Bob Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President I rise today to signal my strong support for the fiscal year 2000 Defense Authorization Act and conference report. I would also like to publicly thank Chairman Warner for his leadership, wisdom, and commitment to doing what is right for America as chairman of the Armed Services Committee. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, and chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, I have a strong interest in the state of our Armed Forces, and the needs of its people. Under the present administration, the Defense budget has declined by 40 percent since the end of the cold war, and total personnel strength has been cut by 30 percent. At this same time, this administration has also increased the military's deployment rate by 300 percent. There are very few businesses in this country who could survive a 40 percent budget cut, and 30 percent personnel cut while still meeting a 300 percent increase in production. But that's what we have asked of our men and women in uniform--and they have delivered every single time. The time is long overdue for us to give something back--to stop the hemmorrhaging--to give them the money the need, the equipment they need, the resources they need, and most importantly the people they need. We still have a long way to go, but this authorization bill is the first step in the right direction--the first of many I will continue to fight for. I am extremely proud of the pay package contained in this bill. It contains the largest pay raise since 1982 and will stop the erosion of a double-digit pay gap that's been growing for 20 years. Restoring previously reduced retirement benefits to their original levels shows a commitment to our veteran's long-term security and the value of a career of honorable service. These two provisions are critical to solving our recruiting and retention crisis. As chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, I am also extremely proud of the strategic provisions in this bill. In written testimony before the Armed Services Committee in February of this year, the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Lt. Gen. Hughes, testified in his written statement, Weapons of mass destruction and theater missile delivery means has become the greatest direct threat to US forces deployed and engaged worldwide. With that critical focus I am proud to announce that this bill includes an increase of $212 million over the President's budget request for the patriot PAC-3 theater missile defense system, and an increase of $90 million over the President's budget for the Navy theater wide missile defense program. Gen. Dick Myers, Commander of U.S. Space Command, testified before my subcommittee in March that the space-based infrared system [SBIRS] was Space Command's No. 1 priority due to its critical role in missile warning and national missile defense. This bill contains an increase of $92 million to speed the deployment of the SBIRS constellation and directly increase the security of our Nation. As the next decade unfolds, the United States is becoming increasingly reliant on space to meet our national security needs, as well as our daily economic needs. This bill also provides for an increase of $25 million to develop the space maneuver vehicle which will significantly reduce the cost and increase the speed at which we can launch payloads into space. And an increase of $15 million for the Air Force and Army's space control technology programs which will be critical to ensuring our freedom of access to space in the next decade. This bill also includes a provision establishing a commission to assess U.S. national security space organization and management, to address the critical need to truly focus on spacepower and its role in national security. In response to a thorough review and examination of security problems at the Department of Energy's nuclear labs, this conference report also includes legislation to consolidate all national security functions under a single, semi-autonomous agency known as the National Nuclear Security Administration. As demonstrated by the Cox Commission report, and the President's own Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, this reorganization is crucial to our national security and safeguarding our nuclear labs, and has my strongest support. There are many other provisions in this bill that are imperative for our troops, and our nation, but I don't have time to discuss them all. But the bottom line is this: our troops deserve the best, and the American people deserve the best. This bill represents a huge victory for our troops, but it's only the first step on a tough road to correcting our long-term readiness problems. The Clinton administration has cut military spending every year since he took office--and turned a deaf ear to the critical problems it has caused. Year after year the administration denied there were any problems and refused to increase spending. Only now that we're starting to come apart at the seams have they admitted there's a problem, and the Joint Chiefs told us in testimony that the administration's plan for fixing it was still $40 billion short. We have added an extra $8 billion in this budget, the first increase in defense spending in more than a decade, but there's still a long way to go. I am committed to our troops and to halting this erosion, and this bill is the start. Mr. President, I strongly support this bill, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. I would like to thank Chairman Warner again for his leadership on this critical issue, and I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, when my colleagues come down here to vote, I want you to look around at some of the statues and portraits in this building. What would some of these great men, Washington, Jefferson, Adams--our founding fathers--what would they think about the government they created setting up a system requiring every law-abiding citizen to carry a national ID card. Is this what the Constitution intended? Does the Tenth Amendment allow the Federal Government to dictate what information state governments must put on their drivers' licenses? For the sake of nabbing a few illegal aliens--which a national ID card will not do--is it worth inconveniencing tens of millions of law- abiding American citizens and costing Federal, state, and local governments millions of dollars? Mr. President, I again thank the managers for accepting this amendment to protect the rights of all Americans by opposing this misguided section in the law creating a National ID Card.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise to join with Senator Shelby in supporting the repeal of the provisions in Federal law creating a National ID card. I am pleased that the managers have decided to accept this amendment. Mr. President, the American people strongly oppose the institution of a national identification card. And, I share their opposition. The establishment of a national system of identification seriously threatens our personal liberties. It would allow Federal bureaucrats to monitor movements and transactions of every citizen. It's Big Brother on an immense scale. It's even possible, perhaps more probable, that Federal officials could even punish innocent citizens for failure to produce the proper papers. The authority was given for a national I.D. card in Section 656 of the Immigration Reform Act of 1996. That section sets the stage for the establishment of Federal standards for drivers' licenses, thus transforming drivers' licenses into a de facto national ID card. Let me go through what Section 656 does. It expands the use and dissemination of the Social Security Account number. It requires Federal agencies to accept only documents that meet the standards laid out in the section, thus creating a de facto national identification card. It preempts the traditional state function of issuing driver's licenses and places it in the hands of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. In a time when we are trying to give control back to the states, the establishment of Federal standards for drivers' licenses usurps the states constitutionally-protected authority to set their own standards for drivers' licenses. Only 7 states require the social security account number to be displayed on driver's licenses. 9 states have repealed their requirement that drivers license display the number since 1992. The National Conference of State Legislatures is very concerned about the Federalizing of State drivers' licenses and has written letters to Congress calling for the repeal of Section 656. They rightly understand that, although the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration is not proceeding with any rulemaking at this time, the law is still on the books, the potential is still there. Mr. President, in 1998, the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, contained a provision that prohibits the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration from issuing a final rule on National identification cards as required under section 656. Today we have an opportunity, with my amendment, to prohibit the establishment of a national identification card by denying funding for Section 656. Mr. President, let me read from a letter that was written by 13 groups in opposition to Section 656 and this national ID system. This letter is from: The National Conference of State Legislators, the National Association of Counties, the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Immigration Lawyers Association, Concerned Women for America, Eagle Forum, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Free Congress Foundation, National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium, National Council of La Raza, National Immigration law Center, Traditional Values Coalition, and the U.S. Catholic Conference. It is addressed to Speaker Hastert. Dear Speaker Hastert, We represent a broad-based coalition of state legislators, county officials, public policy groups, civil libertarians, privacy experts, and consumer groups from across the political spectrum. We urge Congress to repeal Section 656 of the Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibilities Act of 1996 that requires states to collect, verify, and display social security numbers on state-issued driver's license and conform with federally-mandated uniform features for drivers license. The law preempts state authority over the issuance of state driver's licenses, violates the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1994, and poses a threat to the privacy of citizens. Opposition to the law and the preliminary regulation issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has been overwhelmingly evidenced by the more than 2,000 comments submitted by individuals, groups, state legislators, and state agencies to NHTSA. The law and the proposed regulations run counter to devolution. The law preempts the traditional state function of issuing driver's licenses and places it in the hands of officials at NHTSA while imposing tremendous costs on the states that have been vastly underestimated in the Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation. The actual cost of compliance with the law and the regulation fax exceeds the $100 million threshold established by the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act. In addition, the law and proposed regulation require states to conform their drivers' licenses and other identity documents to a detailed federal standarde. Proposals for a National ID have been consistently rejected in the United States as an infringement of personal liberty. The law raises a number of privacy and civil rights concerns relating to the expanded use and dissemination of the Social Security Number, the creation of a National ID Card, the potential discriminatory use of such a card, and the violation of federal rules on privacy. The law and proposed rule require each license contain either in visual or electronic form the individual's Social Security Number unless the state goes through burdensome and invasive procedures to check each individual's identity with the Social Security Administration. This will greatly expand the dissemination and misuse of the Social Security Number at a time that Congress, the states, and the public are actively working to limit its dissemination over concerns of fraud and privacy. Many states are taking measures to reduce the use of Social Security Numbers as the driver's identity number. Only a few states currently, require the Social Security Number to be used as an identifier on the driver's licenses. While the impact of Section 656 may not have been fully comprehended in 1996, we urge the Congress now act swiftly to repeal this provision of law that has between challenged by many diverse groups.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I also have a letter from the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons: I am writing today to express the support of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, a group of thousands of private physicians in the United States concerned about patient/physician confidentiality for repealing Section 656 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. In our system of government, not everything that people do or think is presumed to be within the government's right to know. By repealing the law establishing a national ID scheme, you help protect the threatened liberty of all Americans from a dangerous precedent, which allows bureaucrats the ability to inappropriately monitor private details. As a doctor, I cannot allow the privacy of my patients to be at risk. Sincerely, Jane Orient, MD. Mr. President, the Republican Party Platform, states clearly and unequivocally, ``We oppose the creation of any national ID card.'' Mr. President, let me read from a paper compiled by a group called Privacy International, entitled, ``ID Cards: Some Personal Views from around the world.'' I ask that this paper by Privacy International be printed in the Record at this point. The material follows: ID Cards: Some Personal Views From Around the World In 1994, in an attempt to discover the problems caused by ID cards, Privacy International compiled a survey containing reports from correspondents in forty countries. Amongst the gravest of problems reported to Privacy International was the overzealous use or misuse of ID cards by police--even where the cards were supposed to be voluntary. One respondent wrote: ``On one occasion I was stopped in Switzerland when walking at night near Lake Geneva. I was living in Switzerland at the time and had a Swiss foreigner's ID card. The police were wondering why I should want to walk at night to look at the Chateau de Chillon. Really suspicious I suppose, to walk at night on the banks of the lake to look at an illuminated chateau (I am white and dress conservatively). I had to wait for 20 minutes whilst they radioed my ID number to their central computer to check on its validity.'' Correspondents in most countries reported that police had powers to demand the ID card. A correspondent in Greece reported: ``In my country the Cards are compulsory. If police for example stop you and ask for identification you must present them the ID or you are taken to the police department for identification research.'' Police were granted these powers in the late 1980s, despite some public misgivings. Non European countries reported more serious transgressions, In Brazil, for example: They are compulsory, you're in big trouble with the police if they request it and you don't have one or left home without it. The Police can ask for my identity card with or without a valid motive, it's an intimidation act that happens in Brazil very, very often. The problem is not confined to the police. Everybody asks for your ID when you are for example shopping, and this is after you have shown your cheque guarantee card. We also had other similar cards. Nobody trusts anybody basically. Predictably, political hot-spots have seen widescale abuse of the card system: One problem that Afghans encountered carrying these ``tazkiras'' (ID cards) was during the rule of the communist regime in Afghanistan where people were stopped in odd hours and in odd places by the government's Soviet advisors and their KHALQI and PARCHAMI agents and asked for their ``tazkiras''. Showing or not showing the ``tazkira'' to the enquiring person at that time was followed by grave consequences. By showing it, the bearer would have revealed his age upon which, if it fell between 16-45, he would have been immediately taken to the nearest army post and drafted into the communist army, and if he refused to show, he would have been taken to the nearest secret service (KHAD) station and interrogated as a member of the resistance (Mujahideen), imprisoned, drafted in the army or possibly killed. Many countries reported that their ID card had become an internal passport, being required for every dealing with people or institutions. In Argentina, according to this correspondent, the loss of the ID card would result in grave consequences: ``I got my first personal ID when I turned seven. It was the Provincial Identity Card. It looked like the hardcover of a little book with just two pages in it. It had my name, my photograph, the fingerprint of my right thumb, and some other personal data. I never questioned what was the logic about fingerprinting a seven-year old boy. It was suggested that identification was one of the major purposes for the existence of the Police of the Province which issued the card. It was required for enroling in the Provincial School I attended. Attending the primary school is compulsory, hence everybody under twelve is indirectly forced to have the Card. Well, this Book was required for any sort of proceedings that the person wanted to initiate, e.g. enrol at school, buy a car, get his driving license, get married. Nobody could do anything without it. In addition, it became a prerogative of the police to request it at any time and place. Whoever was caught without it was customarily taken to jail and kept there for several hours (or overnight if it happened in the evening) while they ``checked his personal record''. In effect, Argentine citizens have never been much better off than South-African negroes during the Apartheid, the only difference is that we Argentinians did not have to suffer lashings if caught without the pass cared. As for daily life without the ID, it was impossible. Of greater significance is the information that ID cards are commonly used as a means of tracking citizens to ensure compliance with such laws as military service. Again, in Argentina: ``The outrage of the military service was something that many people was not ready to put up with. Nevertheless, something forced the people to present themselves to be drafted. It was nothing more or less than the ID. In fact, if somebody did not show up, the army never bothered to look for them. They just waited for them to fall by themselves, because the ID card showed the boy to be on military age and not having the necessary discharge records by the army. Provided that in the country you could not even go for a walk without risking to be detained by the police, being a no-show for military duty amounted to a civil death.'' Another respondent in Singapore noted that many people in his country were aware that the card was used for purposes of tracking their movements, but that most did not see any harm in this: ``If that question is put to Singaporeans, they are unlikely to say that the cards have been abused. However, I find certain aspects of the NRIC (ID card) system disconcerting. When I finish military service (part of National service), I was placed in the army reserve. When I was recalled for reserve service, I found that the army actually knew about my occupation and salary! I interpreted this as an intrusion into my privacy. It might not be obvious but the NRIC system has made it possible to link fragmented information together.'' The consequences of losing ones card were frequently mentioned: ``A holiday in Rio was ruined for me when I was robbed on the beach and had to spend the rest of the brief holiday going through the bureaucracy to get a duplicate issued. One way round this (of dubious legality) is to walk around with a notarized xerox copy instead of the original.'' The Brazilian experience shows that the card is often misused by police: ``Of course violent police in metropolitan areas of Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro love to beat and arrest people (especially black/poor) on the pretext that they don't have their ID card with them.'' In some countries, denial of a card means denial of virtually all services: ID cards are very important in Vietnam. They differentiate between citizens and non-citizens. People without an ID card are considered as being denied of citizenship and all the rights that come with it. For example, they cannot get legal employment, they cannot get a business license, they cannot go to school, they cannot join official organizations, and of course they cannot join the communist party. They cannot travel either. (Even though in practice, they bribe their way around within the country, they would face big trouble if got caught without ID card.) The same problem occurs in China: I personally feel that the card has the following drawbacks: It carries too much private info about a person. We have to use it in almost every situation. Such as renting a hotel room, getting legal service from lawyers, contacting government agencies, buying a plane ticket and train ticket, applying for a job, or getting permit to live with your parents, otherwise your residence is illegal. In a lot of cases, we are showing too much irrelevant information to an agency or person who should not know that. The card is subject to police cancellation, and thus without it, one can hardly do anything, including traveling for personal or business purposes, or getting legal help or obtaining a job. The government has been using this scheme too often as a measure against persons who run into troubles with it socially or politically. The identity card is showing your daily or every short-term movement, and can be used to regularize and monitor a person's behavior and activity. One Korean professor reported that the national card was used primarily as a means of tracking peoples activities and movements: ``If you lose this card, you have to report and make another one within a certain period. Since it shows your current address, if you change your address then you must report and make a correction of the new address. If you go to a military service or to a prison, then the government takes away this identity card. You get the card back when you get out. You are supposed to carry this card everywhere you go, since the purpose is to check out the activity of people. There are fines and some jail terms if you do not comply. If you board a ship or an airplane, then you must show this card to make a record. You need to show this card when you vote. Former presidential candidate Kim, Dae Joong could not vote for his own presidential election because his secretary forgot to bring Kim's card. He had to wait for a while until somebody bring his card. Many government employees make lot of money selling information on this card to politicians during election season. Police can ask you to show this card and check whether your identity number is on the wanted list or not. There is a widespread prejudice between the people of some local areas. This card shows the permanent address of you. And it allows other people to successfully guess the hometown of your parents.'' One Portuguese man studying in the United States reported an obsession with identity in his country: ``I keep losing my ID. card, and people keep asking for it. It seems like it's needed for just about everything I want to do, and I should really carry it around my neck or have it tattooed on my palm. The information on it is needed for everything. Many buildings, perhaps most, will have a clerk sitting at a ``reception desk'' who will ask you for your id. They will keep it and give it back to you when you leave. Few people seem bothered with this, but then they don't keep loosing they're cards like I do. So I usually threw a little tantrum ``Are we under curfew? Why do I have to carry my id with me anyway?'' Our tolerant culture invariably leads the clerk to take whatever other document I happen to be carrying--usually my bus pass, which I loose less often. After a while I surrender and go get myself a new id. card. It take \1/2\ a day or more to do this and--guess what--you need your old id. card. It's more complicated if you've lost it. Then finally I am legal again for a while. It's partly due to the Portuguese obsession with identity. Everyone carries both they're mother's and father's last names.'' Others confirmed the traditional problem of counterfeiting: It costs only 300 rupees ($10) to get a counterfeit ID card. The system hardly works. We all know how fake IDs (one guy's photo, another one's name) can be obtained so people can have their friends take GREs and TOEFLs (national tests) for them.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, earlier today, there was quite a bit of colorful rhetoric and blustering on the floor by the Democratic Party about reports in the Washington Post today that Republicans were going to create a ``13th month'' to allow more spending on education and other programs. Lest I be accused of partisanship, I think many of you know I am an Independent. So those who say I am going to speak on behalf of Republicans, I guess, would technically be wrong. I don't pretend to speak for the Republicans, and I am not privy to what was said in any meetings with the Republicans regarding the so-called 13th month. But let me speak for myself as an Independent and say I don't support a 13th month for any fiscal year. But in their effort to be partisan and embarrass Republicans over what was probably a mischaracterization, in my view, in a liberal newspaper, my Democrat colleagues failed to address the key issue, which is, where do you come up with the money to fund all of these programs? In their zeal to make partisan points and poke fun--and they did have a good time--they failed to offer any constructive solution. If you are going to poke fun and make jokes about the 13th month headline, what are your alternatives? My guess is they would prefer to use the same budget tactics they have been using for about 50 years. The result of those budget tactics over the past 50 years has been to run up the national debt to where it is almost $6 trillion, raid the Social Security trust fund, and in order to do it all raise taxes. Every year, we do this. Every year, the train comes down the track and usually has a wreck. We spend, spend, spend, spend, and then we get to the end of the year and we act as though there is some magic budgetary goblin running around eating up money and we invent these tricks to try to figure out how to break the budget, while we still tell constituents we balance it. It is pretty outrageous. We use every budgetary gimmick we can find: forward funding, emergency designation, baseline budgeting. You name it, you have heard it. Now we have ``13th month.'' For those of you who may be listening or watching right now, when you hear those terms, my advice would be to hang on tightly to your wallet because the story is, if a Democrat has a vision, it is probably focused right on your wallet, and that is what is happening now. They are having fun with this 13th month, but they have that luxury because they are in the minority. I suppose you can say, technically, so am I, but on this point I am siding with the Republicans. They didn't invent budgetary gimmickry. Insofar as this Congress intends to use smoke and mirrors to secretly fund more rather than less unconstitutional programs, I don't intend to be a part of it. Our Founding Fathers would be ashamed of this whole debate for several reasons: No. 1, they didn't intend for us to balance our budget using accounting tricks and elongated fiscal years. No. 2, they didn't intend for us to burden our children with trillions of dollars in debt--trillions. No. 3, they didn't intend for us to spend billions of dollars on education programs that should be handled at the State and local level. My colleague, Senator Gorton, has been very instrumental on initiatives to try to bring that spending back to the State and local level where it belongs. So as perhaps the only nonpartisan person in the Senate right now, let me offer a solution. It is pretty simple. I have a way that we can support the Constitution, balance the budget, and not use any budgetary tricks at all. It is very simple: Don't spend the money. The Department of Education is billions of dollars worth of unconstitutional infringements on State and local authority. Don't spend the money, if the Democrats don't want the Republicans using budgetary tricks, the Republicans don't want to break the budget caps, and the founders don't want us funding unconstitutional programs. So let's abolish the Department of Education. Then we can go back home to our school districts and say: You now have the constitutional authority you had in the first place to educate your children the way you choose--home school, private school, public school, whatever. By the way, you have more money to spend and the budget is balanced. Very simple. Nothing complicated. So let me say the best way to end all the budgetary gimmickry is don't spend the money. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 5 minutes as in morning business.

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. This grant had to do with a grant to a publisher for a children's book. Listen carefully, a children's book. This was a grant to a publisher for a children's book, paid for by the taxpayers under the National Endowment of the Arts, at a time-- recently--when we had been told that the agency had cleaned up its act and that this was no longer prevalent; no longer do they do these terrible things I just mentioned. The grant that I am referring to for this children's book had been approved at every level of the NEA's review process. It was canceled at the last minute by the agency's chairman. Somebody might say: Well, there you go. It worked. They stopped this grant for a children's book; it wasn't appropriate for children. So what is your argument, Senator? Let me finish. Why did they cancel at the last minute? Because the Chairman of the NEA found out that the book's author was a Mexican guerrilla leader. The chairman was afraid that the royalties would benefit the Mexican guerrillas. So the reason for the grant cancellation was because of the Mexican guerrilla group, not because of the content. Let's take a look at the content. The New York Times reported that this children's book contained sexually explicit illustrations and text; in other words, this children's book, with sexual content, would have received the NEA support this year--not 10 years ago; this year-- if there had not been the other issue about royalties going to Mexican guerrillas. I submit there is an inherent flaw in the peer review process that led to this circumstance, and all the other outrages over the years. The peer review process does not reflect the values of the decent, hard-working, tax-paying Americans who fund this agency. Let me just find the article from the New York Times, which I have entered into the Record. I want to remind you, again, that this grant was canceled because the money would go to a Mexican guerrilla group, and there was no reference whatsoever to the content. This is a children's book. I would ask my colleagues and the American people to ask yourselves whether you want your tax dollars to go for this kind of stuff for a children's book: The illustrations are bright, broad-stroked paintings of gods with horns and bug-eyes done by [a man by the name of] Domitila Dominguez, a Mexican Indian artist. Spun in the sensuous tradition of Latin storytelling, the tale includes elements that might be controversial in the mainstream American children's book market. As the story opens, the text reads, ``The men and women were sleeping or they were making love, which is a nice way to become tired and then go to sleep.'' The double-page illustration shows a reclining naked woman in a sexual embrace with [a] figure that appears to be a male god. We could go on and on and on. This is a children's book. It was canceled because the money went to Mexican guerrillas, not because of the content. So you see, the agency has not cleaned up its act. They have been getting away with this year after year after year. And why do they get away with it? They get away with it very simply because we won't stop the funding. We don't have the courage to stop the funding. Again, the business about censorship--this is about the Constitution of the United States of America, which we are sworn to uphold and defend. Show me in the Constitution where the National Endowment of the Arts should be funded and why it should be funded. Show me. When we try to say anything about it, we are always accused of censorship. The Smith amendment solves that problem by allowing the public to support the art works they wish voluntarily. You want to support a children's book that shows a naked woman and a naked man in a sexually explicit embrace? Go ahead. You want to show that to your children? Be my guest. You want to raise your children and teach them to read and show them the pictures? Be my guest. But it is not constitutional. And it ought not to happen in the Senate by funding this kind of stuff. We should not be funding art at all, let alone this kind of art. So that is how it was done in America for the first 189 years of our history: Voluntarily you support the arts. Voluntarily you look at what you want to look at. You show your children what you want to show them. But you do not fund it by taking money from the rest of us to do it. Let me just pause here for a moment to make a point. We could go through a litany of items that are unconstitutional that we pass on this floor almost literally every day--certainly every week. I just ask the rhetorical question to the people of America: When are we going to wake up? We saw it time after time. We saw it with the Clinton impeachment: As long as my 401(k) and my retirement account is doing well, and as long as I am making money, as long as I have a job and 3 or 4 weeks of vacation, and everything is going fine, I don't care about the morality of this country. I don't care that the Commander in Chief did what he did. It is OK with me. Poll after poll after poll said just that. Let me tell you. That is the same thing. Time after time after time, year after year after year, we vote to fund the National Endowment of the Arts. We are told every year that all this stuff that I just referred to has been cleaned up and it does not happen anymore. It does. Yet why does it happen? Don't blame the National Endowment of the Arts. I don't blame them. I don't blame the Chairman. I don't blame the board. I don't blame any of them for this. I blame the Senate, the House, and the President of the United States because we pass it and he signs it. We have been doing it year after year after year. They are going to keep right on spending your money as long as you keep giving it to them. So don't blame them; don't direct your anger at them. You should direct it right here to the people who vote that money. Sooner or later, as the frog in the pot boils slowly and then is cooked before he realizes it, the Constitution of the United States is going to slip through the fingers of all of us. It is happening. We are going to continue to let it happen by these kinds of votes. If we want to take seriously what we stood there and took the oath to do, to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, we ought to vote against funding the National Endowment for the Arts. So that everybody understands, there are essentially two major political parties in the United States right now, some smaller parties. Here is the Democratic Party on the NEA. This is a quote right out of their platform: We believe in public support for the arts, including the National Endowment for the Arts. . . . That is the 1996 Democrat platform; ``Responsible Entertainment.'' It is an honest statement. They have made it very clear they support this. It doesn't necessarily mean they are implying that they support the kinds of things I have said, but it does mean that as long as you continue to fund it and you don't stop it, those kinds of things are going to continue to be funded. What we have in the Democratic platform is a statement that is unconstitutional. It is totally unconstitutional. To support the arts, including the National Endowment for the Arts, with taxpayer dollars is unconstitutional. But I think Members will find, when they see the votes taken on my amendment in a few minutes, that most of the members of the Democratic Party will support their platform. They will vote, I think, probably overwhelmingly, probably 90-95 percent--maybe 100 percent, I am not sure--in favor of the National Endowment for the Arts and against my amendment. They will live up to their platform. I personally believe they are taking an unconstitutional vote, but that is their right. They can do it. They were elected just as I was, and they can vote any way they want to. I respect that right. Let us look at the Republican Party platform. The Republican Party platform on the NEA, same issue: As a first step in reforming government, we support . . . defunding or privatization of agencies which are obsolete, redundant, of limited value, or too regional in focus . . . [one of the] agencies we seek to defund or to privatize [is] the National Endowment for the Arts. That is the 1996 Republican platform: ``Changing Washington from the Ground Up.'' We are going to change Washington from the ground up. I support that statement because it is unconstitutional not to support it. The Government should not be funding, under the Constitution, the National Endowment for the Arts. If one sees that statement and realizes that is the position of the party, then one could logically conclude that 90-95 percent of Republicans will vote to support their platform and vote to eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts. We will see. Don't bet on it. That is the platform. So when the votes come, it will be interesting for the public to look to see who supports their platform. Will the Democrats support their platform, albeit unconstitutional in my view, on this issue, or will the Republicans support their platform? Let us see where the votes fall. Let me issue a challenge to anyone listening: Take a look at the votes after it is all over. See who the Republicans are, see who the Democrats are, and see who supports the Republican platform and see who supports the Democrat platform. This amendment takes out the entire funding, which is about $99 million. People will say that is not a lot of money. I guess around Washington it is not. But it sure was a lot of money around a little town called Allentown, NJ, where I grew up before I moved to New Hampshire. That was a whole lot of money. I know a whole lot of people who worked real hard--farmers, merchants, teachers--for those dollars. For this kind of money to be spent from them, I think it is wrong. It is wrong morally, philosophically, and, as I said before, it is unconstitutional. Mr. President, seeing no other speaker on my behalf at this time, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, my amendment to the Interior appropriations bill is a very simple one. It eliminates all funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. This amendment has been considered by the Senate in the past, unfortunately unsuccessfully. I know where the votes are, but I believe it is important we make a statement about this because I do not believe the Federal Government should be spending money for this. This amendment does not try to reform the agency. This amendment does not try to restructure the agency. It simply shuts it down in fiscal year 2000. I want to take a little different tack on this. Many who have spoken in the past on the National Endowment for the Arts, as far as elimination of funding, have focused heavily on some of the reprehensible and repulsive, frankly, types of material that has been displayed and called ``art.'' I am not going to do that this morning. Most Members are fully aware of the kinds of things that have been funded by this agency. I remind every Member that we took an oath to support the Constitution. All of us at one point stood right where the pages are now sitting and said that we would bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America. I certainly believe that every Member took that oath seriously. That is why I am hopeful I might be able to persuade my colleagues to support this amendment because, frankly, whatever opinion you may have of it, is unconstitutional to have the National Endowment for the Arts funded by the Federal Government. I can prove that. A constituent challenged me on this one time and wrote: Where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that the Federal Government is authorized to fund art? Let me repeat: Where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that the Federal Government is authorized to fund art? I challenge any of my colleagues to show me that in the Constitution, and I will reconsider my amendment. I offer this amendment because I have not been able to find this in the Constitution. The authors of our Constitution envisioned a government of limited powers, and if it does not say you do it in the Constitution, then it is reserved to the people and the States. If the State or the people want to fund a State endowment for the arts, I would not have a problem with that. That is entirely within their parameters. The framers made it clear--very clear--that unless the Constitution explicitly granted a power to the Federal Government, that power would be reserved to the States, to the localities, to civil society, or to the people. I know there are many--and this is the frustrating part for me--too many in this body who reject that vision. I have been here going on 9 years, and it is very frustrating for me to watch the Constitution of the United States being trampled time after time. Just a week or so ago, we passed more gun controls and sent it to conference. Gun control, however you may feel about the need for gun control, is unconstitutional because we have a second amendment that says we have the right to keep and bear arms. Whatever you may feel about that issue, we did not come here to pass laws about our personal beliefs. We came here to pass laws that support the Constitution of the United States of America. When we swear to uphold that document, we agree to live by that vision whether we like it or not. Whether we disagree or agree, we should live with that vision. Regretfully, we do not always do that here. This amendment is my effort--just a small effort--to move a little closer to the founders, move a little closer to that vision of limited constitutional government. It is interesting that I have to say move a little closer. Why do we have to move closer to the vision of the founders when we are supposed to uphold the Constitution and enforce that vision, not move a little closer to it. We should be there. It is a bad idea. Whether it is constitutional or unconstitutional, it is a bad idea to use taxpayers' funds to subsidize art. But it is unconstitutional. Whether it is a good idea or bad idea, it is unconstitutional, and that is the point I am making. Most of my colleagues will recall the controversies in which this agency has been embroiled. I referenced them briefly in the beginning of my remarks. I am not going to get into all of it because we have heard it before. But funding the exhibition of sadomasochistic photographs, funding the exhibition of a photograph of a crucifix submerged in human waste, funding the exhibition of a performance ``artist'' who smeared chocolate across her naked torso, or how about the other NEA funding artist who exposed his audience to HIV-infected blood--all of these things were funded by the taxpayers of the United States in the name of art. Let me repeat that. Funding of sadomasochistic photographs, funding of a photograph of a crucifix submerged in human waste, funding of a so-called performance artist who smeared chocolate across her naked torso, and a man who exposed his audience to HIV-infected blood, all funded by the taxpayers of the United States of America. I ask you to reflect, if you are a taxpayer, on the fact that you work pretty hard for those dollars, and when you pay those taxes every April 15 to Uncle Sam, you probably hope it is used to preserve and protect and defend the United States of America, perhaps to promote education or some positive thing. But do you really want your money to go to this kind of so-called art? The question is, some people may say this is art, but there are people out there who will disagree. There are people who will say: If I want to put a crucifix in urine and call that art, I have a right to do that; it is a free country. You do. I will fight to my death to say you have a right to do that. I may not agree it is art, but that is your position and you have a right to it. But the question is, Is it constitutional to fund art? Even more so, Is it constitutional to fund this kind of stuff? Do you want your taxpayer dollars being spent for this? The sad part about this--we have seen this in debate after debate, in amendment after amendment, year after year, as we tried to stop this. Senator Helms has been involved in this many times, to his credit, as a leader in trying to expose this agency. Senator Ashcroft, who is my original cosponsor, has also been involved in this and has been a leader on this. But the defenders of the NEA, the National Endowment of the Arts, always tell you--you will hear it after the vote on this amendment, I am sure, if not before--that they believe these outrages are a thing of the past, that all of the things I just cited about the crucifix in human waste, and so forth, are all in the past: We have cleaned up the agency. It is not happening anymore. It is old news. We heard you. We listened, and we made the changes. I am sorry to tell you, that is not true. I will prove that in a few moments. Once you really understand the NEA, you will not be surprised to learn that the outrages continue, and not only do they continue, they are all too common in this agency. Let me illustrate the point about a grant that made news earlier this year. The events surrounding this grant were described in an article in the New York Times. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this New York Times article be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I yield the floor and appreciate the chairman's consideration in offering the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Ashcroft, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Was the Senator from Florida seeking to respond to the amendment?

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I have just a few brief responses to my colleague. I believe it would be a fallacy to equate Government funding, its own activities, legitimate functions of the Government, to fund those activities such as the Library of Congress and the Smithsonian, which obviously are document preservation, artifacts, and historical matters--that is legitimate, in my view; but to equate that with the Government funding of private activities is where I have my differences. I think that is the difference--the Government funding its own activities versus the Government funding private activities. I believe that art, in terms of the examples I gave, is and should be funded privately because there is a matter of what is art and what is not art, which is a matter of personal opinion. I don't believe taxpayers should fund somebody else's view of what art is or is not. I also think it is wrong for us to act without explicit constitutional authority, whether it is in the arts, or education, or anything else. The Senator from Washington is correct. I misspoke when I said education. I should not have used that term because, also, the Federal Government, in my view, does not have a legitimate role in determining the education of our children. I believe that is a local matter that ought to be done by the States, the local communities, and parents. Finally, to say it is a good thing for a Federal agency to provide a ``seal of approval'' for the arts so that the private sector will know what to support, that is a threat to art. I think that threatens the legitimate issue of art in that government has no business telling people what good art is or what bad art is. I don't think there is any room for the government in art. Frankly, it is very interesting when you pick out the platform of the Republican Party and read it. Some don't believe we should read our platforms. But I happen to believe we should. In the 1996 Republican Platform, there is a quote of Senator Bob Dole of March 10, 1995, in which he said: On November 8, 1994, the American people sent a message to Washington. Their message is my mandate to rein in government, reconnect it to the values of the American people, and that means making government a whole lot smaller, a lot less arrogant and getting it out of matters best left to the States, cities, and families across America. That is all I am trying to do. What I am trying to say is if there is some family out there--I can't believe there would be, but there may be--who would like to have a children's book shown to their children showing a naked man and naked woman embracing in the act of sex, if they want to show that to their children, as I said before, I guess that is up to them, but I don't think we ought to be funding it. Furthermore, finally, what the Republican Platform said at that time was: As a first step in reforming government, we support the elimination of the departments of Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, Education, Energy, and the elimination, defunding, or privatization of agencies which are obsolete, redundant, of limited value, or too regional in focus. Examples of agencies that we seek to defund or to privatize are the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and the Legal Services Corporation. I am quoting out of the platform. Finally: In addition, we support Republican sponsored legislation that would require the original sponsor of proposed Federalization to cite specific constitutional authority for the measure. If you are going to offer something as an amendment or a bill which ultimately may become law, then cite constitutional authority for it because, after all, we are here to protect and defend the Constitution. That is the only point I am trying to make. I understand that the votes have never been here to eliminate this agency. I don't expect them to be here this time. I don't mean to argue, other than to say that I ask my colleagues to try to move back to the constitutionality issue because I believe that is what this is all about. If you make an exception, even if this was art that was pleasing to me, if it was art that I liked, that I approved of, it would be the same argument--that it has no business being funded. It is not constitutional. I don't believe that we should be funding it. I see my colleague from Missouri. I know he is an original sponsor of this amendment. Mr. President, at this time I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works in introducing the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1999 (SARA). This bill is the result of several months of negotiations in the Committee, and reflects input we received from Senators on both sides of the aisle, state and local officials, the Administration, environmental groups, and the regulated community. My colleagues who are familiar with our original bill, S. 1090, will notice several changes made in this new legislation. Perhaps most significantly, we have added new titles on remedy selection and natural resource damages. These new provisions are similar to those contained in S. 8, the Superfund Cleanup Acceleration Act in the 105th Congress. Some may remember that the Environment and Public Works Committee reported S. 8 in May of 1998, but we never were able to debate the bill on the Senate floor. Our remedy selection provisions are fairly straightforward. We would codify EPA's policy on the preference for treatment of principal threats, with an exception for sites, such as mining sites, at which such a preference would be inappropriate. We require remedies to achieve a degree of cleanup that complies with applicable Federal and State standards. We also set forth requirements for site specific risk assessments. On natural resource damages (NRD), we deal with the major issues that have been debated over the last 10 years or more. SARA's NRD provisions: Provide a clear definition of the objective of restoration; require costs assessed against responsible parties to be reasonable, based on the restoration measure's technical feasibility, cost effectiveness, timeliness, and consideration of natural recovery as a restoration alternative; prohibit recoveries for so-called ``nonuser'' damages and appropriately limit lost use damages; provide for the expedited or enhanced restoration of substitute resources where a unique resource that cannot be replaced has been destroyed, lost or damaged; provide responsible parties with the right to de novo review--or a full trial on all aspects of the claims against them; and, preclude double recovery against responsible parties. In addition to these new titles, we have also made several changes to S. 1090 as introduced. First, we have increased authorized funding levels in the first two years of the five-year period covered by the bill and made the ramp- down in funding less severe in the final three years. Second, we deleted the cap on new NPL listings and revised the requirement for removing clean contiguous property parcels from NPL listings. Third, we made extensive changes to the allocation system to provide additional flexibility. We added authorization for early settlements without an allocation, as well as an expedited allocation based only on an estimate of the orphan share. Fourth, we expressly preserve strict, joint and several liability for those parties who choose not to participate in a settlement. We also ensure that EPA's existing authority to issue orders and engage in removal actions is not unduly limited. Mr. President, these modifications have, in my view, improved the bill substantially. We are introducing this new bill for the information of our colleagues, and in an effort to generate more support for this legislation. Unfortunately, these revisions to our Superfund bill were not sufficient to garner support from a majority of the Members on the Committee. That is disappointing to me, and I would urge my colleagues to take a good look at the bill we introduce today. It represents strong reform of the troubled Superfund program. It will accelerate cleanup by injecting greater fairness into the system, providing more resources for state and local cleanup efforts, and providing finality for decisions made under those state programs. Our legislation continues to make major reforms in six areas. Specifically, SARA: Directs EPA to finish the job that was started nearly two decades ago by completing the evaluation of the 3,000 remaining sites on the CERLA Information System (CERCLIS). Clearly allocates responsibility between states and EPA for future cleanups. Protects municipalities, small businesses, recyclers, and other parties from unfair liability--while making the system fairer for everyone else. Provides states $100 million per year and full authority for their own cleanup programs. Revitalizes communities with $100 million in annual brownfields redevelopment grants. Requires fiscal responsibility by EPA and saves taxpayers money. Our legislation will result in more hazardous waste sites being cleaned up--and in fewer dollars being wasted on litigation. It will give much-needed and much-deserved liability relief to innocent landowners, contiguous property owners, prospective purchasers, municipalities, small businesses, and recyclers. Unlike EPA's administrative reforms, this bill does not shift costs from politically popular parties to those left holding the bag. Instead, it requires payment of a statutory orphan share and authorizes the use of the Superfund Trust Fund for those shares. For those left trapped in the Superfund liability scheme, SARA requires an allocation process to determine a party's fair share in an expedited settlement--instead of fighting it out for years in court. In addition to increasing fairness, SARA provides much needed guidance and direction to a sometimes wayward EPA. It recognizes and builds upon the growth and strength of State hazardous waste cleanup programs. It provides new resources to States and localities for their cleanup and redevelopment efforts. As many of my colleagues know, the fear of Superfund liability has resulted in an estimated 450,000 abandoned or underutilized properties, or ``Brownfields,'' that lay fallow because private developers and municipalities don't want to be dragged into Superfund's litigation quagmire. With new resources and appropriate liability protections, our bill will allow the cleanup of those sites, spurring economic redevelopment in cities, towns, and rural areas across America. We take a different approach to the brownfields redevelopment issue than the Administration seeks. Along with many of my colleagues, I believe that economic redevelopment is primarily a State and local issue. Our approach provides the resources and freedom States need to make progress on this front, rather than giving EPA new authority to get into the commercial real estate and redevelopment business. That is not EPA's role, nor should it be. Where EPA does have a role is in identifying and addressing risks at uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. Our legislation ensures that EPA regains its focus on that mission. Earlier this year, the General Accounting Office (GAO) reported that ``completion of construction at existing sites'' and reducing new entries into the program was the Environmental Protection Agency's top Superfund priority. Unfortunately, EPA's narrow focus on generating construction completion statistics appear to have divested resources from EPA's fundamental mission--protecting human health and the environment from releases of hazardous waste. GAO reported last year that 3,000 sites still await a National Priorities List decision by EPA. Most of those sites have been in the CERCLIS inventory for more than a decade. According to the report, however, more than 1,200 of them are actually ineligible for listing on the NPL, for a variety of reasons. Some of the sites were classified erroneously, while others either do not require cleanup, have already been cleaned up, or have final cleanup underway. EPA's failure to remove the specter of an NPL listing at these sites has likely caused significant economic and social harm to the surrounding communities. EPA needs to focus on that task. In addition, far too many of the sites that are still potentially eligible for listing have received little or no attention from EPA. EPA admitted taking no cleanup action at all at 336 sites and provided no information for another 48 sites. The only action taken at 719 sites was an initial site assessment. EPA's inattention may be due to the fact that EPA and state officials together identified only 232 of the sites as worthy of being added to NPL. In that case, however, the appropriate response is to archive the sites while ensuring that any necessary cleanup occurs under some other Federal or State program. EPA needs to focus on that task as well. Unfortunately, there is also disagreement between EPA and state officials about even those 232 sites. EPA identified 132 that may be listed on the NPL in the future, but state officials agreed on only 26 of those. Conversely, state officials identified a different group of 100 sites as worthy of an NPL listing in the future. EPA agreed with GAO's recommendation that it ``develop a joint strategy'' with the States for addressing these sites. After nearly 20 years and $20 billion in taxpayer funded EPA appropriations, it is disturbing that the agency only now is developing such strategy. Nonetheless, Congress has an obligation to provide direction and assistance to EPA in this effort. The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act provides that direction by: Requiring EPA to finish evaluating and/or archiving old sites stuck in the CERCLIS inventory, thus correcting the current imbalance between evaluating uncontrolled sites and amassing construction completed statistics. Providing EPA with a schedule of 30 NPL listings per year, to ensure that it and the States appropriately allocate sites for cleanup under Superfund, RCRA, or State response programs. Increasing current law limits on EPA removal actions to provide greater flexibility in responding to sites that, at least initially, should be the responsibility of the Federal government, but ultimately do not require an NPL listing. These provisions will ensure that the limited universe of sites remaining in the Superfund pipeline are dealt with quickly and safely. In addition to keeping EPA focused on the task at hand, our bill provides increased resources and authority to the States, in recognition of the progress made by State cleanup programs in the last decade. Superfund is notable among the major Federal environmental statutes not only for its abysmal track record, but also for its heavy reliance on EPA action rather that state implementation. In other environmental programs--RCRA, the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act--EPA typically sets general program direction and provides technical support while leaving implementation and enforcement to the states. In the Superfund program, however, EPA takes a direct role in both enforcement and cleanup. This leadership role was originally justified by a perceived inability or alleged unwillingness on the part of states to perform or oversee cleanups. The situation today is far different. The Environmental Law Institute reported last year that States have now completed 41,000 cleanups, with another 13,700 in progress. The Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO) reports that ``States are not only addressing more sites at any given time, but are also completing more sites through streamlined State programs. State programs have matured and increased in their infrastructure capacity.'' Most now recognize that states have made great strides in their programs, and even EPA in May of 1998 released a ``Plan to Enhance the Role of States and Tribes in the Superfund Program.'' Not surprisingly, while that plan appears to provide some increased opportunities for state leadership, it also envisions a significant, on-going role for EPA. The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act, on the other hand, assists, recognizes, and builds on the growth of state cleanup programs. SARA also responds to pleas from ASTSWMO, the National Governors Association, and others to remove the ever-present threat of EPA over-filing and third party lawsuits under Superfund when a site is being cleaned up under a State program. SARA recognizes the fact that States should be the leaders in cleaning up hazardous waste sites by: Providing $100 million annually for State core and voluntary response programs to allow States to build on their impressive record of accomplishment in this area. Providing finality, except in cases of emergency or at a State's request, for cleanups conducted under State law. Requiring EPA to work with the States so that sites listed on the NPL are those the Governor of the State agrees warrant an NPL listing. Mr. President, the legislation we introduce today has the strong support of the nation's small businesses, Governors, Mayors, and state cleanup officials. I urge my colleagues to support it as well.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works in introducing the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1999 (SARA). This bill is the result of several months of negotiations in the Committee, and reflects input we received from Senators on both sides of the aisle, state and local officials, the Administration, environmental groups, and the regulated community. My colleagues who are familiar with our original bill, S. 1090, will notice several changes made in this new legislation. Perhaps most significantly, we have added new titles on remedy selection and natural resource damages. These new provisions are similar to those contained in S. 8, the Superfund Cleanup Acceleration Act in the 105th Congress. Some may remember that the Environment and Public Works Committee reported S. 8 in May of 1998, but we never were able to debate the bill on the Senate floor. Our remedy selection provisions are fairly straightforward. We would codify EPA's policy on the preference for treatment of principal threats, with an exception for sites, such as mining sites, at which such a preference would be inappropriate. We require remedies to achieve a degree of cleanup that complies with applicable Federal and State standards. We also set forth requirements for site specific risk assessments. On natural resource damages (NRD), we deal with the major issues that have been debated over the last 10 years or more. SARA's NRD provisions: Provide a clear definition of the objective of restoration; require costs assessed against responsible parties to be reasonable, based on the restoration measure's technical feasibility, cost effectiveness, timeliness, and consideration of natural recovery as a restoration alternative; prohibit recoveries for so-called ``nonuser'' damages and appropriately limit lost use damages; provide for the expedited or enhanced restoration of substitute resources where a unique resource that cannot be replaced has been destroyed, lost or damaged; provide responsible parties with the right to de novo review--or a full trial on all aspects of the claims against them; and, preclude double recovery against responsible parties. In addition to these new titles, we have also made several changes to S. 1090 as introduced. First, we have increased authorized funding levels in the first two years of the five-year period covered by the bill and made the ramp- down in funding less severe in the final three years. Second, we deleted the cap on new NPL listings and revised the requirement for removing clean contiguous property parcels from NPL listings. Third, we made extensive changes to the allocation system to provide additional flexibility. We added authorization for early settlements without an allocation, as well as an expedited allocation based only on an estimate of the orphan share. Fourth, we expressly preserve strict, joint and several liability for those parties who choose not to participate in a settlement. We also ensure that EPA's existing authority to issue orders and engage in removal actions is not unduly limited. Mr. President, these modifications have, in my view, improved the bill substantially. We are introducing this new bill for the information of our colleagues, and in an effort to generate more support for this legislation. Unfortunately, these revisions to our Superfund bill were not sufficient to garner support from a majority of the Members on the Committee. That is disappointing to me, and I would urge my colleagues to take a good look at the bill we introduce today. It represents strong reform of the troubled Superfund program. It will accelerate cleanup by injecting greater fairness into the system, providing more resources for state and local cleanup efforts, and providing finality for decisions made under those state programs. Our legislation continues to make major reforms in six areas. Specifically, SARA: Directs EPA to finish the job that was started nearly two decades ago by completing the evaluation of the 3,000 remaining sites on the CERLA Information System (CERCLIS). Clearly allocates responsibility between states and EPA for future cleanups. Protects municipalities, small businesses, recyclers, and other parties from unfair liability--while making the system fairer for everyone else. Provides states $100 million per year and full authority for their own cleanup programs. Revitalizes communities with $100 million in annual brownfields redevelopment grants. Requires fiscal responsibility by EPA and saves taxpayers money. Our legislation will result in more hazardous waste sites being cleaned up--and in fewer dollars being wasted on litigation. It will give much-needed and much-deserved liability relief to innocent landowners, contiguous property owners, prospective purchasers, municipalities, small businesses, and recyclers. Unlike EPA's administrative reforms, this bill does not shift costs from politically popular parties to those left holding the bag. Instead, it requires payment of a statutory orphan share and authorizes the use of the Superfund Trust Fund for those shares. For those left trapped in the Superfund liability scheme, SARA requires an allocation process to determine a party's fair share in an expedited settlement--instead of fighting it out for years in court. In addition to increasing fairness, SARA provides much needed guidance and direction to a sometimes wayward EPA. It recognizes and builds upon the growth and strength of State hazardous waste cleanup programs. It provides new resources to States and localities for their cleanup and redevelopment efforts. As many of my colleagues know, the fear of Superfund liability has resulted in an estimated 450,000 abandoned or underutilized properties, or ``Brownfields,'' that lay fallow because private developers and municipalities don't want to be dragged into Superfund's litigation quagmire. With new resources and appropriate liability protections, our bill will allow the cleanup of those sites, spurring economic redevelopment in cities, towns, and rural areas across America. We take a different approach to the brownfields redevelopment issue than the Administration seeks. Along with many of my colleagues, I believe that economic redevelopment is primarily a State and local issue. Our approach provides the resources and freedom States need to make progress on this front, rather than giving EPA new authority to get into the commercial real estate and redevelopment business. That is not EPA's role, nor should it be. Where EPA does have a role is in identifying and addressing risks at uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. Our legislation ensures that EPA regains its focus on that mission. Earlier this year, the General Accounting Office (GAO) reported that ``completion of construction at existing sites'' and reducing new entries into the program was the Environmental Protection Agency's top Superfund priority. Unfortunately, EPA's narrow focus on generating construction completion statistics appear to have divested resources from EPA's fundamental mission--protecting human health and the environment from releases of hazardous waste. GAO reported last year that 3,000 sites still await a National Priorities List decision by EPA. Most of those sites have been in the CERCLIS inventory for more than a decade. According to the report, however, more than 1,200 of them are actually ineligible for listing on the NPL, for a variety of reasons. Some of the sites were classified erroneously, while others either do not require cleanup, have already been cleaned up, or have final cleanup underway. EPA's failure to remove the specter of an NPL listing at these sites has likely caused significant economic and social harm to the surrounding communities. EPA needs to focus on that task. In addition, far too many of the sites that are still potentially eligible for listing have received little or no attention from EPA. EPA admitted taking no cleanup action at all at 336 sites and provided no information for another 48 sites. The only action taken at 719 sites was an initial site assessment. EPA's inattention may be due to the fact that EPA and state officials together identified only 232 of the sites as worthy of being added to NPL. In that case, however, the appropriate response is to archive the sites while ensuring that any necessary cleanup occurs under some other Federal or State program. EPA needs to focus on that task as well. Unfortunately, there is also disagreement between EPA and state officials about even those 232 sites. EPA identified 132 that may be listed on the NPL in the future, but state officials agreed on only 26 of those. Conversely, state officials identified a different group of 100 sites as worthy of an NPL listing in the future. EPA agreed with GAO's recommendation that it ``develop a joint strategy'' with the States for addressing these sites. After nearly 20 years and $20 billion in taxpayer funded EPA appropriations, it is disturbing that the agency only now is developing such strategy. Nonetheless, Congress has an obligation to provide direction and assistance to EPA in this effort. The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act provides that direction by: Requiring EPA to finish evaluating and/or archiving old sites stuck in the CERCLIS inventory, thus correcting the current imbalance between evaluating uncontrolled sites and amassing construction completed statistics. Providing EPA with a schedule of 30 NPL listings per year, to ensure that it and the States appropriately allocate sites for cleanup under Superfund, RCRA, or State response programs. Increasing current law limits on EPA removal actions to provide greater flexibility in responding to sites that, at least initially, should be the responsibility of the Federal government, but ultimately do not require an NPL listing. These provisions will ensure that the limited universe of sites remaining in the Superfund pipeline are dealt with quickly and safely. In addition to keeping EPA focused on the task at hand, our bill provides increased resources and authority to the States, in recognition of the progress made by State cleanup programs in the last decade. Superfund is notable among the major Federal environmental statutes not only for its abysmal track record, but also for its heavy reliance on EPA action rather that state implementation. In other environmental programs--RCRA, the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act--EPA typically sets general program direction and provides technical support while leaving implementation and enforcement to the states. In the Superfund program, however, EPA takes a direct role in both enforcement and cleanup. This leadership role was originally justified by a perceived inability or alleged unwillingness on the part of states to perform or oversee cleanups. The situation today is far different. The Environmental Law Institute reported last year that States have now completed 41,000 cleanups, with another 13,700 in progress. The Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO) reports that ``States are not only addressing more sites at any given time, but are also completing more sites through streamlined State programs. State programs have matured and increased in their infrastructure capacity.'' Most now recognize that states have made great strides in their programs, and even EPA in May of 1998 released a ``Plan to Enhance the Role of States and Tribes in the Superfund Program.'' Not surprisingly, while that plan appears to provide some increased opportunities for state leadership, it also envisions a significant, on-going role for EPA. The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act, on the other hand, assists, recognizes, and builds on the growth of state cleanup programs. SARA also responds to pleas from ASTSWMO, the National Governors Association, and others to remove the ever-present threat of EPA over-filing and third party lawsuits under Superfund when a site is being cleaned up under a State program. SARA recognizes the fact that States should be the leaders in cleaning up hazardous waste sites by: Providing $100 million annually for State core and voluntary response programs to allow States to build on their impressive record of accomplishment in this area. Providing finality, except in cases of emergency or at a State's request, for cleanups conducted under State law. Requiring EPA to work with the States so that sites listed on the NPL are those the Governor of the State agrees warrant an NPL listing. Mr. President, the legislation we introduce today has the strong support of the nation's small businesses, Governors, Mayors, and state cleanup officials. I urge my colleagues to support it as well.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my last recorded vote be changed to nay. I voted in error.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Robert Stephen of Manchester, New Hampshire for his appointment to Director of Community Development Services at New Hampshire's Department of Resources and Economic Development. After ten years of service as a New Hampshire State Senator, Democratic Leader from 1984 to 1990, Robert was appointed Deputy Executive Director of the New Hampshire Job Training Council. In this capacity Robert was responsible for providing New Hampshire businesses with the skilled labor needed to grow and be successful and New Hampshire citizens with the skills they need to become self-sufficient. He has also been a driving force in workforce development by overseeing the state's Rapid Response effort and convening the Statewide Business Relations Team. Not only has Robert taken on the task of improving the New Hampshire workforce, but he has been an asset to his community. He has won numerous Multiple Sclerosis Fund-Raising Awards, was a former member of the New Hampshire State Athletic Commission, has received the Easter Seal VIP Award and has been a business owner in downtown Manchester. On top of all this service, Robert was also able to become a three-time New Hampshire Golden Gloves Boxing Champion. Robert's new responsibility as Director of Community Development Services will give him the opportunity to cultivate a stronger and more job ready workforce, meeting the needs and specifications of New Hampshire companies. His presence at the New Hampshire Job Training Council will surely be missed. I want to commend Robert Stephen for his hard work on behalf of New Hampshire citizens and wish him luck in his new endeavor. It is an honor to represent Robert in the United States Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the Bedford Presbyterian Church which is celebrating its 250th Anniversary on August 15, 1999. The church first organized on August 15, 1749 and has been serving the people of Bedford ever since. The church was founded under the rules of Massachusetts Colony who deeded the land to the New Hampshire and also mandated that in order to organize a town there must be land for a church, a minister, and an orthodox ministry. The church was thus formed in 1749 and the town charter was signed the next year. As a person of strong religious convictions, I applaud the services and strong sense of family and community that the church has provided to its community. Furthermore, I applaud their monthly celebrations of this historic event. I commend the Bedford Presbyterian Church and wish them luck in the next 250 years. It is an honor to represent the members of Bedford Presbyterian Church in the United States Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the town of Newton, New Hampshire on its two hundred and fiftieth anniversary. The town's residents will celebrate this historic occasion on August 15, 1999 with a number of festivities including a parade and an ``Olde Fashioned Fireman's Muster''. Newton's rich and fruitful history dates back to 1639 when families first settled in the area granted by England known as New Salisbury (Amesbury). Newton's actual township was incorporated in 1749, allowing the people to elect their own officials and to hold town meetings. Much of the frontier region was wild country inhabited by the Naumkeag Indians. The settlers and the Naumkeaks had generally peaceful relations, relying on one another for trading purposes. The greatest danger facing the settlers came from the war parties of the Mic Macs, who originated from the area now known as Maine and New Brunswick, Canada. These hostile groups conducted violent raids as far south as Connecticut, killing large numbers of local populations. With a combination of the settlers' admirable fortitude and the recurring epidemics of disease, these native populations were nearly wiped out. Newton residents have persevered in other ways throughout the years, courageously serving and defending America. They have participated in the French and Indian Wars, Revolutionary War, War of 1812, Civil War, World War I, World War II, the Korean War and the Vietnam Conflict. Newton's citizens are always willing to serve our Nation when called upon. I congratulate the town of Newton, and it's dedicated and patriotic citizens. I am proud to serve the residents of Newton in the United States Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Richard Tortorelli of Milford, New Hampshire, who has retired from the Milford Fire Department after 41 years of service. Richard began his career with the Milford Fire Department while in high school. At the age of 21, he joined the fire department as an on- call fire fighter. In 1986, he became the first full-rime Fire Chief in Milford's history. Under his leadership, the fire department has seen many changes: a move from Town Hall in 1974 into the current station, a change from a one-town dispatch center to the regional Milford Area Communication Center, and equipment updates along with specialized training. Even though Richard works in one of the most dangerous professions in the country, he has never lost a member of his department. One of the most rewarding aspects of his career is that the number of fire calls in Milford has decreased over the years. He acknowledges that teaching fire prevention is not as thrilling as fighting a fire, however it is very important. I would like to thank Chief Tortorelli for his service to the Town of Milford, and his dedication and leadership to the Milford Fire Department. I commend Richard for his exemplary career and tireless efforts. I wish him luck in his future endeavors. It is an honor to represent him in the United States Senate.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, these solemn words that all of us revere in the second amendment could not be more clear. There is no discussion about what those words mean. I am fascinated as the days go by, the more I am in politics, the more I read about constitutional scholars making unconstitutional arguments. Frankly, I am sick of it. The more recognition these constitutional scholars get, the more unconstitutional their arguments get. How can anybody read the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States and come up with gun control? It is just simply not possible to do in any rational way. Yet many of the self-appointed leading lights of constitutional law continue to try to throw the second amendment into oblivion, to throw it on the trash heap. Boy, they are doing a good job. There are 40,000 gun laws already. We can pass a few more and stop law-abiding Americans from going to gun shows. Let's just keep sitting back, America, keep sitting back on your hands--I might use another word if I were not on the Senate floor--and let it happen. Don't do anything. Don't stand up. You need to start voting, my fellow Americans. You need to start looking at who is doing this to you and to the Constitution of the United States of America, and you need to start throwing those people out of here. That is what you need to do. I do not care with what party they are. It is irrelevant. These are the same legal scholars who find a constitutional right to abortion, to solicitation, to contributions, to expression, to travel, to privacy, and to a wall of separation between church and state, none of which are mentioned anywhere in the text of that hallowed document. Nowhere. But, oh, they find it. Abortion, where is that in the Constitution? I do not know if the scholars have read what our founders have said, but somehow I think it is reasonable to accept the premise that those who wrote the Constitution might have known what they were talking about; maybe they knew what they intended; maybe they knew what they intended since they wrote the document. It is interesting to read some of their words on the second amendment. I am not sure the scholars have read them. If they have, they are not listening. I have read them. Let me quote a few. The father of the Constitution, James Madison, made absolutely clear what the second amendment means. Mr. Madison declared that the Constitution preserves ``the advantage of being armed[,] which Americans possess over the people of almost every other Nation. . . .'' Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration of Independence, put it this way. Because of the second amendment, Jefferson proclaimed: ``No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.'' Another Founding Father, George Mason of Virginia, upon whose Virginia Bill of Rights the Federal Bill of Rights was based, explained that the second amendment means that the militia shall ``consist now of the whole people, except a few public officials.'' The whole people will now have the right in the case of tyranny to go to their homes and pick up their arms and protect themselves. That is the purpose of the second amendment. It is not about sport shooting. It is not about hunting. It is about protection, the right of a person to protect himself or herself from tyranny, from enemies. Sadly, the modern day enemies of the second amendment choose to ignore what the founders said. I do not think they chose to ignore it. I think they deliberately ignored it. They knew exactly what they were doing. They are trampling on the Constitution--it is a design--and the American people are going to sit back until it is too late--not if I have anything to do about it; not as long as I have a voice; and as long as I can stand on the Senate floor I am going to stop it. Today they are unrelenting in their attacks on the second amendment, and they have a big advantage. They have a huge advantage because they have the major news media solidly on their side. I am not much on polls, but it would be interesting to take a little poll to find out how many of the news media pack a little sidearm somewhere to protect themselves in their homes. Do you want to take any bets? More than 6 years ago, I was driving to work, coming in here to Washington. I did not have a gun on my person because I am traveling in Washington, DC, where by law I am not allowed to have one. I did not think it would look good for a Senator to break the law. I do not like that law. I witnessed two people murdered in front of my eyes before the CIA. When I got back to Washington, the press found out I had witnessed the murder, and the first question was not: Is your son OK? I just dropped him off at school 2 minutes before down the road. Not: How is your son? Is he OK? Is he handling it all right? Not: How are you? Are you OK? No. That was not the first question. That was not the second, either. The first question was: Have you now changed your position on gun control? I witnessed a murder 20 minutes, 30 minutes before. That was the first question: Well, Senator, you're a conservative Republican, pro-gun. Have you now changed your position on the second amendment? I said: No, I have not. I wish I had had a gun. I might have saved two people from being killed by an individual standing in the middle of a highway with an AK-47 weapon, shooting innocent people in their cars. Time and time again, the media has asked me the same question about that very incident. The obsessive focus of those questions on gun control demonstrates how much the media is in the back pockets of the anti-gun zealots. And they are. They are working together. Frankly, they are winning, if you want my honest opinion. They won here today. They won again. Time and time again--again and again and again--we trample on the Constitution of the United States of America. You know what I said to the media? We ought to stop worrying about the terrorist's gun and start worrying about tracking him down, trying him, convicting him, and getting rid of him so he can never do it again. Finally, after several years, he was tracked down. He was convicted. He is now on death row. The man who committed those murders outside the CIA was an alien terrorist who fled overseas. In thinking about the right to keep and bar arms in international terms, I find a certain irony. We live in a time in which nearly all of the totalitarian communist regimes, which kept all of the guns in the hands of the government and out of the hands of the people they tyrannized, have collapsed--almost all but not all. Yet their utterly discredited philosophy of gun control still finds a great number of sympathizers and supporters in the world's oldest democracy. Two of my close friends escaped Castro's Cuba in the late 1950s, early 1960s. The first thing Castro did when he took over was go door to door, house to house, literally, confiscating every weapon he could get. Because once he did that, his people were defenseless, and he knew it. It is interesting: Tyrannical governments taking our guns; Members of the Senate and the media taking our guns. A bitter irony, isn't it? Seen in the light of the second amendment's wording, and the meaning of that provision of the Constitution, as illuminated by the comments of our Nation's founders, it is clear to me that the gun control amendments to S. 254 that were adopted by the Senate are a serious attack on the second amendment rights of all Americans. The cloture vote we just took bringing debate on this bill to a close--which is what cloture is--shows where the votes are in the Senate. The Senate has sided with gun control, and they went against the cultural approach. You are not going to cut down a big tree by snipping the leaves off of it. We are not going to solve this problem with gun control. We are going to solve this problem when we understand here in America that we have some severe cultural and moral problems. We need to put values back in schools. We need to put God back in schools. We need to allow kids to have the right to pray and the right to talk about these things with their teachers so their teachers do not have to worry about being fired for giving comfort. A teacher in, I believe, New York was fired. When her children were agonizing over the fact that one of their classmates had died, and she offered to have them say a little prayer to comfort them, she was fired. The same people who advocated her firing support gun control. I sought an opportunity to offer an amendment. I wanted to have a vote on H.R. 1501. I was not allowed to get it. All I wanted was a vote. I wanted the House bill. I wanted the Senate to be on record as to whether or not they supported this alternative, H.R. 1501, or this alternative, S. 254. I stand right here at the desk of Daniel Webster. Webster was in many debates at this desk in the Old Senate Chamber. He was born in New Hampshire and represented New Hampshire in the Congress; and in a moment, I guess, when he wasn't thinking properly he moved to Massachusetts, and he represented Massachusetts in the Senate. But this desk now for evermore belongs to the senior Senator from New Hampshire. I can imagine what Webster would think and say in the great eloquence that he was able to deliver so many times on the floor of the Senate at this desk. I think about it often. But I can imagine what he might have thought had he been here in this debate this morning, after a vote, with a bunch of rules that nobody put in the Constitution, with us getting a chance to say why it was a bad vote. I wonder what Webster would have said. Those are the rules. I wonder also what he would have said if he knew we took away part of the second amendment rights of law-abiding American citizens--probably the same thing he would have said if we tried to take the first amendment rights away or any other rights away under the Constitution. He would be appalled. I am devastated by this vote personally because I have traveled all over America these past 2 years, and I know what is in the hearts of most of the American people out there because I have talked to them one-on-one, literally one-on-one, from California to Maine, to Florida, to Alabama. You name it, I have probably been in the State. And they are disgusted with what we do here. I am a Member of this body. I am not criticizing colleagues, but they get so sick and tired of it, watching the Constitution get trampled on, watching their taxes go up, watching their rights being taken away, watching 35 million of their fellow citizens aborted and murdered. When we talk about culture, what do we tell the shooters in Columbine and the kids who do these terrible things? We say, go to school today, be good kids, and while you are gone, we will abort your brothers and your sisters--35 million of them since 1973. We just can't continue to do this. It will be business as usual. We will kill another 30 million over the next 25 years. It won't stop. It is not going to stop, and this isn't going to stop, until the American people understand fully what is happening. When they do, hopefully, they are going to change the Government and get us back to the Constitution of the United States. That is what we swore to uphold, that is what we took the oath to defend, and that is what we ought to do: Defend it and support it. Anything less than that, I don't care if it is the 2nd amendment, the 4th amendment, the 16th amendment, the 22nd amendment, or the body of the Constitution itself, we should defend it all, because that is what we are here for. It is with great sadness and regret that I have to say to the American people, you lost today. The second amendment today took another hit, and it will continue to take more until we finally realize that enough is enough and we are going to change the people who do this to us time and time again. I hope it happens before it is too late because once we lose the Constitution and respect for it, we lose America. I had a citizen tell me--I will not mention the name, for obvious reasons--just recently, about a week ago, that he talked to a high- ranking Member in the House of Representatives. I will leave it at that. That high-ranking Member said, in a discussion with that individual: ``The Constitution is nothing but a piece of paper.'' If that is true, there is not much hope. The last hope for America is the American people. It is not the Senate; it is not the House; it is not the White House; it is the American people. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time. Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Idaho for his remarks. I say for the Record that I agree with everything he said. Mr. President, we have had a very unusual set of circumstances this morning. We had a vote on an issue involving gun control, yet we don't get to speak until after the vote. Knowing what the result is, it does take out a little bit of the steam. As most of my colleagues know, and I think most American people know, I have filibustered this bill now for about a week by asking for this cloture vote. As Senator Craig said, to simply have dilatory motions between now and the time this goes to conference makes no sense because the result of this bill going to conference has already been decided by the vote of the Senate. Under this rule, each Senator, myself now being the one on the floor, has an hour to discuss the reason for their vote on this issue. I think it is important to discuss it, even though the vote has occurred, because the American people need to understand what we did. I tried in a very few brief minutes, thanks to the consideration of the minority leader who was kind enough to allow me 3 minutes of his time to do this prior to 9:45 when we had the vote, to point out what we were about to do. Apparently not too many people were listening. I will point out again what we did. The House passed H.R. 1501 and sent it here. That is a cultural bill that allows the display of the Ten Commandments in schools. It allows individual religious expression. It allows prayer in school memorial services. It allows faith-based groups to compete for Government juvenile justice grants. A good bill. The purpose of that bill was to make a statement about juveniles that perhaps the issue is not guns but, rather, a cultural problem in our schools that we need to address. It was a well-thought-out bill. When that bill came to the Senate, I tried to get a vote up or down on it. Because of procedures by those who felt the bill should not be passed, I could not do it. I was shut out by the so-called legislative tree, a parliamentary tree, so I could not offer the bill and get a vote on it. Next comes gun control, the Senate provisions. We have a House bill and a Senate bill. The Senate bill imposes strict limits on gun shows. It requires the sale of trigger locks with guns. It puts new limits on juvenile gun possession, the kinds of juveniles that Senator Craig spoke about, young teenagers who perhaps might go hunting or sports shooting. These are needless restrictions on law-abiding American citizens, young and old. I think it is important to understand what has happened. This was substituted for this as a result of the vote we just had. This bill will go to conference. Someone said quite some time ago: If you saw how laws and sausage were made, you would probably get sick and wouldn't want a part of either. There is a lot of truth to that. I have never had a lot of confidence in those who say: We will clean this up in conference, or we will get a good bill out of conference, or let the conferees work their will. We will see what kind of will is worked when this comes back. This is gun control, a violation of the second amendment. We voted by 77-22 to put more gun control on the American people. Call it what it is. When this comes out of conference, it will have gun control. During the Senate's consideration of S. 254, I was very upset that the gun control lobby in this country took advantage of a terrible tragedy. They did a good job of it. This was a very emotional time, a horrible tragedy, and the gun control people used it to the hilt and scared off a lot of people. What happened at Littleton was a terrible tragedy. People used this on the Senate floor and mounted an unprecedented assault on the second amendment rights of law-abiding American gun owners. Not one law- abiding American citizen had anything to do with Columbine, not one. Not one law-abiding American citizen, not one gun owner or juvenile who is a law-abiding citizen had anything to do with Columbine. They were law breakers who did that at Columbine. They cast the blame, though, on the law-abiding gun owner, while leaving the movie moguls and video gamemakers who promote violence to children unscathed, with no mention. The problem is guns, they said, not the culture. It is interesting that we take prayer and values out of the schools. What comes in? Violence, drugs, condoms. Hello, America, wake up. It was well done; it was well orchestrated. It scared off enough people. It scared off the 19 or so votes we needed to block cloture on this bill. The House did the right thing; we did the wrong thing. We need to take a hard, introspective look at our Nation's culture. That bill did that. This bill does not do that. We see video games designed for young people that glorify violence. I say to the American people taking a few moments to listen, look at those video games your kids are watching. Take a look at what they are watching on the Internet. Take a look at some of the movies they are bringing home from Erol's and watching after you go to bed. Parents might want to take a look and see what is going on in their children's lives. They glorify violence. They invite children to engage in fantasy killings. They never show the opposite. When somebody is shot in one of the video games, they don't mention the fact that the person who was killed may have a family. They don't talk about that. The only thing shown is the glorification of violence. We see unconscionably violent movies such as ``The Basketball Diaries'' in which killings bear a striking resemblance to the Littleton massacre. It doesn't mean every kid who watches that kind of a movie would do that. Of course it doesn't. Some kids can handle it, but some can't. Why expose children to this? We see music such as that of the so-called Marilyn Manson character that glorifies murder, suicide, sodomy. As a matter of fact, Platinum Records has big sales on those records glorifying murder, suicide, and sodomy. Our kids are listening to this in America and we blame guns. We blame guns with this vote. We see the marketing of violence in many forms over the Internet. As I said, every child is not going to go to school and murder his classmates or his teacher because he watches or plays some video game or listens to violent music. Some will be influenced by that culture. I had a shotgun next to my bed for as long as I can remember. At 8 or 9 years old, I knew how to use it. I was trained to use it in the proper way. I never thought about going to school and using it on anybody, and neither did my classmates who also had shotguns. I remember hearing it said when I grew up that if you read good books, good things might happen. By the same token, if a young person watches a bad film or plays an evil video game, bad things may happen. Why take a chance? But it is easier to blame the gun. Blame the gun; blame somebody else. Don't look at what is going on in America. Wake up, America, before it is too late. This is the second amendment to the Constitution that we just violated. It is not guns that caused this violence. The first gun came over on a ship probably in 1607. Most likely somebody had a gun coming into Jamestown. For 375 years we had no school shootings, not one. Now we have gun control. In America, we have 40,000 laws, according to Senator Craig, and now we have school shootings. Hello. Anybody listening? What is going on here? Is it guns? If it is, how come we didn't have school shootings for 375 years when everybody had a gun? I believe we should take a look at the news media. The news media has a distressing tendency to engage in sensationalism, the mindless pursuit of greater ratings. On April 20 this year when the children came tumbling out of Columbine High School with blood on their clothes, some children wounded and crying, what happened? With microphones in their face, they were asked: What was it like to witness your classmate's death? Did he say anything as he died? What they needed when they came out of that high school, my fellow Americans, was a hug. Do you know what would have really made me feel good? If one of those in the news media had laid down the microphone and laid down the camera and walked up to one of those kids and put his arms around them or her arms around them and said, ``I'm sorry. We love you.'' But, oh, no, we cannot do that. We have to get right in the face with the microphone and the camera and sensationalize this kind of violence. And then we blame guns. When are we going to wake up, America, before it is too late? This bill addressed this--tried to. You cannot address these kinds of things with laws, but you can at least make an attempt. You take these things out of the schools and the kids don't have any choice. They can't pray; they can't talk about values. If somebody gets killed and the teachers try to comfort their kids by saying a prayer, the teacher gets fired. And we take away guns and blame guns. H.R. 1301 declares that State and local governments have the power to display the Ten Commandments on public property. This would allow the public schools to post those Ten Commandments. Does anyone seriously argue that the display of the Ten Commandments in a public school wouldn't help kids at least think a little bit? They do represent the moral foundation of our entire civilization. Does anybody have a problem with, ``Thou shall not kill?'' Does anybody have a problem with, ``Thou shalt not steal?'' ``Thou shalt not bear false witness?'' ``Honor thy father and mother?'' Does anybody have a problem with those? Is that going to threaten Western civilization, to put those up on the wall of the school? Really? Come on. H.R. 1501, this bill, declares that the expression of religious faith by individual persons is protected by the Constitution of the United States. This provision would allow greater freedom for individual students to express their religious faith, whatever it is, as well as to organize and participate in student-led religious activities in public school. Does anyone seriously believe that greater religious freedom in the public schools would not improve the cultural environment in these schools? We spend more time trying to deny religion and values in our schools than we spend with our own kids. Think about it. If we spent as much time with our kids, loving our kids, as we do trying to deny them these kinds of things, we might have a better America. But let's go back and blame guns. That is what we did here; we just blamed guns. We put in gun control and substituted it for this. Faith-based organizations can compete for Government grants under this bill. Does anyone doubt that involving faith-based organizations in juvenile justice would improve our Nation's juvenile justice system? These cultural approaches to solving the problem of youth violence offer great promise. This bill offers great promise. This bill offers gun control. This is the coward's way out. This is the ostrich vote. Put your head in the sand. Blame the gun. Don't deal with this issue. We wouldn't want to have to do anything as controversial as perhaps posting the Ten Commandments in a school. I was disappointed during the Senate's consideration of this bill. I was disappointed, frankly, in some of my conservative colleagues in the Senate, some of my pro-gun conservative colleagues in the Senate. I am disappointed. We had a chance to stop this. I spent a great deal of time over the past 2 weeks as we debated S. 254, arguing privately with these colleagues, trying to persuade them to hold the line against this onslaught of more gun control. Gun shows, do you know what the goal is here? It is not instant background checks. It is the elimination of gun shows--eliminate the shows, don't allow any gun shows. After all, punish the law-abiding American who comes to a gun show, as millions do all across America every year. Punish them. That is the easy thing to do. Do not deal with this. Do not deal with the criminal. Punish the people who go to gun shows, the law-abiding American citizens. You say, what if somebody, a bad person, gets a gun? Bad people are not going to come and get a gun there; they can get it easier somewhere else. Even if they do, if they commit a crime with it, we put them in jail and put them away as we do anybody else who commits a crime. I am very disappointed about what the Senate did with respect to these gun shows. It seems evident to me, the practical effect of the Lautenberg amendment, adopted when Vice President Gore sat in the chair and proudly cast the tie-breaking vote: This will ruin the gun shows, put them out of business. That is the aim of the amendment, and that is the aim of this legislation that we just substituted in order to send it to conference. Everybody says we will get it out in conference. We will see about that. Don't hold your breath. I am very concerned about the effects of this so-called trigger lock amendment. Even though the amendment appears only to require trigger locks to be sold with guns, the legal effect may well do great damage to the second amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners because courts may construe the amendment as creating a new civil negligence standard under which gun owners will be seen as having a legal obligation to use their trigger locks or face legal liability if their gun is misused by some third party. What are we going to create now, a trigger lock inspector? ``Knock, knock, knock. Hello, I'm the Government trigger lock inspector. I want to see if you have your trigger lock on your weapon.'' Some people say, no, it doesn't require they put it on their weapon; it just requires they buy it. Where is individual and personal accountability and responsibility? If you are dumb enough to leave a weapon without a trigger lock lying around where a kid can reach it, then you ought not own the gun. But that is personal responsibility and accountability. It is not the Government's responsibility. It is certainly not even workable. But maybe it will come to that. We have Government bureaucrats who do just about everything in America. We might as well have 400,000 or 500,000 trigger lock inspectors, and they can knock on the door, ``Mr. Smith, do you have a gun?'' ``Yes, but I'm not going to give it to you.'' ``Well, I wanted to see whether you have a trigger lock on your gun.'' It may come to that. Don't laugh. If the law develops such that gun owners have a legal obligation to use these trigger locks, they may be forced to put their safety and that of their families at risk. It is not unreasonable to imagine a single mother of a small child, depending on her gun for safety, panic stricken, struggling unsuccessfully with her trigger lock, at night, after hearing a burglar in the house. If she has no trigger lock, and she has that thing up on a 10-foot shelf, that is her choice. The Government tells her she has to use a trigger lock--or buy a trigger lock she doesn't even need. What in the world is happening to this country, to the second amendment, to the Constitution? It is amazing how we pick some amendments, such as the first amendment, and say we must protect that amendment at all costs, but when it comes to the second amendment, no, we can skip that one. These are two examples of the grave harm gun control amendments adopted by the Senate would do to second amendment rights. When the heat of the moment is gone and the passions so shamelessly stirred up by the gun control lobby have subsided, many of those who have supported these amendments will realize they have done the second amendment serious and lasting harm. But I don't want to see any tears; I don't want to hear any whining; I don't want to hear any, ``I'm sorry''; I don't want to hear any, ``My gosh, why did I do that? What happened? Where was I when they took the second amendment rights away? Where was I when they took the Constitution?'' I don't want to hear it. It is too late. Great experts have repeatedly shown that criminals do not go to gun stores, complete the necessary forms, and leave with legally purchased weapons. ``Hello, I'm a criminal. I am going to use my gun tonight in an armed robbery. I would like to purchase it, please. Where do I fill out the forms?'' Criminals are going to buy their guns on the black market or they are going to steal them. I have had people tell me flat out: I might as well buy the guns on the black market. It is a lot safer to me. The Government doesn't know I have it. That is pretty scary. Gun control has not been shown to reduce crime. Washington, DC, where we are now, has the most crime in all America. The only people who own guns in Washington are the criminals. They have them. You cannot have one. You are an honest citizen. But they have them. Crime has really gone down dramatically in Washington, hasn't it? Gun control has really worked here. Gun control attacks a serious problem from the wrong angle. Sixty million Americans own 200 million firearms. That is a very interesting statistic. Sixty million Americans own 200 million firearms, including 60 million handguns. Yet four-tenths of 1 percent of those handguns will be used to commit a crime. So 99.6 percent of all handguns are used legally; 99.6 percent, the good folks; four-tenths of 1 percent, the bad guys. We substituted S. 254 for H.R. 1501, right here on the floor of the Senate. Some argue the crime problem is the result of too much personal freedom. It is not personal freedom that is the problem. It is moral decadence. This bill tries to at least help us deal with it. It is moral decadence. It is a cultural, moral problem and it is getting worse by the day. We look, in this body, for any excuse--guns, whatever--to look the other way. Maybe we will have a bill tomorrow to ban knives and then baseball bats, maybe cars. They kill about 45 million people a year. Maybe we ought to ban them. It is a revolving door criminal system. That is what the problem is, moral decadence and a revolving door criminal justice system that puts the average murderer on the street in 7 years. That is right. The average murderer walks out of prison, if he goes to prison--some like Mr. Simpson never go to prison when they should. Yes, that is right, some like Mr. Simpson never go to prison when they should. But the average murderer in this country, if he goes to jail, serves 7 years for murder. But it is the gun's fault, isn't it? We cannot blame the judges, cannot blame the prosecutors, cannot blame the court system. We have to blame guns; blame the peaceful citizen who has the right to own a gun to protect himself. I am proud I voted the way I did against cloture. I am proud I voted for H.R. 1501 and against S. 254. I am proud to stand up for the second amendment in the Chamber of the Senate, and I will stand up here again and again, year after year, month after month, whatever it takes to make this case because I know I am right, and I am going to continue to do it. When this bill comes out of conference, I am going to filibuster it again for as long as I can. I am going to do everything I can to kill it, whatever I can do. I am only one person. In the movie ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,'' another Mr. Smith, Jimmy Stewart, dropped on the floor of the Senate after several hours, 23 I think. I think he even beat Strom Thurmond, if I am not mistaken, in the filibuster. He dropped on the floor of the Senate amongst a pile of newspapers. Maybe that is what I have to do. Maybe I will do that. I don't know. I know one thing, S. 254 is wrong and H.R. 1501 is right. I am going to fight to preserve, protect, and defend the constitutional right, all of the Constitution and all of the constitutional rights of Americans, including the right to keep and bear arms. Many of us who are veterans in the fight to protect the second amendment know the bold and clear words of the second amendment by heart. We cannot say them often enough if we are to educate our fellow citizens about the unmistakable meaning and intent behind those words of that most besieged provision of the Bill of Rights. It is pretty clear: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Tell me where there is anything in that amendment that allows us to do this under the Constitution of the United States of America? I stood right there where the pages are sitting and took the oath twice when I came to the Senate to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and that is what I am doing now, and that is what I will continue to do. There is nothing in those words about background checks. There is nothing in there about the people having a right to keep and bear certain kinds of arms. There is nothing in there that says handguns can be kept or not kept where shotguns can. Nothing. I sure do not see anything in there that gives Congress any leeway whatsoever to infringe second amendment rights whenever some group of anti-gun zealots think what they like to call the ``public interest'' requires it. The public interest is to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States of America. That is what the public interest is and nothing else. You trample on the Constitution; you trample on the public interest. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I very much appreciate the minority leader's consideration.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I see the minority leader coming on the floor. I was just going to try to get about 3 minutes before the vote. Would that be agreeable with the minority leader?