Then he went on to say: Our peoples have forgiven each other for that terrible war and its consequences. Perhaps it is time that your people (to) forgave Captain McVay for the humiliation of his unjust conviction. That came from the man who sank McVay's ship. He was a dedicated, committed Japanese officer who, if you read Mr. Kurzman's book, was glad at the time he sank the ship and, in fact, was looking for a ship to sink. Hashimoto attended that court-martial. In the English translation of a recent interview Hashimoto gave to a Japanese journalist, here are some excerpts about the court-martial of McVay: I wonder (if) the outcome of that court-martial was set from the beginning. . .because at the time of the court- martial, I had a feeling it was contrived. . . . That came from Hashimoto. There are other comments Hashimoto makes, Mr. President. There is one direct quote I want to give from his interview: I understand English a little bit even then, so I could see at the time I testified that the translator did not tell fully what I said. I mean it was not because of the capacity of the translator. I would say the Navy side did not accept some testimony that were inconvenient to them. As I conclude, I repeat, I love the Navy. I served the Navy in Vietnam, and I would do it again. My father was a naval aviator and a graduate of the Naval Academy. He was killed at the end of the Second World War after serving in the Pacific and in the North Atlantic. I have no intention of embarrassing the Navy. That is not my purpose in sponsoring this legislation. It is apparent that the old Navy made a mistake when they court- martialed Captain McVay to divert attention from the many mistakes which led to the sinking of the Indianapolis, mistakes beyond McVay's control and responsibility. It is important to note that at least 350 ships were sunk by enemy action during World War II. No other captain was court-martialed. Only McVay. Tell me, after listening to this testimony, how hard and convincing was the evidence that he deserved to be court-martialed? The answer is no hard evidence that he deserved to be court-martialed. Captain McVay was a graduate of the Naval Academy in 1920. He was a career naval officer who had a decorated combat record, which included participation in the landings in North Africa and an award of the Silver Star for courage under fire earned during the Solomon Islands campaign. He was a fine officer and a good captain, and his crew members who survived readily attest to it. To the man, to their dying breath, they have defended this captain after 50 years. What kind of a man would have that kind of capacity? What kind of man would have the crew 50 years later, after enduring this, and with every reason to be angry with him, with every reason to hate him after almost dying in the sea, with him? The court-martial board found McVay guilty of hazarding his ship by failing to zigzag. His sentence of a loss of grade was remitted in 1946, and he was restored to active duty by Admiral Nimitz who replaced Admiral King as Chief of Naval Operations. But his naval career was ruined. You do not survive that stigma. He served out his time as an aide in the New Orleans Naval District before retiring in 1949 with a so-called ``tombstone promotion'' to rear admiral. Sadly--and this is the worst part of the story--Captain McVay took his own life in November 1968. Those who knew him feel strongly that the weight of his conviction and the blame which that conviction implied for the loss of the Indianapolis and the death of the crew was a reason for his suicide. Captain McVay is gone. It is too late for him to know what we propose to do, but the undeserved stain upon his name remains. Time is running out for the 130 people out of 300-some who survived, united and steadfast for half a century to clear his name. We owe it to them, to him, and to his family to clear his name. We have forgotten that these men survived 4 terrifying days and 5 frightening nights in the sea, fighting off sharks, starvation, and no water. Let's not forget them again. Again, I thank Senator Warner. Without Senator Warner, we would not be able to make this happen. I am pleased to hear the House Armed Services Committee adopted the original legislation which I introduced in the Senate. I look forward to working out some language differences on this matter in conference. We now have the opportunity to give the remaining survivors of this terrible tragedy what they deserve and have fought for so hard and so tenaciously for so long: an acknowledgment by their Government, by their Navy that they made a mistake. After 55 years, we make it right that their captain was not to be blamed for the loss of the Indianapolis nor the loss of their shipmates. This is not historical revisionism. It corrects a longstanding historical mistake and rights a terrible wrong.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Before addressing the Senate on the issue of the Indianapolis, I have an amendment to my amendment 3210 at the desk, and I ask unanimous consent that the modification of my own amendment at the desk be agreed to.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Michigan for working with me. I wish to clarify that he is not necessarily agreeing with all of it, but he has agreed to the modification allowing me to modify my amendment, which he did not have to do. I appreciate it very much. Before getting into the detail of the tragedy of the U.S.S. Indianapolis, which happened so many years ago in 1945, I commend my colleague and the chairman of this committee, Senator John Warner, a former Secretary of the Navy. When I first approached Senator Warner on this topic, he was somewhat skeptical, as I was frankly, when I first learned of it. But he took the time to listen to the details and the facts that came forth. He granted a hearing at my request on the U.S.S. Indianapolis matter. We heard from survivors and we heard from the Navy. We heard from all sides. As a result of that hearing and the information provided, Senator Warner worked with me to draft language in this bill to correct an egregious mistake. Some have said that we are rewriting history in this debate. I am a history teacher. I don't believe you can rewrite history. I think history is either factual or it isn't. But I think we can correct this. If a mistake is made, or has been made, then I think we have an obligation to correct that mistake. In that view, I want to share with my colleagues over the next few minutes what happened in 1945. Senator Warner mentioned an old colleague of his, a friend of his, who had been one of the officers to rescue the crew of the U.S.S. Indianapolis. It was only 4 months before that my own father, a naval aviator, was killed just prior to the end of the Second World War after having served in that war. This incident happened just days before the end of the war in which over 1,200 men went down and only 300 and some survived. These tragedies happened. It is terrible. It is part of the war. I wish to share with my colleagues what happened and why we are doing what we are doing. I believe that a grievous wrong was committed 55 years ago, and it stained the reputation of an outstanding naval officer. I refer to the late Capt. Charles Butler McVay, III, who was tried and convicted at a court-martial, unjustly I believe. I believe that firmly. I believe that based on the facts. He was tried and convicted unjustly as a result of the sinking by a Japanese submarine of his ship, the U.S.S. Indianapolis, shortly before the end of the Second World War. The loss of the U.S.S. Indianapolis to a Japanese submarine attack happened on July 30, 1945. It remains without question the greatest sea disaster in the history of the U.S. Navy. Eight-hundred and eighty men perished. Of the 1,197 men aboard, 880 died at sea. An estimated 900 men, however, survived the actual sinking, but they were left, in some cases, without lifeboats, without food, and without water. And they faced shark attacks for 4 days and 5 nights. If you can, imagine the horror of that experience of being thrown into the sea in a matter of minutes after a torpedo attack by an enemy submarine and to be in the water with sharks for 4 days and 5 nights without lifeboats, in some cases, and without food and without water. Only 317 of those men remained alive when they were discovered by accident 5 days later, because when their ship failed to arrive on schedule, believe it or not, it was not missed. The ship that was scheduled to arrive in port 4 or 5 days before was never even missed. The Navy had completely lost track of this cruiser, the U.S.S. Indianapolis, and its entire crew. When it didn't come into port, nobody missed it. These men literally stayed at sea for 4 or 5 days. The only hope they had was the fact that an SOS had been sent out and somebody had heard it, and they would be found. This tragedy, as you might expect, was a great embarrassment to the U.S. Navy. It was such an embarrassment to the Navy with a ship going down that the news was not given to the public until the day that President Truman announced the surrender of Japan, thus, lessening its coverage by the media, and as a result its impact on the American people. Let me frame this again: In the same day's news, President Truman announces the surrender of Japan and then this footnote that the U.S.S. Indianapolis was sunk with 317 survivors. Today, only 130 men still live who survived from the U.S.S. Indianapolis. In April of 1998, I met for the first time with 12 of those survivors. I might add that, sadly, as the months go by survivors pass away. Most of these men are in their seventies and eighties. Every day that goes by and we don't get this issue resolved is another day that we lose survivors. But they were in Washington to plead for legislation for one simple reason: To clear their captain's name. They were accompanied by a young boy by the name of Hunter Scott of Pensacola, FL, whose school history project had led him to join their cause. I learned from those survivors and from this young boy, who was only 13 years old at the time, the story of the sinking. I had heard about it. I had read about it. But I didn't really know all of the facts. I learned that the survivors had been unanimous for over a half a century in their efforts to have their captain's good name restored. For 50 years, they have fought to restore their captain's name, saying that he was unjustly court-martialed and found guilty of the loss of the U.S.S. Indianapolis. Hunter Scott's involvement had renewed interest in their cause, and Hunter Scott's involvement, I think, as a young boy, came as a result of the book called ``Fatal Voyage: The Sinking of the U.S.S. Indianapolis,'' written by Dan Kurzman. With no financial interest in the book, I would certainly recommend that book to anyone who wishes to know the facts of what happened with the U.S.S. Indianapolis. But Mr. Scott had attracted the attention of the media as well as the attention of his Member of Congress in the House of Representatives, Congressman Joe Scarborough, who had already introduced legislation in the House which called for a posthumous pardon for Captain McVay. Hunter Scott can be very proud. He demonstrated that one person with grit and perseverance, in search of justice, can find that justice in the Halls of Congress. This boy, at the age of 12 or 13, brought the facts of this case to the Congress. As a result, language now is in this Defense authorization bill which will clear Captain McVay's name as a result of this 12 or 13-year-old boy. When we hear stories about young people today, we always hear the bad things. This is good. He is a very impressive young man. He testified before the Armed Services Committee. He wasn't nervous. He held his own. He answered tough questions. He had the answers without any hesitation. Last April, I had another meeting with a second group of survivors, and young Hunter Scott, who had returned to Washington once again in their effort to right what they believed was a wrong. In spite of the hearing, we still haven't gotten it done. Their story, in turn, got my attention and led me to introduce Senate Joint Resolution 26, which expresses the sense of Congress that Captain McVay's court-martial was morally unsustainable; that his conviction was a miscarriage of justice, and that the American people should now recognize his lack of culpability for the loss of the ship and the lives of 880 men who died as a result of the sinking. Mr. President, this language does not erase the conviction of Captain McVay from his record. We in Congress don't have the authority to erase the conviction of a court-martial. It must remain on his record. But it is not, in my view, a stain on Captain McVay's record. I believe it is a stain upon the conscience of the Navy. Until this or some future President sees fit to order it be expunged, we can't do that. If I could, I would, with the stroke of a pen. I urge President Clinton, or any other President in the future, to do it. But I can't do it. This Senate can't do it. This resolution does something very important. It represents acknowledgment from one branch of this Government, the U.S. Congress, House and the Senate, that Captain McVay served capably, that his conviction was morally wrong, and that he should no longer be viewed by the American people as responsible for this horrible tragedy which haunted him to the end of his life. I will take you back 55 years, the end of the Second World War, the late summer of 1945. After surviving a kamikaze attack off Okinawa in March of 1945--which killed 17 of his crew--Captain McVay returned the Indianapolis safely to California for repairs. For those who are probably too young to remember the war, a kamikaze attack was a Japanese aircraft that flew directly into the ship with the pilot of the Japanese aircraft giving up his own life to crash land the aircraft into the ship to blow it up. Kamikaze attacks killed a lot of Americans. McVay's ship and McVay survived, but it killed 17 of his crew. McVay got the ship back to shore. Remember, this ship was just hit by kamikaze attack, but this captain was so well respected and admired by his naval superiors that once the ship was repaired, they didn't even have time to go out and have a shake-down cruise. It was selected to transport components of the atomic bomb which was ultimately dropped on Hiroshima by the Enola Gay. They were to deliver the components for that bomb. McVay, among all other captains, and McVay's ship, the Indianapolis, was selected for that critically important duty. It successfully delivered the bombing parts to the island of Tinian--and, coincidentally, setting a speed record across the Pacific for surface vessels which stands to this day. Here is a ship that was hit by a kamikaze. There was very little time to check the repairs, no shake down, the repairs were performed, and they were given the materials for the bomb and departed for the island of Tinian. The ship was routed on to Guam after that duty for sailing waters to Leyte. At Guam, Captain McVay requested a destroyer escort-- this is very important. At Guam, Captain McVay requested a destroyer escort across the Philippine Sea. No capital ship without antisubmarine detection equipment, such as the Indianapolis, had ever made that transit unescorted throughout World War II. No ship had ever gone from Guam to Leyte during the war without an escort. McVay requested one. McVay was denied. No escort. He was told it was not necessary. Navy witnesses at a hearing last September on this resolution conceded that this was the case. The Navy conceded that no escort was provided, even though it was requested. Even worse, McVay was not told that shortly before his departure from Guam, an American destroyer escort, the U.S.S. Underhill, had been sunk by a Japanese submarine within the range of his path. Navy witnesses in our September hearing on this bill conceded that this was the case. A request by McVay for a destroyer escort to go from Guam to Leyte. Request denied. Never happened before. They always had escorts. Second, the U.S.S. Underhill had been sunk by a Japanese submarine in the same sea route. They never admitted this. Third, U.S. intelligence furthermore broke the Japanese code and learned that the I-58, the Japanese submarine, the very submarine which sunk the Indianapolis, was operating in the path of the Indianapolis. So we had U.S. intelligence that had broken the Japanese code and said the I-58 Japanese submarine was operating in the path of the Indianapolis. Many responsible for routing the ship from Guam to the Philippines were aware of the intelligence, but McVay was not told. Navy witnesses at our hearing conceded that was true. That is why, to his credit, Senator John Warner came over to this issue. Mr. President, upfront I will say my duty is not to dump on the Navy. I am a former Navy man. My dad was a naval aviator. I love the Navy. But if a mistake is made, we ought to admit the mistake. When the Indianapolis was sunk, naval intelligence intercepted a message from the I-58 that it had sunk an American--they said battleship--along the route of the Indianapolis. That message was dismissed as enemy propaganda. Naval witnesses at our hearing conceded that was also the case. So after the ship was sunk, they stayed in the sea for 4 to 5 days because they thought it was propaganda that the Japanese said they sunk a ship. It was a reasonable mistake, I suppose, but maybe they could have checked it out. It should be remembered at this point that hostilities in July 1945 had moved far to the north of the Philippine Sea. We were preparing for the expected invasion of Japan over 1,000 miles away. The Japanese surface fleet was virtually nonexistent. Only four Japanese submarines were thought to be operational in the entire Pacific region. It is fair to conclude from these facts that there was a relaxed state of alert on the part of naval authorities in the Marianas, and it is also fair to conclude, as a result that, Captain McVay and the men of the Indianapolis were sent into harm's way without a proper escort or the intelligence which could have saved the ship and the lives of the 880 members of its crew. They were in a relaxed state. Captain McVay was basically given no reason to be alarmed about anything. Following the sinking, the Navy maintained the ship had sunk so fast it had not time to send out an SOS. For many years, this was never contested. But following appearances on several national TV programs, Hunter Scott, this 13-year-old boy, had received word from three separate sources, each providing details of a distress signal of which they were aware which was received from the ship and which, in each case, had been ignored. So the SOS did go out, but it was ignored. At the September hearing, one of the survivors who had served as a radio man aboard the ship testified that a distress signal did, in fact, go out. He said he watched the needle ``jump,'' on one of the ship's transmitters, signifying a successful transmission. Today, however, the Navy still holds to its position that a distress signal was never received and the truth will likely remain a mystery in this incredible story, never to be resolved. Following his rescue from the sea, Captain McVay was faced with a court of inquiry in Guam, which ultimately recommended a court-martial. Fleet Adm. Chester Nimitz and Vice Adm. Raymond Spruance, who was McVay's immediate superior and for whom the Indianapolis served as flagship, both of these legendary naval heroes of war went on record as opposed to a court-martial for McVay--opposed. Adm. Ernest King, then- Chief of Naval Operations, overruled both Spruance and Nimitz and ordered the court-martial. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time in the Navy's history that the position taken by such high- ranking officers has been countermanded in a court-martial case. The question has to be, Why does the Chief of Naval Operations overrule the two officers in command? Admiral Nimitz, one of the most highly respected officers in the entire war in the Navy, recommended no on the court-martial. He was overruled by the CNO, who was not even there. Why? Why? I believe one of our witnesses at the September hearing, Dr. William Dudley, Chief Naval Historian, may have given us the answer. He testified that Admiral King was a strict disciplinarian who, ``when mistakes were made, was inclined to single out somebody to blame.'' I am forced in this instance to use the word ``scapegoat'' because I believe that is exactly what Captain McVay became. Brought here to the Washington Navy Yard to face his court-martial, Captain McVay was denied his choice of a defense counsel and assigned a naval officer who, although he had a law degree, had never tried a case before. Neither Captain McVay nor his counsel were notified of the specific charges against him until 4 days before the court-martial convened and the charges against him were specious at best. The Navy settled on two charges against Captain McVay: No. 1, failing promptly to give the order to abandon ship, and, No. 2, hazarding his ship by failing to zigzag. In other words, if you know there are enemy ships in the area, if you zigzag, it is harder for the enemy ship to get a reading on you and sink you. He was ultimately found innocent on the first charge, failing to promptly abandon ship, when it became apparent--and it should have been long before the charge was brought--that there was no foundation for such charge because he did give the order. The torpedo attack had immediately knocked out the ship's intercom and officers aboard the ship were forced to give the abandon ship order by word of mouth to those around them. The ship was hit and it sunk in a matter of minutes. The entire intercom system was knocked out and you had to give the order to abandon ship one person at a time. This charge, the second charge, failure to zigzag, including the phrase ``in good visibility,'' became the basis for his conviction. In other words, failure to zigzag in good visibility became the basis for his conviction, one which effectively destroyed his career as a naval officer. Let's look at the validity of that charge. Captain McVay sailed from Guam with orders to zigzag at his discretion. Shortly before midnight on July 29, 1945, the day before, with visibility severely limited--you zigzag in clear weather--visibility severely limited, and with every reason to believe the waters through which he is sailing were safe, McVay exercised discretion with an order to cease zigzagging and retired to his cabin, leaving orders to the officer of the deck to wake him if the weather conditions changed. Whether weather conditions changed is debatable. Some survivors say it did. Some were not sure. But survivors were unanimous in depositions taken shortly after their rescue that it was very dark prior to and at the time of the attack; that the visibility was poor. Chief Warrant Officer Hines, for example, stated he could hardly see the outlines of the turrets on the ship. His and other similar depositions were not made available to Captain McVay's defense counsel. Again, why not? The Navy maintained, and still does today, that the visibility was good when the Indianapolis was spotted and subsequently torpedoed and sunk that night, ignoring the sworn statements of those who were there when it happened; ignoring them. Why is this important? It is important because there were no Navy directives in place then, or today, which either ordered or even recommended zigzagging at night in poor visibility. The order to zigzag was discretionary even if the weather was poor. Moreover, in voicing opposition to Captain McVay's court-martial, Admiral Nimitz, in charge of the Pacific Fleet, pointed out: The rule requiring zigzagging would not have applied, in any event, since Captain McVay's orders gave him discretion on that matter and thus took precedence over all other orders. This is a point, I might add, which Captain McVay's inexperienced defense counsel never even addressed at the court-martial. To bolster its case against McVay, the Navy brought two witnesses to the court-martial. I have to say this has to be in the category of the unbelievable. One of the witnesses at Captain McVay's naval court- martial, brought in by the U.S. Navy, was a man by the name of Hashimoto, who was the captain of the submarine which sank the U.S.S. Indianapolis. The captain of the submarine which sank the U.S.S. Indianapolis, the enemy sub, the captain was brought in to testify against a naval captain. That, my colleagues, was uncalled for. It was the height of insult. Imagine this captain, after losing his crew to an enemy torpedo, not even being told by his superiors that there were enemy ships in the area, has the captain of that ship testify against him--an outrage. The other witness was Glynn R. Dunaho, winner of four Navy Crosses as an American submarine captain during World War II. Neither helped the Navy's case. Both Hashimoto and Dunaho testified that, given the conditions that night, either one of them could have sunk the Indianapolis, whether it had been zigzagging or not. They thought Hashimoto would have helped them. He said he could have sunk the ship; it didn't matter whether it was zigzagging or not. Unbelievably this testimony was brushed aside by the court-martial board. In our hearings in the Senate this year, high-ranking Navy witnesses insisted Captain McVay was not charged with the loss of his ship; he was not even considered responsible for the loss of the ship or the loss of life. They insisted he was guilty only of hazarding his ship by failing to zigzag. One question they declined to answer: Would he have been court- martialed if he had arrived safely in the Philippines but had failed to zigzag that night? The answer, quite obviously, is no. And the Navy's argument simply denies logic. In other words, if failure to zigzag is the problem, then you ought to nail an officer who doesn't do it before a tragedy, not after. If he had arrived in port safely, would he have been charged? The answer is no, of course, he wouldn't have been charged. He had an unblemished record as a naval officer. It defies logic, but it happened. In truth, McVay's orders gave him discretion to make a judgment, but when he relied on the best information he had, which indicated his path was safe, and exercised that discretion on a dark night, he ended up with a court-martial and humiliation. No intelligence was given to him. Nobody told him there were enemy submarines in the area. Nobody told him the Underhill was sunk days before. No one told him any of that. They also told him he had discretion to zigzag. In spite of all that, they court-martialed him. They humiliated him for making a judgment call under circumstances which any one of us would have done the same, including those who court-martialed him. Captain McVay's judgment call to zigzag was not responsible for this disaster, period. Other judgment calls may have been. Let's review some of them. There was a judgment that his passage was safe; to deny him destroyer escort; to deny him the intelligence about the sinking in his path of the Underhill; to ignore the Japanese submarine's report that it had sunk an American battleship along his route; to ignore the failure of the Indianapolis to arrive on schedule; if they were, indeed, received, to ignore the distress signals which were reported to be sent out; and to deny Captain McVay the vital intelligence that the Japanese submarine which sank his ship was operating in its path. Those responsible for these judgment calls were far more responsible for the loss of the Indianapolis and its crew than its captain. Guess what happened to them. Nada. No court-martial. Nothing. Nothing happened to those who ignored the intelligence. Nothing happened to those who did not tell the captain about the Underhill. Nothing happened to those who did not even report the loss of the ship. Nothing. Recently, my distinguished colleague and chairman, Senator Warner, received a personal letter from Hashimoto, the captain of the Japanese submarine.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Today, the chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, ranking minority member of the committee, chairman of the Subcommittee on Superfund, and ranking minority member of the subcommittee, have come together to introduce a bill that protects the environment, encourages community involvement, promotes economic redevelopment, encourages the preservation of green spaces, and sets the stage for future efforts of comprehensive Superfund reform. As a nation, our industrial heritage has left us with numerous contaminated abandoned or underutilized ``brownfield'' sites. Although the level of contamination at many of these sites is relatively low, and the potential value of the property may be quite high, developers often shy away from developing these sites. One reason for this is uncertainty regarding the extent of contamination, the extent of potential liability, or the potential costs of cleanup. With the introduction of the Brownfield Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2000, we focus on the uncertainty facing developers, property owners, and communities as to the status of low-risk contaminated sites. At the beginning of this Congress, Administrator Browner and Assistant Administrator of Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Tim Fields, testified that EPA was interested in pursuing legislative reform only in some narrow property owner areas and in brownfields. We have worked to address their suggestions and hope that in the future they can work with us to address a broader comprehensive Superfund effort. Concerns exist for some Committee members that taking brownfields out of a comprehensive Superfund reform package will jeopardize future Superfund reform. Although I agree with my colleagues that comprehensive reform is needed, I feel that we can move forward with brownfield legislation without compromising comprehensive reform. 450,000 brownfield sites exist in the United States. These sites are low risk sites and are not the traditional Superfund sites that would be affected by comprehensive Superfund reform. If States and citizens are discouraged from cleaning up these sites, continuing the barriers to redevelopment, these sites may someday become Superfund sites. As brownfield sites are outside of the scope of Superfund, I believe that liability carve-outs are outside of the scope of any brownfields legislation. As I have in the past, I continue to oppose narrow carve- outs. Carveouts weaken attempts at overhauling the remedy selection and liability allocation provisions in the current Superfund statute and, frankly, make a bad system worse. This brownfield legislation does not affect the allocation of liability at Superfund sites, instead, it provides needed resources to address sites, provides certainty to those who voluntarily cleanup, and prevents brownfields from being included in the Superfund web. Brownfield legislation presents a win-win for all involved and should jumpstart action on substantive Superfund reform in the next Congress. This is a new era of environmental and infrastructure legislation. Since we have been paying down the debt, we are now able to return money to local communities to help them solve environmental problems and are encouraging partnerships are between federal entities, States, and local communities. It is an exciting time to be working and investing in our environment.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, this amendment is really quite simple. It involves the issue of whether or not a felon should get a security clearance. That is the essence. If you favor felons having a security clearance, you would vote against my amendment. If you think it is wrong that convicted felon should have a security clearance, then you would vote with me. On April 6 there was a hearing the Armed Services Committee held that touched upon an important and urgent issue, that of the longstanding protections set in place to guard the most vital secrets of the Nation and of our national security community. But we had a virtual security meltdown in this administration, from our DOE labs to people without clearances getting White House passes, to the recent scandal of missing and highly classified State Department laptops. It goes on and on. While we couldn't possibly begin to address all our Nation's security deficiencies within this one authorization bill, I believe we can make progress in one very specific area. A reporter by the name of Ed Pound of USA Today has done an outstanding job with recent news reports and investigative reporting on this issue. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that articles written by Mr. Pound from USA Today be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, this amendment No. 3210-- --

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 3210 at the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. At the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals, USA Today reported that felons, convicted felons--I want my colleagues to listen carefully here--convicted felons, including a murderer, individuals with chronic alcohol and drug abuse problems, a pedophile, an exhibitionist--all received security clearances in order to work for defense contractors. I want to repeat that because I think most people would say, you have to be kidding, that really happened? The answer is yes, which is why this amendment is so urgently needed. This was investigative reporting by USA Today that reported that a murderer, people with chronic alcohol and drug abuse problems, a pedophile, and an exhibitionist received security clearance to work for defense contractors. There was another individual who was awarded a clearance while on probation for bank fraud. Yet another was allowed to keep his clearance after taking part in a $2 million fraud against the U.S. Navy. Another had a history of criminal sexual misconduct for which he was still undergoing therapy. For goodness' sake, I say to my colleagues, most of us and the American people would say: Gee, to get a security clearance, that is a big deal; you get to see all the secrets. At least that is what the people think. We have different levels of security clearances, from confidential, to secret, to top secret, to code level. These are security clearances for individuals who have no right to get those clearances, and I think every American would agree: $2 million in fraud against the U.S. Navy, pedophiles, murderers, chronic alcohol and drug abusers getting security clearances to see the highest classified material on various defense contracts. An even more egregious example is that an administrative judge at the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals--that is who hears these cases-- granted a clearance to a defense contractor's project manager who had a lengthy history of drug and alcohol abuse, including two convictions of selling cocaine for which he served two separate terms in Federal prison. Overriding Government lawyers who said this man's criminal past made him ineligible for a clearance, the judge at this defense hearing ruled this individual ``had no desire to ever engage in criminal conduct again.'' I repeat. This is an individual who was granted a clearance by an administrative judge at the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals. He had a lengthy history of drug and alcohol abuse, including two convictions for selling cocaine and served two separate prison terms for it. The Government lawyers said: No, this guy should not have a clearance; what are you talking about here? They were overridden. The judge ruled the individual ``had no desire to ever engage in criminal conduct again.'' Therefore, we will give him his clearance. The case in point, when somebody else comes along tomorrow and says: Yes, I robbed a couple of banks, killed a couple of people, but I am sorry; I will not do it again if you will just give me my security clearance, that is what I am talking about. That is the logic: Yes, I sold a little cocaine, maybe I used a little cocaine; I am sorry. Can I have my clearance? I want to get access to classified secrets so I can work for a defense contractor. It is unbelievable to think this is happening in our Government, but it is. Common sense dictates that one convicted murderer or one convicted drug dealer with a security clearance is one too many. I have been told by at least one former DOD official that the USA Today's reported cases of felons granted security clearances is probably only the tip of the iceberg. These are the ones we know about. I am also informed that the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals is the only organization dictated to by attorneys, while in the others-- for example, the military services--the security specialists are in charge. We want the security specialists to be in charge, and apparently they are not. A frequent complaint is when there is reasonable doubt about an applicant, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals judges rule in favor of the applicant rather than the national interest. This is a very important point. Do you err on the side of national defense, national security, national interest, or do you err on the side of the individual? This is not rocket science, and it is not a big deal about how they do this. Yet it is happening. In other words, err on the side of the individual; he will be OK; he is sorry; he is not going to do it again; do not worry about the cocaine; do not worry about the murder; do not worry about that; it is fine; we think he will be OK so we are going to err on his side, not on the side of national security. I say to my colleagues, we all have staff who get security clearances. My colleagues know how tough it is to get them and how long they wait and what they put these guys and gals through. My colleagues know what is on the forms and how long it takes to get a clearance. It is an outrage this is occurring. The adjudicative guidelines require that national security be the first priority. Those are the guidelines. These guidelines are not being enforced. As my colleagues watch me, they must be thinking: This cannot be true; he has to be blowing smoke; no way. It is true. I have researched these cases. Senator Harkin, who has done an outstanding job, has also researched these cases. Senator Harkin is with me on this amendment. In fact, he first helped bring this to my attention. When I repeatedly questioned the DOD general counsel at the April 6 hearing about whether it is acceptable to grant a clearance to an individual who committed a cold-blooded murder, he would not say no to my question. I said to him: Is it acceptable ever to grant a clearance to an individual who committed a cold-blooded murder? I wanted him to say no. I gave him every opportunity to say no, but he refused to say no. If you do not say no, it has to mean there is a time when it is in the interest of the individual, never mind national defense, to grant the clearance because he may not commit a murder anymore and he might be great. He could be the greatest contractor employee the Defense Department ever saw, but do we want to take the chance? Do we want to take a chance? If my colleagues had a staff member who was asking for a security clearance--I do not know if they would be working for them if he or she committed a murder, but if they did and tried to get one, good luck. We know they would not get it. Therefore, if that is the rule for staff, then it ought to be the rule for those contractors who work for the Defense Department. Senator Harkin's press release about this scandal when it broke argued very persuasively: No one has a right to a national security clearance. No one has a right to it. Senator Harkin, who testified at the SASC hearings on the DSS and DOHA, argued people go through intense scrutiny just to serve on the Commission on Library Sciences, and they do not have to handle any Government secrets. We should at least have the same high standards for those holding security clearances as we require of those serving on the Commission of Library Sciences. Senator Harkin is absolutely right. I agree with him. Additionally, there were examples of the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals granting clearances to people with recent drug and alcohol addictions. Why is the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals, knowing there will always be risks that some people with clearances will betray their country for money or for ideology, placing an additional risk into the system by giving these felons clearances? Why do we take the risk? There are many good, decent people who have never committed a crime in their lives who do not gain access to classified material because they do not need to know and, therefore, they do not get their clearances because they do not need to know. Why does a convicted murderer, rapist, or convicted drug dealer need to know? The answer is simply they do not. You might say: We should give this person a chance. No, we should not, no, no, no; not if we are going to risk the national defense of our country, we should not give them a chance. As Senator Harkin has said: It is not a right. It is a privilege that you earn. Additionally, there were examples of, as I said, clearances for those with recent drug and alcohol problems. Why would we want these convicted lawbreakers given access to these secrets? We know how much damage just one individual can wreak on national security. We have heard the stories--the legacy of Aldrich Ames, Jonathan Pollard, and the Walkers, the Rosenbergs. Go back as far as you want to go. It is well known to all of us who have dealt with national security issues, we simply cannot afford to have loose standards when it comes to protecting our secrets and protecting lives. They are loose enough as it is. We have had stolen secrets from our atomic weapons labs going to the Chinese. We certainly do not need to invite people into critical areas, where sensitive technology and sensitive information is bandied about, to have a person who would have that kind of a background to get a security clearance. I emphasize, again, I know in America we are all in favor--and I am, too--of giving people a break, giving a person a chance, giving them a second chance, but not when it comes to national security. I guarantee you, for every cocaine dealer you think is fine now and would be a great person to work for a Government contractor--I guarantee you--there are 100 who never had any cocaine convictions who would be just as good. I guarantee it. We ought to start looking down the line to find them. In some States, an individual would lose his or her right to vote based on a felony conviction. The 1968 Gun Control Act stripped individuals convicted of felonies of their constitutionally protected second amendment right. I have known of an instance where a Capitol Hill staffer was denied a clearance because he was a few months behind in his student loan payment. Keep in mind, a security clearance is not a right; it is a privilege. In fact, it is more than that. It is an honor. That says something about this person, that this is a special person who can be trusted with the secrets, sensitive information about the U.S. Government, about the weapons we make. To say that we would dumb those standards down at that level is a disgrace and, frankly, it is an embarrassment to our country, to our Government, to our Defense Department, to our administration, to everybody involved, and, yes, even an embarrassment to the members of the Armed Services Committee of the Senate that this is happening. It is an embarrassment. The only way to correct it is to stop it and say it is wrong. Right now you can have a felony conviction and still be granted a clearance and access to sensitive secrets; and that does not pass the commonsense test. It does not pass the smell test, folks, that a convicted murderer can be granted a security clearance. Believe it or not, they had an explanation for it. It was not a good one. They had an explanation for it: He's reformed now. He's OK now. In conclusion, the bottom line is, my amendment is very simple. It would prevent DOD from granting security clearances to those who have been convicted in a court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year. It would also disallow a clearance for anyone who is an unlawful user or addicted to any controlled substance or has been adjudicated as mentally incompetent or has been dishonorably discharged from the U.S. Armed Forces. It is sad, though, that we have to pass an amendment on the floor of the Senate, add language to the DOD authorization bill that says the people who do these things--the people who review these cases, who review these individuals--we have to pass an amendment which is nothing more than common sense that says you cannot put murderers and felons and cocaine dealers, people who have been convicted of these crimes, in positions where they have access to national security information. We have to pass an amendment because the people we put in charge are not doing this, are not stopping this. Can you imagine that? That is what it has come to. I am embarrassed by it. But I will tell you what. I would rather be embarrassed by it than have it continue to happen, where our secrets get compromised because somebody could be compromised as a result of this kind of background. We cannot take all the risks out of the system no matter how good we are, no matter how good the DOHA, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals. No matter how good they are, they are going to make mistakes. That is human. Sometimes people such as Pollard and Walker get clearances, unfortunately. And they ought to pay the price for it when they are caught. But let's not take this kind of ridiculous risk and dumb down the entire operation. I might add--it does not say this in the amendment--if we have people who are looking at these cases, and assessing the risks, and they are concluding that people with these kinds of backgrounds can get security clearances, we may want to change some of the people who are doing the evaluating as well. That may be the next step if it does not stop. I regret that many of the committee members missed the DSS, the Department of Security Services, and the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals hearing that we had because it was an eye-opener for me. Even though I read the press articles relating to the scandal, I was surprised those individuals I questioned--when I gave them the opportunity when I questioned them--still said they would not say no when I asked them whether they believed it would be all right to give somebody such as that a clearance. They would not say no, which gives me the impression there would be circumstances where they should be able to get the clearances. That is my amendment. I know the manager of the bill is not prepared to vote at this time. But at this point, Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I will take this moment to thank my colleague, Senator Warner, the chairman of the committee, for the outstanding leadership he has provided as the chairman of the committee.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that Senator Smith of New Hampshire be recognized for up to 30 minutes of general debate on S. 2549 during tomorrow's session.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until the hour of 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, June 8. I further ask unanimous consent that on Thursday immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate then resume consideration of S. 2549, the Department of Defense authorization bill, under the previous order.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Health Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 2625, and the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 318, submitted earlier by Senator Snowe, for herself and others.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and finally, any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of H.R. 4542, which is at the desk.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

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

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, on behalf of the leader, I announce that the Senate will convene at 9:30 a.m. tomorrow and resume debate on the Defense authorization bill. Under the order, at 1 p.m. there will be 2 hours of debate on the McCain-Feingold amendment regarding soft money disclosure. Following that debate, at 3 p.m. the Senate will begin consideration of the Kennedy HMO amendment for up to 2 hours. Votes on the McCain and Kennedy amendments will be stacked to occur at 5 p.m. Further amendments may be offered prior to the votes, and therefore votes may occur prior to the 5 p.m. votes.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a resolution concerning our trade relationship with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. On June 2, 2000, the President of the United States formally recommended a waiver of the application of the Trade Act of 1974 with respect to Vietnam. I am deeply troubled by the President's decision to grant this waiver in light of Vietnam's continuing poor record on human rights. One need only look at the 1999 U.S. State Department report on human rights practices in Vietnam to recognize that the Vietnamese Government once again has failed to meet recognized standards with respect to such fundamental rights as freedom of emigration, freedom of speech and freedom of religion, to name only a few, which are so often taken for granted in our great country. I would like to quote from this revealing report to emphasize my point. The State Department declared the following regarding Vietnam: ``The Government's human rights record remained poor; . . . and serious problems remain . . . The Government continued to repress basic political and some religious freedoms and to commit numerous abuses . . . the Government arbitrarily arrested and detained citizens, including detention for peaceful expression of political and religious views . . . The Government significantly restricts freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and association . . . The Government restricts freedom of religion and significantly restricts the operation of religious organizations other than those entities approved by the State . . . Citizens' access to passports frequently was constrained by factors outside the law, such as bribery and corruption. Refugee and immigrant visa applicants sometimes encountered local officials who arbitrarily delayed or denied passports based on personal animosities or on the officials' perception that an applicant did not meet program criteria or in order to extort a bribe.'' The list of violations outlined by our State Department goes on, but I will stop here. Mr. President, the resolution I have introduced keeps faith with the original Congressional intent of the Trade Act of 1974. Our dedication to fundamental human rights must be resolute, even when it means one powerful interest group or another does not get its way. Unfortunately, the President's decision to grant this waiver once again undermines the United States' long-standing dedication to human rights and sends a message to the rest of the world that the United States is more interested in profits over principles. Finally, rewarding Communist Vietnam by allowing U.S. tax dollars to subsidize business operations in Hanoi, while at the same time their leaders hold back key POW/MIA records from the war, is a disgrace to the men and women who valiantly served our country and were honored just last week on Memorial Day. This Presidential waiver should be overturned by the Congress, as is our right under the law.