Bob Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the Womens Rural Entrepreneurial Network (WREN) of Bethlehem for receiving the Home Loan Bank of Boston's 1999 Community Development Award. The award recognizes the top project in the state undertaken by a nonprofit community group and a local bank. WREN's hard work has made a real difference in the lives of the women of Northern New Hampshire, and the accomplishments of its members are to be commended. With the assistance of Passumpsic Bank, WREN developed a program to help women in Northern New Hampshire start their own businesses. The program initially offered training in areas such as business plan development, marketing, financial management and computer literacy, but quickly expanded to include other crucial skills such as networking and technology training. As a result of the success of those programs, WREN is currently developing a community center that will house a retail store to sell the products of the program's participants, a community art studio and an expanded meeting and teaching space. The sky is the limit for this program, and its future certainly looks bright. The achievements of the program are remarkable, and they serve as a shining example of what can be accomplished when local banks and community-oriented groups work together. It is truly an honor to serve such a hardworking organization in the United States Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Mayor Raymond J. Wieczorek upon the occasion of his leaving office. Mayor Wieczorek faithfully served the City of Manchester, New Hampshire, and its citizens for the past 10 years. A truly gifted leader, he inspired those who were fortunate enough to work with him, and created a legacy that will triumphantly carry Manchester into the 21st century. Mayor Wieczorek has played an important role in the economic development of the City of Manchester. Through his hard work and diligence, he has been able to develop a positive working relationship with many community leaders and guide them through the process of expansion and development in the city. He has been the driving force behind the Riverwalk project, restoring and bringing businesses to the Historic Mill District and bringing business leaders back to the inner city. He oversaw the expansion of both the Mall of New Hampshire and the Manchester Airport, as well as the preliminary plans for the Manchester Civic Center. Thoroughout his many years as a dedicated public servant, Mayor Wieczorek has cultivated a vast knowledge of information and resources that has constantly been vital in the operation of my New Hampshire offices. An individual who truly knew how to connect with those around him, Mayor Wieczorek's door was always open to the citizens of Manchester. Whether through a word of advice, a birthday greeting or negotiations on an expansion and development project, the Mayor treated each of the individuals who approached him with care and concern, and always remembered them with a smile and a quick anecdote upon a second meeting. I wish Mayor Wieczorek much happiness as he embarks on this new journey in life. His leadership and perseverance will be sorely missed as his decade of public service comes to an end. I want to leave him with a poem by Robert Frost, as I know that he has many more miles to travel and endeavors to conquer. The woods are lovely, dark and deep. But I have promises to keep, And miles to go before I sleep. And miles to go before I sleep. Mayor, it has been a pleasure to represent you in the United States Senate. I wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors. May you always continue to inspire those around you.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Yes.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I appreciate my colleague's remarks and will yield to him at any time. I will respond briefly to my colleague because I think he is correct on the numbers. I think the numbers speak for themselves. I believe there were some 66 nominations brought through during the Bush years. This is not about the number of people. I think it is a fairly reasonable assessment to say if those nominations came through in 1992 or from 1989 through the end of the term in 1993, it is likely they were not very controversial. There was no debate, really. They were pretty much unanimously agreed to. We are talking about two issues: One is the controversial nature of the judges involved; two, the controversial nature of the Ninth Circuit. Both the Ninth Circuit and the judges are in and of themselves controversial. In the case of the one vote the Democrats in 1992 brought forth, although it did win, it was a controversial nomination. I think Judge Paez, with all due respect, and Judge Berzon, are controversial nominations. Clearly, the Ninth Circuit is controversial. I have agreed with the majority leader; if he chooses to accept, I have indicated I am willing to limit the debate on Thursday to about 5 hours total time on our side to discuss these nominations. I am not blocking for the sake of blocking. I am trying to make some points that I hope will result in the rejection of these nominees. I will discuss this Ninth Circuit and the reversals. As I said, from 1994 to 2000, 85 of 99 decisions--86 percent--by the Ninth Circuit were reversed by the Supreme Court. What kind of a record is that? What kind of knowledge of the law does this indicate when the Supreme Court could overturn 86 percent of the cases in the last 6 years and, as I said, 90 percent of the cases overall? To be specific, in 1999 to 2000, 7 of 7--100 percent of the cases set down by this court--were overturned by the Supreme Court. There are four more pending now that are being challenged. I will not go into the details of each case, but U.S. v. Locke, Rice v. Cavetano, Roe v. Flores-Warden, U.S. v. Martinez-Salazar, Smith v. Robbins, Gutierrez v. Ada, Los Angeles Police Department v. United Recording Publication--all of those were overturned, all 7 of 7. From 1998 to 1999, during that year, 13 of 18 of the decisions of this court, 72 percent, were overturned by the Supreme Court--reversed. From 1997 to 1998, 14 of 17 were overturned by the Supreme Court, 82 percent of the cases. From 1996 to 1997, 27 of 28 cases were overturned, 96 percent of the cases overturned. From 1995 to 1996, 10 of 12, 83 percent, were overturned. And on and on and on. I have the documentations of these cases. The bottom line is the Ninth Circuit is notorious for its antilaw enforcement record, its frequent creation of new rights for criminals and defendants, often in the face of clearly established law. These two judges we now are debating, I believe based on their own records and comments and paper trail, are going to be act the same. They will be making the same kinds of decisions. It is an embarrassment to have 90 percent of the cases overturned. In my view, it shows, frankly, an ignorance of the law, or certainly a disrespect for the Constitution in some way to get that many cases overturned by the Supreme Court. The Ninth Circuit, as I said before, is a renegade circuit. It is out of the mainstream of American jurisprudence. It has been reversed by the Supreme Court 90 percent of the time, 84 of 98 cases. That is terrible. It routinely issues activist opinions. While the Supreme Court has been able to correct some of the worst abuses, the record is replete with antidemocratic, antibusiness, procriminal decisions which distort the legitimate concerns and democratic participation of the residents of the Ninth Circuit. To give a couple of examples of the more outrageous decisions: Striking down the NEA decency standard, creating a right to die, blocking abortion parental consent law, and a slew of obstructionist death penalty decisions. The Senate, and particularly Republican Senators from the Ninth Circuit, are on record in favor of a split of the circuit they are so upset with this. In 1997, all Republicans voted against an amendment to strike a provision to split the circuit. That is how outrageous these decisions have been. Even the independent White commission recommended a substantial overhaul of the circuit's procedures; it still has not been implemented. We are adding two liberal, very activist judges to this circuit, without any of the reforms that have been called for by many. The Ninth Circuit covers 38 percent of this country, more than twice as much as any other circuit. It covers 50 million people. President Clinton has already appointed 10 judges to this circuit. Democrat appointees comprise 15 of the 22 slots currently occupied. I say to the American people who may be listening right now, judges impact our lives big time in the decisions they make. Citizens complain about the violence and the criminals getting out. We hear all the stories about somebody serving 5 years for murder and going out and killing somebody else; or somebody stalking, serving a little time, and stalking and killing the woman he stalked before because he didn't spend enough time in jail, over and over again. This is not by accident. These are bad judges making bad decisions that cost Americans their liberties, cost them their lives sometimes. That is wrong. We have an obligation in the Senate to take a good, hard look at a lifetime appointment to the circuit. The members are there forever, even when they get real old. It is pretty hard to get rid of them. This is a lifetime appointment. We have a responsibility to make darn sure these judges are going to represent the views of the majority of the American people in terms of the law. I intend to do that as long as I can stand here to do it. Let me briefly hit two points on the two judges in question and then make a couple of other points and wrap up. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is officially opposed to the nomination of Paez. In Berzon's case, the nomination was described by the National Right to Work Committee as the worst judicial nomination President Clinton has ever made. I am going to go into more detail on Thursday on the Ninth Circuit and its anti-law enforcement record, for its frequent creation of new rights for criminals and defendants, often in the face of clearly established law. For that reason alone, we should look very carefully and very cautiously at whom we put on that court. For instance, in Morales v. California, 1996, the Ninth Circuit struck down the California State law governing when defendants could present claims during habeas corpus appeals which had not been made during the appeals in the State courts. According to the California- based Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, this holding ``opened the door to a flood of claims that would be barred anywhere else in the country.'' In United States v. Watts in 1996, the Supreme Court issued summary reversals in two cases without even hearing arguments after the Ninth Circuit allowed past acquittals to be considered during sentencing. This is just silliness in terms of the obvious intent of the law and the Constitution. I will conclude, I say to my colleagues who may be prepared to speak, on this point. These judges are activist judges who are going to promote an agenda on the Ninth Circuit that has already been rejected 90 percent of the time by the U.S. Supreme Court. Let's not add insult to injury by putting two judges on this court, essentially fulfilling that promise of continuing that bad judicial policy. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I was very much intrigued by the remarks of my colleagues from New York and Vermont a few moments ago, talking about how we should move on in the process and that there does not seem to be much of a history of blocking nominees and that it is not good for the constitutional process. I think the constitutional process is very clear that the Senate has the right and the responsibility, under the Constitution, to advise and consent. That is exactly what I intend to do in my role as a Senator as it pertains to these two nominees before us. Let me summarize where I think we are on the issue of judicial nominees in general. It is no secret that I am opposed to Judge Berzon and Judge Paez, as many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle are, I hope. At least that is what I am told. The issue, though, is whether it is OK to block judicial nominees. We have heard from a couple of my colleagues in the last few moments that it isn't OK to block judicial nominees, as if there was something unconstitutional about it. There is thinking among some that we should not start down this path of blocking a judicial nominee whom we do not think is a good nominee for the court because it may come back to haunt us at some point when and if a Republican should be elected to the Presidency. Let me say, with all due respect to my colleagues, I am not starting down any new path. The tradition of the Senate is one of blocking judicial nominees in the final year of an administration. I am going to be very specific and prove exactly my point that we are not starting down any new path. The path is well worn. We are following a path; we are not starting down any new path. I am going to go back to 1992, since that is the most relevant year for this discussion, the final year of the Bush administration. How did the Senate treat judicial nominees? Facts are sometimes pretty devilish things. They do point out the truth. They are pretty hard to discredit. Let's look at the facts. There was only one controversial judicial nominee considered the entire year in 1992--in fact, only one rollcall vote, period, on judicial nominees. Why is that? That is no big deal. They voted the only one that came up. That is the point. Why didn't they come up? With all due respect to my colleagues from Vermont and New York, it is called blocking the nomination. It is called bottling them up in committee. It is called not bringing them to the floor. Let's be specific. In 1992, we had a nominee by the name of Edward Carnes. He was nominated to the Eleventh Circuit. There were no fewer than three full votes in the Senate on one nominee: A motion to proceed, followed by a filibuster, a 66-30 cloture vote, and finally, on September 9, 1992, approval--a long process for this one judge. But other than that one nominee who was, in fact, filibustered, there was nothing--no action, no debate, no nothing--on the floor of the Senate. All other controversial nominees were filibustered in committee under the Democrat leadership in the Senate. Sure, the Senate approved nominees here or there. I admit that. But if we define ``controversial'' as having at least a rollcall vote, there weren't any. What about the controversial ones? Let's take a look at a few. Let me stick with the appeals court since that is what we are dealing with today with Judges Berzon and Paez. In April of 1990, President George Bush nominated Kenneth J. Ryskamp to the Eleventh Circuit. Mr. Ryskamp was opposed by none other than civil rights activists, and the Judiciary Committee bottled up the nomination of Mr. Ryskamp for an entire year. At the end of the year, they sent the nomination back to President Bush, and Mr. Ryskamp was resubmitted but never made it. Don't come here on the floor and tell me that if I want to block Judge Paez or Judge Berzon, somehow I am going down some new path. I am not going down any new path. I am following the tradition and precedent of this Senate. Those who did that in 1992 had every right to do it under Senate rules and under the Constitution, as I do today and as I intend to do on these nominations. In September of 1991, President Bush nominated Franklin S. Van Antwerpen of Pennsylvania to the Third Circuit. The nomination was blocked in committee for the entire final year of the Bush Presidency. It never saw the light of day. In November of 1991, President Bush nominated Lillian R. BeVier, a conservative from Virginia who had testified for Robert Bork. That was her first mistake. Lord help us, she was a conservative, No. 1, in the Democrat years here. No. 2, she testified on behalf of Robert Bork. She was nominated to the Fourth Circuit. Guess what happened to her. Her nomination languished for a whole year. Finally, the committee deep- sixed her at the end of the Bush Presidency--gone, didn't see the light of day. I guess that was unconstitutional. If it is unconstitutional now, surely it was unconstitutional then. Of course, it is not unconstitutional. You have that right. On the same day, President Bush nominated Terrence W. Boyle to the Fourth Circuit. Again, the chairman put a hold on the nomination for an entire year. It languished in the darkness of Judiciary and never saw the light of day. Here is an article from 1992. It says: ``North Carolina Judge One of 50 Bush Court Nominations that Won't be Approved.'' It talks about the intentional strategy of Chairman Biden to delay and kill Bush nominees because of the likely Clinton victory. That speaks for itself. Here are a few lines from the news service, September 28, 1992: Men and women named by President Bush to 50 vacant judgeships will not be confirmed by the Senate this year, leaving Republicans and Democrats pointing fingers of blame at each other. The nominees who must be approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee include Terrence W. Boyle, 46, a U.S. District Court Judge in Elizabeth City who was proposed for a seat on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Last week, Senator Joe Biden, Democrat of Delaware, who chairs the panel, said no additional hearings on nominations will take place this year. With Congress expected to adjourn for the year next Monday and Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton ahead in the polls, many Republicans fear the nominees will never be approved and charged Biden with intentionally delaying the process. South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond, highest ranking Republican on the panel, said he had asked Biden earlier this year to increase the number of hearings and the number of nominees considered at each hearing. This was not done and we are now out of time, he said. ``It's got partisan written all over it,'' said Andy Wright, political director of the North Carolina Republican Party. Biden, Wright said, is ``taking advantage of an opportunity. He knows what power he has.'' But a Judiciary Committee aide rejected charges that the panel has initially stalled progress on the nominees, saying the committee had approved ``a record number of nominees in a presidential election year when the Senate and White House were controlled by different parties.'' Well, they are controlled by different parties. The thing is reversed. They go on to explain that ``the Senate had approved 59 Bush nominees,'' so forth and so on. The point is, this is not new ground; this is old ground we are walking. In November of 1991, George Bush nominated Frank Keating of Oklahoma to the Tenth Circuit. It was blocked for the entire year. It died 2 years later at the end of the Bush Presidency. Let me read an article from the Philadelphia Tribune entitled ``Shelving of Keating Nomination Pleases Rights Groups.'' The nomination wasn't defeated by the Senate. It was shelved by the committee. A group of liberal organizations opposed him, and the committee buried the nomination. National civil rights groups like the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, National Fair Housing Alliance, Children's Legal Defense Fund, are still smiling as a result of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee's decision not to vote on the nomination of Francis Keating for a judgeship on the Tenth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. This means that Keating's nomination and the fate of 50 other judicial nominees still under consideration by the committee will have to wait until January when the Senate is scheduled to come back into session. It goes on to discuss this nomination--again, a nomination killed in committee by the other party. Controversial, never saw the light of day. New ground? I don't think so. In January of 1992, President George Bush nominated Sidney Fitzwater to the Fifth Circuit. Same old story: Nomination languishes, a whole year goes by and the nomination dies. Here is a story from the Texas Lawyer entitled ``Judiciary Panel Kills Texans' Nominations.'' This is American Lawyer Newspapers Group, October 1992: Surprised? Hardly. ``It's an every four-year occurrence,'' said U.S. District Judge Lucius D. Bunton, III of Midland, Texas, chief of Texas' Western District. As spring turns to summer in presidential election years, the party out of power at the White House traditionally throws up roadblocks to slow a process that in normal times confirms most candidates automatically. In addition to the expected slowdown, those close to the process from both parties say Governor Bill Clinton's lead in the polls has prompted Democrats to delay judicial confirmations in hopes of preserving the vacancies of the presidential candidate. Again, they have the right to do that. They did do it, and they did it effectively. So when we come out here to do it now because of two very liberal activist judges, why should we be criticized for exercising our rights under the process? If you disagree with us on the basis of why we are objecting, fine. But don't pontificate on the floor of the Senate and tell me that somehow I am violating the Constitution of the United States of America by blocking a judge or filibustering a judge that I don't think deserves to be on the circuit court because I am going to continue to do it at every opportunity I believe a judge should not be on that court. That is my responsibility. That is my advise and consent role, and I intend to exercise it. I don't appreciate being told that somehow I am violating the Constitution of the United States. I swore to uphold that Constitution, and I am doing it now by standing up and saying what I am saying. The same day in 1992, Bush nominated John G. Roberts of Maryland to the D.C. circuit. That was filed in the same old black hole with the rest of them. Congress adjourned; the nomination was blocked, end of story. Another nomination in January of 1992 was blocked in committee and killed at the end of the Presidency. Justin Wilson, nominated in May of 1992, was killed by committee. Here is an article, September of 1992: ``Outlook grim for Wilson nomination,'' from the Gannett News Service. Byline by Lacrisha Butler, this article says: Nashville lawyer Justin Wilson's nomination to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court, which has been pending in the Senate committee for 6 months, is among more than 100 Federal judge nominations still awaiting action before Congress adjourns in early October. And it appears unlikely that Wilson's nomination will see action before the session ends, because of snags in his background check and what is being called an attempt by Democrats to hold up nominations in anticipation of a change in administration. Again, this is not new ground. This is a role the Senate has played for years, decades. It is an appropriate role if we believe a nomination, or the other side believes a nomination might be too far to the left or right--depending on which side you are. Mr. President, this is just one year of the Presidency I am talking about. I have only dealt with 1992 when circuit court nominees were blocked in committee. I could have gone back further into the Bush Presidency. I could have gone back into other Presidencies. I didn't do that, but these are filibusters. When you don't allow a nomination to get to the Senate floor--it may not be under the technical term ``filibuster,'' but when you block it, that is a filibuster. You are not getting it here and you can't talk about it if it isn't up here. If it is languishing in committee, then we are not going to be able to debate it, approve it, or reject it. No matter how you shake it, they were filibusters led by committee chairmen rather than the majority leader on the floor. If you want precedent for floor filibusters--I have heard it said there is no history of filibusters on the Senate floor. OK, they have been in committee; we stopped them in committee. All right. Well, let me read this: On July 2, 1999, Senate Judiciary Committee ranking member Patrick Leahy issued a statement claiming, ``I cannot recall a judicial nomination being filibustered ever.'' OK. Mr. President, I have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 volumes of the Congressional Record, Senate proceedings, and not every word is of the filibuster, but in each volume is a filibuster of 4 judicial nominations, both political parties, since 1968--4 out of 13. So out of 13 judges who have been filibustered on the floor of this Senate since 1968, these volumes here, 8 volumes, represents only 4 of the 13. Yet the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee says he can't ever recall a filibuster being offered. As a challenge to my friend from Vermont, if he comes down and says it again, I am going to read every word of these filibusters on the floor of the Senate and filibuster these nominations by doing it. If he doesn't come down or retract that statement, I won't. If he comes down and says he can't ever remember a filibuster taking place on the floor of this Senate, I am going to read every word of just these four. If he continues to aggravate me, I might read all 13 of them, if I can dig out the information. Let's get real and understand what is happening. The names are Abe Fortas in 1968; William Rehnquist, who sat in that chair and was praised by all during the impeachment trial, was filibustered by Senator Birch Bayh. There are volumes and volumes, hundreds of pages here of that filibuster. I am prepared to read every word of it if he wants to say there have been no filibusters. Stephen Breyer was filibustered; J. Harvie Wilkinson, Sidney Fitzwater, Daniel Manion in 1985, Edward Carnes, Rosemary Barkett, H. Lee Sarokin--there are 13 of them. So don't tell me we haven't filibustered judges and that we don't have the right to filibuster judges on the floor of the Senate. Of course we do. That is our constitutional role. Some like it. And I have been on the other side. Listen, I wasn't in the Senate when it disapproved Robert Bork, but we lost one heck of a good judge. Clarence Thomas wasn't filibustered, but he sure was debated. I didn't like that either. But it is our right as Senators to do that. So don't criticize our right to do these things and don't say things didn't happen that did happen. Now, let me move to the question at hand, which is the Ninth Circuit, where we have the nominations of Judges Paez and Berzon for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. We need to understand this circuit is a very controversial circuit. Not only is it a controversial circuit, it is a renegade circuit. It basically is out of the mainstream of American jurisprudence. It is interesting that this circuit has been reversed by the Supreme Court--get this--in nearly 90 percent of the cases decided in the past 6 years. Let that sink in for a moment. Ninety percent of the decisions made by the circuit court in this Ninth Circuit have been reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court, the next highest court. What does that tell you about the judges on that court?

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, let me say to my colleague that I don't disagree with what he just said as far as the numbers are concerned. I point out that I am really referring here to controversial nominees. When a nominee has some controversy about him or her, if it gets to the floor, there are normally quite a few discussions; i.e., a filibuster. There were no votes. There was only one vote in the year 1992 on a controversial judge. That was filibustered. It eventually passed the nomination under the Bush Presidency. But it was filibustered and substantially debated. That is the point I was making. Most of the nominees I listed and referred to languished for a whole year in the committee. I am not criticizing the Senator and his party for what they did then. They have a right to do that. I might not agree because I perhaps would have supported the judges. But I think you have the right to do it. I think we have a responsibility to the President of the United States duly elected by the American people. I think in our advice and consent role, we have an obligation to confirm some of those judges, especially those who are not controversial. But I think on those controversial judges, we should have the right to be able to air the concerns. I don't want to speak at great length on this because I know one of my colleagues--perhaps Senator Sessions--wishes to do that. But in the case of Paez, for example, I don't know that the American people are aware he has been involved in two decisions pertaining directly to the Clinton scandals. Why don't you get both of those decisions, the Marya Hsia case, for one, and the John Huang case? In both of those cases, the sentencing was lenient--perhaps as lenient as it could be. I think those questions ought to be answered. I think we should know the answers to those questions about what happened before we put this person on the circuit court. I tend to agree that to simply hold somebody up forever and never let them know how it is going to be resolved is very unfortunate for the individual. I tend to agree. But these are serious questions. When I say ``filibuster,'' I use the term in the sense of right now because the rule is pretty fairly restrictive. We have 48 hours after the motion is filed for cloture and, at the most, 30 hours after that. So we are not talking forever. But we are talking about just venting and airing concerns. That is what I am doing with both the Ninth Circuit as well as two individuals to which I will speak more directly in detail on Thursday. It is not pleasant to stand here and criticize and air concerns you have about people who are wanting to move up to another level on the court. But I think we have an obligation to air our concerns. Certainly, concerns are aired about us when we run for our respective offices. I think it is fair that as to judges who are appointed forever, who will be making decisions long after we are out of here, probably when our children are coming into voting age, or our grandchildren, whatever the case may be--these judges may still be here long after the President leaves--we have a responsibility to look very carefully at them. If they are active as judges and are making decisions that are being overturned almost 90 percent of the time in the case of the current court--I am not saying that would necessarily be the case of the two nominees, but the court itself has a very undistinguished record, in my view.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak as in morning business for no more than 10 minutes.

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. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire pertaining to the introduction of S. Con. Res. 87 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess until 2 p.m. today.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise for the purpose of submitting a Senate concurrent resolution objecting to any efforts to expel or degrade the Holy See's current status as a nonmember permanent observer to the United Nations. It is hard to believe there are people in the world--indeed, in our own country--who wish to take away that status. Throughout my tenure in the Senate and the House, I have worked to uphold the sovereignty of the United States, perhaps as much as anyone in the body. Recently, it has come to my attention that the sovereignty of the Holy See, the institution that represents the State of the Vatican City internationally, is being attacked by up to 400 nongovernmental organizations in a movement called ``See Change.'' That is S-e-e. See Change is comprised of extremist groups, pro-choice groups, some extreme environmental organizations, and antireligious, atheist groups who want to take away this permanent status of the Holy See. Specifically, the agenda of See Change is to pressure U.N. Secretary General Annan into revoking the Holy See's nonmember Permanent Observer status by attacking its status as the legal and diplomatic body that represents the sovereign country of the State of the Vatican City. What an outrage. See Change believes it can use the smokescreen of the Holy See's unique sovereignty to silence its undisputed legal rights as a sovereign entity to voice its views on the sanctity of human life at the U.N. That is what this is about. It is about an attack on the sanctity of human life. It is an attack on the Pope for his views on the sanctity of human life. Since the U.N. rules by the consensus of all members, See Change is attempting to pressure and intimidate the Holy See, the Secretary General, and other member countries of the U.N. to silence any opposition to what really is a pro-abortion agenda. Currently, the Holy See is recognized by almost every nation in the world. Furthermore, the Holy See has sent and received diplomats since the 4th century and has possessed a permanent diplomatic mission since the 15th century. As I stated before, a central argument that these nongovernmental organizations use is the issue of the Holy See's legally recognized authority to represent the citizens of Vatican City and the worldwide Catholic Church. According to international law, sovereignty in its simplest form can be defined by a people, territorial entity, and a government with institutions that are recognized by the international community of nations. Without any doubt--since the 4th century--the Holy See acts as the legal and internationally recognized body that represents the people of Vatican City and Catholics around the world. The Holy See meets all those criteria. The Vatican State has a population of approximately 900 citizens, has a defined territory, and has institutions of government. The sovereignty issue was irrefutably settled in 1929, when the Holy See and Italy signed and ratified the Lateran Treaty, which brought the Vatican City State into existence. Article 12 of this treaty states: Diplomatic relations with the Holy See are governed by the rules of International Law. All states have equal standing under international law. I believe the Senate needs to send a strong, positive message to reaffirm the concept of state sovereignty. If we cannot do that in this body, then I do not know what we can do. I would like to remind Secretary General Kofi Annan about his duty to uphold the principle the United Nations considers most important in its charter--the legal equality of nations, which is Article 2(1). Furthermore, this legal principle says all states are not similar in their characteristics. For example, China contains about one-quarter of the human race while the State of the Vatican City contains a little fewer than 1,000 citizens. Moreover, this Nation, the United States, is exponentially larger in physical size and political stature than, say, Bangladesh; however, both nations have equal status under international law. Frances Kissling, president of Catholics for a Free Choice, said the Holy See sitting at the U.N. was like ``Euro-Disney sitting on the Security Council.'' Can you imagine? Surely, any person, American or not, would recoil at the irreverence of this statement and the ignorance, frankly, of the invaluable work the Holy See has undertaken to foster peace between fellow nations. Highly respected U.N. leaders, such as Dag Hammarskjold, have, in fact, recognized the unique sovereign status of the State of the Vatican City and insisted on the presence of the Holy See at the U.N. In addition, U.N. Secretary General U Thant attempted to establish an increased stability of relations between the Holy See and the U.N. Catholics for a Free Choice--I use that term loosely--a leading organization in the movement to remove the Holy See from the U.N., has set forth the following statement in their own web site: What place does a religious body--claiming to possess the universal ``objective truth'' and speak infallibly on moral matters--have in an intergovernmental institution like the United Nations? I would like to point out that above the doors of the U.S. House Chamber are the reliefs of great lawmakers who had a profound impact on the moral and legal origins of this Nation. The most important lawmaker is Moses; his relief is placed higher, in the center of the Chamber, facing the Chair. Why didn't anyone question the sovereignty of the Soviet Union and its Politburo, with the Communist ideology that it espoused, and the manner in which it imposed its will upon the satellite states of Eastern Europe under its control? I did not hear any criticism of them. Should theocracies, such as Iran or even Israel, be threatened in the same manner if some extremist organization, opposed to their religious and social views, came forth? The elected head of the Catholic Church, Pope John Paul II, has recently made trips to Cuba and Angola, where he was received by multitudes, millions of people, supporting his message of peace, the rule of law, and freedom represented by the Catholic Church and, indeed, by many other citizens, as well. I am proud to say, in submitting this resolution, that as original cosponsors I have Senators Coverdell, Santorum, Landrieu, Helms, Ashcroft, Inhofe, McCain, Stevens, and Brownback. A bipartisan group has become original cosponsors. I urge my colleagues, in the name of what is right, to join with us in sponsoring this legislation.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of a gentleman who is known to many of us here in the Senate and in the House of Representatives, Mr. Jim Flanagan, who is now retiring after more than 35 years of representing electric utility interests here in Washington. A graduate of St. Michael's College in Vermont, and an Army veteran who served as a guided missile instructor, Jim Flanagan worked for many years as the Washington Representative of New England Electric System, and later for Yankee Atomic Electric Company. It is in that capacity that many of us came to know Jim as a wise counselor on the intricacies of electricity and tax legislation. Jim always had a firm grasp on the issues, he often had an innovative approach to solving a problem, and he was unfailingly respectful of the political process and the difficult decisions that elected representatives face when supporting or opposing legislation. I came to know Jim personally under just such circumstances. He was an advocate for licensing the Seabrook nuclear plant in my state of New Hampshire, arguably the most controversial construction project ever undertaken in this country. Throughout good times and bad, through the many legislative attempts to derail the project, Jim Flanagan stood his ground, he argued with facts not rhetoric, and he represented his company's interests with integrity and passion. We eventually licensed that plant, something I am personally proud of, and today Seabrook is one of the safest, best-performing nuclear plants in the world. Without the efforts of Jim Flanagan, that would not have happened. Jim had another, equally important, side to him. Beyond the issues of the day, Jim Flanagan was a loyal friend, a gentleman who looked out for others and who would take that extra step to do someone a favor. He was a believer in young people, and took it upon himself to be a mentor to many here in Washington, including members of my staff. Many of us who know Jim know that he has a bad knee, but few of us realize that he got that bad knee teaching Little Leaguers how to slide into second base more than 40 years ago. From his hometown of Waltham, Massachusetts, to here in the Nation's Capital, Jim Flanagan cared about people. In an industry that has gone through several sea changes, and in a town where people and ideas come and go, Jim Flanagan was a constant-- you could always count on him. Jim will be sorely missed--some say the Edison Electric Institute will not survive without him--but he will certainly not be forgotten. Jim's wife Beth, and his two grown children Billy and Lisa, should be very proud of him.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Wyoming for yielding me the time, and I thank him for his leadership in defense of the second amendment, as well as my colleague from the State of Idaho, who has been a long-time advocate of the second amendment. I regret I have to stand up here again with my colleagues and defend the second amendment because we should not have to do that. I am honored to do it, but it is one of our amendments. It is No. 2 in the Constitution. I find myself wondering why so many of our colleagues come here over and over again to try to take second amendment rights away. The right to keep and bear arms is one of the most fundamental rights we possess. You can't pick and choose which amendment you support in the Constitution, nor should you pick and choose what paragraph you support in the Constitution. If it is in the Constitution, we ought to abide by it and honor it. The framers knew it, and that is why they placed the second amendment right up there at No. 2 in the Bill of Rights. They did not want the Federal Government to interfere with this basic right. It was part of the Bill of Rights for the people, and it was No. 2. I get a kick out of listening to so many of our colleagues on the other side of the issue who, in their eloquence, can knock the second amendment down. It is interesting, though, when we hear from the folks who were actually on the scene when the second amendment was written, folks such as Samuel Adams, who said: Among the natural rights of the colonists are these--first, the right to life; secondly to liberty; thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can. Basically talking about the right to bear arms. John Adams: Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense. These are the founders. Patrick Henry: Guard with jealous attention the public liberty . . . The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun. Thomas Jefferson: The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. This is important business we are talking about. This was a basic right. Noah Webster: Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The Supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust by the sword because the whole of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops. Richard Henry Lee: To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms. With all due respect to my colleagues who speak on this issue in opposition to the second amendment, I don't think they are as eloquent or as knowledgeable, and I know they weren't there. These guys knew what they were talking about because they wrote it. So let's not talk about revisiting the Constitution and being politically correct and changing things we can't change. These are the giants in history, the people who were there on the scene. Yet, in the past year or so on this floor, I and many of my colleagues hear over and over again: gun control, gun control, gun control. Some of it is enacted, which infringes on the second amendment of millions of law-abiding Americans. You cannot trample on the Constitution of the United States and stand up there and take that oath and say you are going to defend it. It is simply inconsistent. Despite what history and the second amendment tell us, some keep trying to come up with new and inventive ways to subvert that Constitution. I don't hear any of these people coming down and saying we are going to eliminate the first amendment, but I do hear them saying we ought to eliminate the second amendment. The gun control provisions in the juvenile justice bill that were spurred on by the tragedy at Columbine used that tragedy, frankly. There were already 20,000 existing gun laws when that happened, but the killings were not stopped. Do we think more gun laws are going to stop something such as that from happening? There was a recent amendment to stop gun manufacturers from declaring bankruptcy. Down the line they come, time after time again, singling out one legal product for discrimination: guns. No other lawful industry is treated so unfairly. Fortunately, my colleagues voted overwhelmingly to reject that amendment. The Clinton administration said it will file a Federal lawsuit against gun manufacturers. Here is an article from the Washington Post--it is interesting coming from the Washington Post--reporting how two State courts dismissed lawsuits against gun manufacturers. I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. They are basically saying they are going to throw these suits out. That is the gist of it. They are not constitutional. The courts recognize that. The judges said they were completely lacking any legal basis. Now the President wants to license and register all guns, like automobiles, as my colleague from Idaho referred to. The last time I checked, there wasn't a constitutional right to drive. Does anybody know about that? I don't think they knew what a car was when the Constitution was written. There is no comparison between the two issues. I never heard anything from the Founding Fathers about the right to wagons or horses during that time. I never heard Patrick Henry say: Give me mobility or give me death. He said: Give me liberty or give me death. That is because driving a car is a privilege, not a right. It is a privilege. Gun owners would love to have guns treated as cars, with no background checks, no waiting periods, no age limit; it might be a good thing. Tyranny isn't always obvious. It isn't always about killing and communism and all that. Tyranny can be much more subtle, piecemeal, gradual--like violating our oath of office and voting against our constitutional rights. It happens all the time in this place. History will judge us for it; it will judge us on the basis of how many times we stood here after having taken the oath of office and then having ignored that oath. The second amendment guarantees that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If you are for gun control--and you have a right to be--then you are against the Constitution of the United States. Change the amendment if you think you can do it. But don't keep passing gun control legislation time after time after time. That is what we are doing in these proposals and laws. We are doing it quietly, without violence, and with an air of respectability, which is what troubles me--as if it is right to do it here because it is on the floor of the Senate. We are violating the constitutional rights of millions of law-abiding American citizens across the country, and any way you slice it that is still tyranny. That is why I am proud to stand here, as I have done many times--and I will do it every day, if I have to, until the last day I am in the Senate--in defense of the second amendment. I am pleased and proud to support the second amendment. At this point, I yield the floor.

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, I would like to speak briefly about two amendments that are before the Senate--the Schumer amendment on abortion and the Levin amendment dealing with the so-called gun carve-out. When I took my oath of office on the floor of the Senate, I swore to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. I am amazed sometimes at the type of things we face in the Senate with amendments and bills that I find to be unconstitutional, at least the way I read it. These two amendments I am referring to essentially harass Americans who are defending three of our most important constitutional rights-- the right to life, which is guaranteed by the 5th and the 14th amendments, the right to free political speech, as guaranteed by the 1st amendment, and the right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment. It is interesting, as one listens to the debate on these respective amendments, some take the position that it is OK to support the 2nd but not the 1st; it is OK to support the 1st but not the 2nd; some say it is OK to support the 1st and the 2nd but not the 5th and the 14th. But they are all part of the Constitution. Unless you are going to remove an amendment, as we did once with the 21st amendment repealing the 18th, then I do not think we have the right to stand here and say one thing is constitutional and something else is not. The Schumer amendment tries to exempt abortion protesters from claiming bankruptcy. This is an amendment that unfairly targets a legitimate form of civil disobedience. I believe there are some acts for which people should not be allowed to file for bankruptcy--such willful acts that might lead to a personal injury or the destruction of property. That is not what we are talking about here. I believe most student loans, taxes, child support, and alimony payments also should not be dischargeable. This amendment adding abortion protesters to the nondischargeable list under bankruptcy laws--let's call it what it is. It is nothing more than another attempt to financially bankrupt and silence free speech of those who peacefully--peacefully--want to speak out against something they believe in so strongly or oppose so strongly, and that is abortion, those who want to defend the constitutionally guaranteed right to life. On a talk show yesterday, this issue came up, this supposedly Roe v. Wade rule that abortion is legal under the Constitution. If someone can find the word ``abortion'' in the Constitution, where it says abortion is legal, I will be happy to change my position. If somebody will come down to the floor and point out to me where the word ``abortion'' and the right to an abortion appears in the Constitution--of course, it does not, and if it is not in there, then any power not specifically outlined in the Constitution belong to the States and the people. There is no right to an abortion under the Constitution. Roe v. Wade was a bad decision; it is an unconstitutional decision. Judges are fallible, they make mistakes, and they made a mistake when they passed that awful decision which has taken the lives of 40 million children-- 40 million children since Roe v. Wade passed in 1973, 40 million children who will never have the opportunity to live their dreams, never have the opportunity to be a Senator, to be a President, to be a doctor, to be a mom, a dad. Gone. We took them away, almost one-sixth of the entire U.S. population, under that decision, and it is an unconstitutional decision because a young child inside the womb or outside has a constitutional right to life. Let's talk about what this amendment does. Antiabortion protests, no matter how you feel about abortion, is political speech, I say to my colleagues. This is political speech. They have a right to speak. I am not talking about protesters who commit violent acts or commit bodily harm to others. I am not in favor of that, nor should we tolerate that. I am talking about people standing outside a clinic holding a sign, praying, protesting peacefully. That is what this amendment is going after. People who do that are now going to be subjected to this provision on bankruptcy, an unfair provision. It is political speech for somebody to peacefully protest abortion just as much as it is political speech for union organizers or urging other workers not to cross a picket line. What is the difference? Why don't we single them out? But we are not. My colleague Senator Schumer singles out one type of protest, a protest on an issue with which he disagrees. It is not constitutional, and it is not fair. It is political speech just as much as when the NAACP enforced its boycott of southern businesses. The Supreme Court in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware said so. We already have enough laws on the books harassing abortion protesters, including the Freedom to Access Clinic Entrances, so-called FACE, and the Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, known as RICO. The financial penalties under these laws are harsh, unusually harsh for one specific type of protest or protester--a peaceful protester. This amendment proposes to give these protesters absolutely no way to deal with the treble damages against them under RICO. A recent RICO case against protesters who carried posters of aborted children resulted in $109 million against the pro-lifers; $109 million for peacefully protesting without harming anyone's person or property. It is outrageous. That ought to be enough to chill anyone's free speech. What is next? Free speech under the Constitution is protected. Another one of the RICO cases currently pending involves a Catholic bishop and religious brother praying the rosary in their car in the driveway of an abortion clinic peacefully. A pro-life gentleman in another case was standing on a walkway near an unused locked door of a clinic and was not blocking access to that clinic. How much are they going to have to pay for standing up for what they believe in, such as the marchers did during the civil rights movement when they sat at the lunch counters and marched in the streets? $200 million? $1 billion? Where is it going to stop? Can you imagine RICO, which was originally drafted to fight mobsters and organized crime, now being used against civil rights demonstrators or antiwar protesters, or abolitionists protesting slavery? What will we say then? We know what we would say. We would say it is wrong, and it is wrong to protest those who respectfully, quietly, peacefully protest what they believe in, which is the right to life. It is a violation of the first amendment. This is a patently unfair discriminatory amendment, and it does not deserve even the dignity of being offered because it is so flagrantly unconstitutional. I urge my colleagues, when the vote comes tomorrow, to vote no on the Schumer amendment. Get it off the floor of the Senate because it does not belong here. We should not be talking about unconstitutional bills on the floor of the Senate. Another amendment which will be offered tomorrow is called the gun carve-out amendment, again, a discriminatory amendment against one group. The Levin amendment proposes to exempt gun manufacturers from bankruptcy laws. In other words, if you are a gun manufacturer, you cannot claim bankruptcy, you cannot be treated like everybody else. Why? Because the author of the amendment doesn't like gun manufacturers. I guess he believes they shouldn't be allowed to manufacture guns. Under current law, businesses and corporations can discharge their debts through bankruptcy unless the debt is incurred through negligence or intentional misconduct. I agree businesses should be held accountable if they are so irresponsible or malicious to knowingly sell harmful products, but are we really at the point in America when we are going to say if we produce a gun, manufacture a gun, legitimately, as a manufacturer, and then if somebody gets ahold of that gun and commits a crime, that now the manufacturer is responsible? Is this where we have come in our society now, no personal accountability, no personal responsibility? Why don't we do it with automobiles? Why not? You drive your 1999 Chevy down the road, you hit somebody and kill them, it must be the automobile manufacturer's fault, not you. You are behind the wheel. You can't have any accountability or responsibility. Name another product-- a hamburger. There are people who say meat is bad for you. Maybe we should hold all of the cattle growers responsible for producing hamburger. Maybe we should hold the people who work in the meat packing plants accountable. Where is the individual personal responsibility and accountability? This is a discriminatory piece of legislation. Again, I regret it is here. The gun industry is selling a legitimate and lawful product. If it is banned, at least that is an honest amendment. I wouldn't agree with it, but at least it would be more honest than it is to say what we are saying, that we are going to exempt you from bankruptcy laws. It is, in fact, a product that is constitutionally protected and specifically mentioned in the second amendment. Everybody knows what it says. There is no secret. It is No. 2 on the amendment list, the Bill of Rights. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, period. No qualifiers in there. It doesn't say what kind of gun; doesn't say how many guns; doesn't say manufacturer, no exceptions. It just simply says the right of the people--we are people--to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That is all it says. And if you have that right under the Constitution to have that weapon to protect yourself, as many do, then you ought to have the right to manufacture it. This amendment encourages litigation against gun manufacturers and should be called the legislation through litigation amendment. This amendment will have the effect, as follows: If someone sues a gun manufacturer, the manufacturer's bankruptcy will not stop the lawsuit. Outrageous. Gunmakers are already being forced out of business by frivolous, illegitimate, and unconstitutional government-sponsored lawsuits against them. How much more do they have to take? This is a constitutional amendment that specifically says you have the right to keep and bear arms and that right would not be infringed. There is no gray area. It is not as if there is something we have to interpret. There is nothing to interpret. It is right there. When the founders put the ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, onto the Constitution, they made it No. 2. This amendment singles out a legal industry for unfavorable treatment in bankruptcy proceedings. If successful, it is only going to hasten the demise of the gun industry. That is the purpose of it. That is what is behind this. It is the Bill Clinton agenda. It is being carried out in the Senate. Shut down gun shows. Shut down gun manufacturers. Stop the production of guns in America. Blame the gun manufacturers. Blame everybody except the person behind the gun who commits the crime. For goodness' sake, we wouldn't want to punish that person. Somebody else has to bear the blame. Maybe he had a bad childhood. It must be his father's fault, his mother's fault, the gun manufacturer's fault, the gun seller's fault--everybody but the fault of the person who uses the weapon. This is what we have come to in America. It is not going to stop here. If legislation such as this slips through, it will be a whole lot of things--hamburger, cars, cigarettes. How about a desk, a chair? You could hurt somebody with that chair if you hit them with it. Well, maybe we ought to sue the manufacturer of the chair. That is what it is coming to. That is how ridiculous it is. Right here in the Senate, we allow it to happen. We debate it day after day trying to stop this stuff as it comes at us in waves, unconstitutional laws. Somebody has to stand up--and some of us do--to stop it because it is outrageous. Gun controllers cannot win legislatively so they litigate. That is the way to do it. They can't get the American people on their side so they get a few unelected judges on their side. There are many industries that can be considered dangerous, as I said: Carmakers, alcohol, tobacco, fast food, whatever--legal businesses. Are they being singled out in this bankruptcy bill? No, not this one, but maybe next year or next week. Who knows? Just wait. It is going to happen sooner or later. These government-sponsored lawsuits against gun manufacturers and tobacco companies are just the beginning because we have now opened the Pandora's box. We have said defendants should be held liable for damage caused by others even if the damage was totally beyond the defendant's control. It goes against common sense, and that is what has served our Nation so well, common sense and individual responsibility. That is what America is about. It is not about this kind of nonsensical legislation that puts the blame and the burden on people who shouldn't have the blame and the burden. I had a shotgun next to my bed as a young man, probably 7 or 8 years old. I used it. I shot it frequently. I didn't shoot at anybody. I didn't take it to school and kill anybody, nor did any of my friends who also had shotguns. Why is that? Why is it that suddenly now all this is a big issue? Because we are trying to pass the burden of responsibility on to somebody else other than ourselves. We have a cultural problem in this country of the highest magnitude. It isn't about exempting the gun industry from bankruptcy laws. That is not going to get it right. Believe me, what is going to get it right is when we start exercising responsibility in this country again. The Founding Fathers would turn over in their graves if they could hear this stuff. I can't imagine what Daniel Webster, who wasn't a founder, but he was sitting at the desk that I sit at right over there about 150 years ago, I can't imagine what he would think to be on this floor and debating, blaming the gun manufacturer for somebody else's crime, exempting them from bankruptcy laws. I can't imagine what he would think or Washington or Jefferson or Adams or Madison or Hamilton or any of the great founders who wrote that Constitution, what they would think. In many ways, I am glad they are not here to see it. In October of 1999, an Ohio court dismissed a suit against the gun industry stating that the suit ``is an improper attempt to have this court substitute its judgment for that of the legislature, something which this court is neither inclined nor empowered to do.'' That was the City of Cincinnati versus Beretta USA Corporation. In addition, court decisions in Connecticut and Florida this past December ruled that State lawsuits against gun manufacturers have no legal basis whatsoever. Yet here we are on the floor of the Senate trying to do it. The judges in those cases saw that the actions of criminals cannot be controlled by any industry. They were right. So why are we here? Because people are trying to make something happen that they know the American people don't support. So we try to do it this way. I am heartened by recent polls which show that an overwhelming majority of Americans believe that gun manufacturers should not be blamed for crimes committed with guns. Even if you think there are too many guns, even if you believe that, you better think very carefully before you vote on this as to what might be next. Should we be responsible for the actions of our adult children if they commit a crime? Where is it going to stop? If there is even one single successful judgment against the gun industry, those who seek to destroy it, and along with it the second amendment, will have a ready means to do so. That is what will happen. So we have two amendments that propose to violate the constitutional rights of the American people, two politically motivated proposals that target politically incorrect targets for unfair treatment; dump on them while they are down. Let me again remind my colleagues of the oath we all took right there at the desk to defend and support the Constitution and abide by American standards of fairness and democracy that have served our Nation so well. Vote no on these two amendments. No matter how you feel about the two issues in question, vote no on these two amendments.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, on the case of Elian Gonzalez, the young Cuban boy who is now in Miami, I support Senator Mack's private relief bill to give Elian Gonzalez U.S. citizenship. This is something I believe should be done. It is not necessarily going to stop him from being sent back to Cuba, but it is the right thing to do. I met Elian Gonzalez personally and the great uncle in Little Havana in Miami on January 8. I took the time to go meet Elian. I wanted to talk with him myself. I wanted to look him in the eye and find out how he felt about the ordeal he went through. Unfortunately, the Attorney General didn't take the time to do that. Elian wasn't important enough for the Attorney General or any of the Attorney General's representatives to meet with him. On January 6, Attorney General Reno said: If there is any information that we are not privy to--I never say I won't reverse myself. I try to be as open minded as I can. But based on all the information we have to date, I see no basis for reversing it. ``It'' being the decision to send Elian back to Cuba. On January 8, after meeting with Elian Gonzalez, I wrote Attorney General Reno to request a meeting to discuss new information I obtained regarding Elian Gonzalez. In that meeting on January 8, at the request of the Gonzalez family, I sat with Lazaro Gonzalez, Elian's great-uncle, in a relaxed, informal, nonstressful setting. I spent 2 hours speaking with Elian and members of his family there at the home. Based on those discussions, I have concluded that there are four areas that are critical to this case I would like to briefly share with my colleagues before this vote. One, and most important, Elian does not want to go back to Cuba. He does not want to go back to Cuba. You might say he is 6 years old and he doesn't know what he wants. If his mother had lived, we would not be talking about this case. He would have his right to be here. She died. She can't speak for him. But he spoke. He made it very clear to me. On several occasions, I looked Elian right in the eye and asked him directly, ``Do you want to go back to Cuba?'' He repeatedly and emotionally said, ``No, no, no.'' In Spanish, he said, ``Ayudame, por favor,'' meaning: Help me, please; I don't want to go back to Cuba. The second point is very important. Ms. Reno was not interested in hearing it because she never responded to my request. She totally ignored a U.S. Senator's request for a phone conversation, even though I know for a fact she didn't have the information I had to share with her. Elian's father was aware of his son's planned departure from Cuba. Listen carefully to what I am saying. Elian's father is being held in Cuba today against his will. They are not reporting that frequently, but he is. He was aware of his son's departure. Elian's paternal grandfather, who lives in the same household with Elian's father, notified relatives in America that Elian and his mother departed Cuba and to be on the lookout for them. Third, there is reason to believe that Elian's father intended to defect at a later date with his current wife and child. I was told by Elian's great-uncle that two cousins of Elian's father, now in America, were told directly by Elian's father 5 or 6 months ago that he intended to leave Cuba with his new wife and child. Fourth, there is reason to believe that intimidation tactics are being used by the Castro government on Elian's father, Juan Gonzalez. Reports from family members say Juan has been removed from his home and is not speaking of his own free will and may even be under psychiatric care. Let me just say that this is a close-knit family. I am not a family member or a personal friend of the family, but I took the time to sit down and talk with them. I didn't talk with the grandmothers. But the grandmothers, Juan Gonzalez, the uncle, and family members are a family. People say, ``Why are you politicians getting into this?'' Because the mistake was made by this administration by not insisting that the family come here from Cuba and sit down and talk about this as a family. They can't do it because Fidel Castro won't let Juan Gonzalez out. They won't let him out. Even the appointed nun, the go-between, arbitrator, the impartial person who was sent to set up the meeting between the grandmothers and Elian--she is a friend of Janet Reno's-- she said the same thing: They are under pressure and Elian should not go back. So the integrity of American immigration policy rests on due process and fairness. I was shocked to learn that INS Commissioner Doris Meissner never requested a meeting with Elian and never heard his voice. Now, maybe some of you sitting out there who are going to vote on this and maybe some of my friends out in America across the land can be callous enough to say you don't care what that little boy thinks, he is 6 years old, what does he know. Let me tell you what he knows and what he has experienced. He sat in an inner tube. You know what that is; it is a small tube that is big enough to fit inside of a tire of an automobile. That is an inner tube. He floated around in that inner tube for 2 and a half days in the open sea--sometimes 30-foot seas--and bounced around out there, and he survived. He was picked up by a fisherman. He lived, but he watched his mother die. The last words his mother said to the two other survivors were, ``Get Elian to America.'' That is what he went through. As an adult, how would you like to go through that--to sit on a tube in 30- or 40-foot seas for 2 and a half days, floating from the north of Cuba to Fort Lauderdale, FL, and go through that when your mother tried to get you here for freedom, and you would send him back without so much as even giving him the opportunity to talk. If we do that, then what has this country come to? The fisherman who picked him up out of the water gave an emotional comment about it. He said, ``I am an American. I was born here. I plucked this kid out of the ocean. If you send him back, you are doing the wrong thing and I don't know what happened to my country.'' The equivalent would be, during the Cold War a mother with a child in her arms races to the Berlin Wall, shots are fired, and she tosses her child over the Berlin Wall to freedom. Would we send him back? Apparently so, under this administration. This isn't about father and son separation; this is about bringing the father and the grandparents and the rest of them here to America where they can decide without the pressure of Fidel Castro. Let's find out what they can say and do without Fidel Castro there. Had Elian's mother lived, right now Elian would be enjoying due process under the Cuban Adjustment Act. Elian Gonzalez, my colleagues, is being punished because his mother died. I don't want to punish Elian Gonzalez for his mother's death. I can't believe any of my colleagues would want to do it either. This case is about one thing: the best interest of a little boy who sought freedom from Communist Cuba with his family. Sending Elian back to Cuba without due process and allowing Castro to exploit this brave, courageous kid who drifted helplessly at sea for 2 days on an inner tube in a desperate search for survival and freedom would not only be an outrage, it would be the grossest miscarriage of justice I can think of in my lifetime. Yet we have people in this very body who say we should do just that. I met with the other two survivors, a young married couple. When the boat sank, Nivaldo Fernandez and Arriane Horta were with Elizabet when she was on the boat that made the trip to the Florida coast. She told them, ``Please make sure that my son makes America. Save my son. Please see that he gets to the United States.'' Nivaldo showed me his leg, which was scarred because he was bitten by fish while floating off the coast of Florida. You can still see the effect this had on him, and he is an adult. Yet this little boy who was so brave--can you imagine, after enduring all of that, when people would come to his house --when I came, and I am a pretty big guy, he wanted to know: ``Hombre malo'' or ``hombre bueno''? Good man or bad man. He wanted to know whether I was a good guy who was going to be nice to him or bad guy coming to take him away. Can you imagine this poor little boy sitting in that home, when somebody comes to the door, thinking the INS is going to take him out of his home in the dark of night and take him back to Cuba? That is what he is living through now after enduring 2 and a half days in the open sea. This is a child, and he doesn't have any rights? Baloney. Yes, he does have rights. We should be protecting them. As I said, I met another brave individual, Donato Dalrymple, the fisherman. He was very touched. He asked me personally to help Elian because he told him the same thing: ``I don't want to go back to Cuba.'' Based on this new information that Elian's father was planning to come, and some other information, I asked the Attorney General to meet with me or take a phone call. She refused either. Not only did she refuse to do that, she put on an artificial deadline that caused the family more consternation and the Cuban American community more concern by having this arbitrary deadline that says: OK, on January 14 you go back. Then they rolled that back. That is fine. It is very nice to say, OK, we have a deadline; but how would you like to be little Elian, knowing that and wondering what happens on midnight of January 14? Where is the concern for this brave little kid? I support this private relief bill which grants Elian immediate U.S. citizenship, and I further support allowing the courts to make this decision with the family, without the pressure of Fidel Castro, and I hope the Senate will support me on that. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Thank you Mr. Chairman. In addition, can you comment on some guidance that you have given the Forest Service in your statement to the managers?

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Thank you Mr. Chairman. In addition, is it true that there is no separate appropriation for the American Heritage Rivers initiative in the Interior portion of the bill?

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I would like to ask the Chairman of the Interior Appropriations subcommittee to clarify some matters concerning the President's American Heritage Rivers initiative that concerns the Interior and related agencies portion of the appropriations act. Senator Gorton, is it your understanding that there is nothing in this bill that authorizes the American Heritage Rivers initiative?

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, today, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1887, legislation that overwhelmingly passed the House to ban interstate commerce in videos depicting acts of cruelty against animals. Specifically, this legislation would ban the interstate shipment of videos that record women, often wearing stiletto heeled shoes, slowly crushing live animals to death. Animal victims include hamsters, kittens, puppies, and even monkeys. Viewers purchase these videos for $15 to $300 and apparently derive some sexual gratification from watching these horrifying act of animal cruelty. The Humane Society of the United States, which brought this issue to the attention of law enforcement agencies, has discovered that there are more than 2,000 video titles that include crushing. One such business in California has labeled itself Steponit. I really have never heard of more bizarre, more perverse, and more sickening acts that this. This goes way beyond the bounds of even of our most wild imaginations. The people in this industry should face serious penalties for their sick acts of cruelty. Fines and jail time are appropriate societal responses. State anti-cruelty statues are not adequate in addressing this problem. It has been difficult for enforcement agents to determine when the practice occurred, where it occurred, and who has been involved, since feet and the crushing of the animals are the only images on the video. Here is a case where a restriction on interstate commerce in these products--in the age of the Internet, which facilitates this trade--is absolutely necessary. We have to stop the purveyors of this filth, indecency and cruelty. This is not the harmless act of few people out of the mainstream. This is an extreme antisocial act, where innocent animals are harmed for the profits of producers and the mere sexual gratification of viewers. In additon to the harm that the animals endure, there is an additional reason to crack down on this industry. There is a well- established link between acts of violence against animals and later acts of violence perpetrated against people. People sometimes rehearse their violence on animals before turning their violent intentions against people. The FBI and other law enforcement agencies have long recognized this linkage. What sort of message do we send to children to allow these videos to be commercially traded and then viewed? It has to be desensitizing for children and adults to see these destructive images. There surely is a major impact on society when people lose their empathy and express their violent impulses on a larger social stage. Mr. President, H.R. 1887 passed the House by an overwhelming vote of 372 to 42. I understand that it is currently being held at the desk. It is my hope that Senate will stop this industry in its tracks by passing this legislation.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I would like to recognize and thank Senator Shelby and Senator Kerrey for their leadership and support with regard to the POW/MIA sections of the Intelligence Authorization Act that originally passed the full Senate earlier this year. I am pleased that one of these sections has remained largely intact in the conference report we are now adopting. That provision (Section 308), will require a declassification review of two assessments of Vietnam's cooperation on the POW/MIA issue which were conducted in 1998. One of these assessments was prepared by my office and the other by the National Intelligence Council. Much of the information in both of these documents does not require continued classification, and I believe the interests of the POW/MIA families and our nation's veterans is best served by having as much information as possible in the public domain concerning Vietnam's performance on the POW/MIA question. As the Chairman will recall, there is a provision in Section 308 that allows the Director of Central Intelligence to withhold from declassification the names of living foreign individuals who have cooperated with U.S. efforts to account for missing personnel from the Vietnam War. I wish to make clear that the Congressional intent with respect to this provision was related to individuals identified in the National Intelligence Estimate as ``cooperative'' with U.S. officials in Hanoi. Indeed, this specific area of concern was cited by the Director of Central Intelligence in a letter to the Senate on August 3, 1998. However, this is not meant to include information pertaining to the two former Vietnamese officials who are alleged to have prepared the so-called ``1205'' and ``735'' documents which we received through the Russian government which were reviewed in both of the above-referenced assessments. Is that the Chairman's understanding as well?

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I thank the Chairman for that clarification. Mr. President, I also want to take this opportunity to express by profound disappointment that the other section concerning release of POW/MIA information to the Congress was not adopted by the Conference because of Member opposition from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. This provision, previously adopted by the full Senate this summer with the support of the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, required our intelligence agencies to provide to Congress, within 120 days, a list of POW-MIA related documents that are still classified. This list would help the Congress exercise oversight on the POW/MIA issue on behalf of the families of missing personnel and our nation's veterans. I fail to see why such a reasonable provision could not have been adopted with the full support of the Conference. I plan to revisit this matter in the coming months, and would appreciate having the Chairman's views as to how we might proceed with respect to this important matter.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I thank my distinguished colleague for that clarification and for his continued support on the POW/MIA issue.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I too, would like to recognize Senator Specter, for his tremendous work and skillful leadership and sensitivity in bringing the Veterans Millennium Health Care bill (H.R. 2116) to the floor. As a veteran myself, I can assure you that this bill means a great deal in providing for the health and welfare of our veterans both in my state of New Hampshire as well as those veterans throughout the country. I congratulate Senator Specter's leadership on issues that are of particular importance to our veteran community. If I may also ask the senator to clarify the transition clause of Section 207(c) of the bill. Does the Senator mean that provided that state home grant applicants covered by the transition clause follow all applicable laws and regulations in effect on November 10, 1999, that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall award grants to all applications remaining unfunded for fiscal year 1999 priority one projects first, then proceed to awarding grants to priority one projects as outlined and in the order in which they appeared in the Department of Veteran Affairs Fiscal Year 2000 priority list as covered by Section 207(c) of the bill, prior to awarding grants to any other applicants?