Bob Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

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

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. What do we say? First, we tell them that we are ensuring that the American people, through their representatives in Congress, should either support it, if it is to continue, or not. If my amendment were to prevail and I were one of those pilots, I would hope that my Commander in Chief, after this amendment did prevail, would begin to make a compelling case for our actions against Yugoslavia, and would bring that case before the American people for a vote in Congress. That is all this amendment requires. It is the only way to ensure that the American people are behind their troops in the field.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. The respect is mutual, as my friend knows. Mr. President, there have been a few misstatements about my amendment that I would like to clarify, as Senators now begin to make their way to the floor. I will only be a few minutes in closing. All this amendment requires is that the President make the case and get congressional approval to go forward with this war after October 1. No funds are cut off until October 1, and unless Congress chooses not to authorize the President to continue. That is what this amendment requires. I heard one of my colleagues on the other side of the issue say a few moments ago that this is coming at the last minute and that we do not have time to deliberate. I will tell you how much time you have to deliberate. You have the rest of this month, you have June, July, August, and September. You have 4 months to think about whether or not you want this war to continue and whether or not you want to authorize more funding. It does not send any message to Milosevic other than the fact that Congress intends to exercise its constitutional authority. That is all. I could probably give emotional speeches about a number of human tragedies around the world. My colleague from Delaware got very emotional; and that is a good quality when you believe in something. But this decision should not be based on emotions. This is a decision about how we should use our finite power. We should make the decision on how we use our power on the basis of American interests. No American life should be risked based on any Senator's emotions, for goodness' sake. In 1995, 500,000 Rwandans were slaughtered in six weeks--most of them hacked to death by machetes--in tribal warfare in the nation of Rwanda. Maybe I am mistaken--and if I am, I will apologize to any Senator who says he came down here and said that we should enter the war in Rwanda, enter that civil war, fire cruise missiles, bomb the blazes out of all the cities, bring those tribes back to their knees to stop the hacking--but I did not hear it. That was a humanitarian crisis of the highest magnitude, and we did not enter it. And we should not have entered it. Those 500,000 people are just as precious under the eyes of God as anybody else in the world, and we said nothing. We did not fire cruise missiles, we did not drop smart bombs, and we did not talk about ground forces, we did not talk about NATO forces, or any other forces of the world going in and setting up a partition to keep two warring tribes apart. Why? Because, as in Kosovo, the conflict posed no threat to the United States. No American lives were worth risking. This is not about tying the President's hands as he tries to defend America. It is about guiding and restraining an incompetent administration as it muddles around in a place where U.S. interests are, at best, peripheral. There are terrible humanitarian situations that Mr. Milosevic has created. I will be the first to admit it. The question is, as I said at the outset of this debate, How do we resolve it? Do we resolve it with more bombs? By bombing and causing collateral damage to innocent people? Or do we do it through diplomacy? I am not trying to send a message one way or the other to Milosevic with this amendment. I am trying to send a message to the American people and to the Senate to say, if we are going to put Americans at war in a sovereign nation in a civil war, the least the Senate can do is have the intestinal fortitude to say yes or no, rather than to let this thing string on like Vietnam did and then, after 58,000 people are dead, we say, oh, my goodness, if we had just stopped this war a little bit earlier--or perhaps, as Senator Goldwater said, we had fought it to win a little bit sooner. Meanwhile, there are 58,000-plus people on the Vietnam Wall. Now is the time to speak, not 5 years from now. All I am asking in this amendment is that we have from now until October 1 to decide whether or not we want to fund this war any further. That is the message I am sending. I am sending that to my colleagues who represent the people of the United States of America. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I yield 5 additional minutes of our time to the Senator from Washington. Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I just want to respond to one point that was made on the other side regarding the payback, if you will, the fact that the woman agrees to pay out of her own pocket, therefore, I would assume the issue is that she would reimburse the Government. But I would ask one to consider the accounting nightmare that would ensue as we try to figure out--we had a doctor paid for by the taxpayers, a clinic, a hospital paid for by the taxpayers, equipment paid for by the taxpayers, and supplies and special equipment involving abortions--how one would allocate all of this? We would have to figure out, how many abortions were done and how all the allocations would be done. It simply is not workable. It would not work. The bottom line, as I have been indicating, is that the taxpayers would be subsidizing abortions in military hospitals. I think everyone understands that. I do not think there should be any confusion on that, that those who do not support abortion would be subsidizing abortions. I just want to review, in closing, the current law. Just to summarize, no funds made available to DOD are used for abortions. Under current law, military facilities are prohibited, in most cases, in the performance of abortions. So the amendment now before the Senate is inconsistent with the Hyde amendment, which has been in existence for over 20 years, that taxpayer dollars may not be used to pay for abortions. Current law, with respect to abortions at military facilities, is fully consistent with the Hyde amendment. The proponents of this amendment, which would overturn current law and allow abortion on demand, claim that their proposal is somehow consistent. As I said before, it is not. Under their proposal, women seeking abortions would pay for them, but this evinces a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of military medical facilities, which I pointed out. In conclusion, I say that it is just simply unfair, and it has been so ruled by the Supreme Court, that people, who, because of their own values and beliefs and principles, do not believe in abortion, that they should have to subsidize it with their tax dollars or pay for it with their tax dollars. That is the issue. We have had a vote on this issue many years in the past. I hope people will see the light to see that this is wrong and basically unfair, and that we would respect the innocence of human life, and perhaps encourage the young woman in trouble to talk to a chaplain. There are military chaplains out there, and some darn good ones, who are available to counsel young women in need. I would certainly be very excited to hear that some of these women went to the chaplain because this law didn't get changed and perhaps chose life over abortion. At this point, I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, here we go again with the same amendment that comes up every year. The vote is always close. There are a lot of very strong feelings on both sides. Again, as I have in the past, I rise in opposition to this amendment--this time the Murray-Snowe amendment-- which would allow U.S. military facilities to be used for the performance of abortions on demand. Under current law, no funds may be made available to the Department of Defense for the performance of abortions. The amendment now before the Senate is completely inconsistent with the Hyde amendment, which has been existing law for 20 years. Under the Hyde amendment, no taxpayer dollars may be used to pay for abortions. The issue here is whether or not you want to basically throw out the Hyde amendment and say that Members are willing to have taxpayer dollars used to pay for abortions in military hospitals. The Hyde amendment recognizes that millions of American taxpayers believe that abortion is the taking of an innocent life, an unborn human being. Those Members, myself included, who proudly call ourselves pro-life should not be forced to pay for a procedure with our tax money that violates our fundamental and deeply held belief in the sanctity of innocent human life. That is the issue here. In the 1980 case of Harris versus McRae, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Hyde amendment. The Court determined that there is no constitutional right to a taxpayer-funded abortion, no matter how we feel on the issue otherwise--no constitutional right, according to the Harris versus McRae decision in 1980. Current law with respect to abortions at military facilities, then, is fully consistent with the Hyde amendment. This amendment by the Senator from Washington will overturn existing law. The proponents of this amendment, which would overturn current law and allow abortion on demand at military facilities, claim that their proposal is somehow consistent with Hyde. It is not. They say this because, under their proposal, servicewomen seeking these abortions would pay for them. That is true. This argument, however, evinces a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of military medical facilities. Military clinics and military hospitals, unlike private clinics and private hospitals, receive not 10, not 20, not 30, not 90, but 100 percent of their funding from the taxpayers of the United States. A woman cannot go into a military hospital and use those facilities without the taxpayers paying for the facility she is using to have that abortion. The clinics, the hospitals, the doctors, the equipment--all of it is paid for by the U.S. taxpayer. Physicians who practice in those clinics and hospitals, government employees whose salaries and bills are paid by the taxpayers, all of it, all of the operational and administrative expenses associated with the practice of military medicine are paid for by the taxpayers of the United States. Furthermore, equipment that would be used at these facilities to perform the abortions, equipment that we abhor--those of us who are pro-life, who find it repulsive and reprehensible, and I won't go into the details about what happens with the equipment that is used on these innocent children--that equipment will be purchased by taxpayer dollars. It will be purchased by dollars that I pay in taxes and that many of my millions of friends around the Nation who oppose abortion, their dollars will be used to pay for this. The Supreme Court of the United States has said that that is wrong and they ruled in the McRae case that it should not be done. In short, it is simply impossible to allow the performance of abortions at military facilities, even if the procedure itself is paid for by the servicewoman involved, without having the taxpayers forced to subsidize it. You can't have it. The only way to protect the integrity of the taxpayer's dollars is to keep the military out of the business of abortion. We could go on and on, on just that issue. Just what business should the military be in? The military has gotten into a lot of things lately under this administration that don't belong in the realm of the military, but do we have to now go to the taking of the lives of unborn children and use the military to now do that? Do we have to really do that? Isn't it bad enough that we have to see throughout America since the illustrious Roe versus Wade decision in 1973--I ask everyone to reflect for a moment on what has happened since that decision. In 1973, Roe versus Wade was passed. Since that date, 35 million babies, that we know of, have been aborted. Let's define abortion: The taking of the life of an unborn child. Thirty-five million. If you look at the statistics of how many girls are born and how many boys are born, that probably translates into about 18 million young girls who would now be as old as 30 years, perhaps, depending on when the abortion might have been performed. How many of those 18 million young women may have had the opportunity to serve in the U.S. military? They don't get that chance because our country, our Nation, supported a Supreme Court decision that said they didn't have a chance to ever have the opportunity to serve in the military, never have the opportunity to be a mother, never to have the opportunity to be a daughter, never to have the opportunity to live their dreams, to enjoy the liberties of the United States of America--never to have that opportunity. Never to have the opportunity to fight for the freedom of the United States as a member of the military because they were aborted--they were killed in the womb. This Nation, through this Supreme Court decision, allowed it to happen. That is beyond the dignity, to put it mildly, of a great nation. We let it happen. It is bad enough that happened, but now we have to go one step further with the amendment of the Senator from Washington and say that the taxpayers have to fund it. Mr. President, I wish everyone who will vote on this amendment in the next hour or so had had the opportunity I have had to personally meet a young woman who is now in her midtwenties. She could not serve in the military because she was not physically able to serve in the military. Let me tell you why she could not serve in the military. She was aborted, and she lived, and she is crippled. So she cannot serve in the military. I have met this young woman, as many have. There are many like her, but I use her as an example, Gianna Jessen. Who knows, maybe Gianna would have liked to have been a woman in the military, but she cannot. Why do we not wake up in America and understand what we are doing? Should we really be surprised when our children do some of the things they do in this country? Why should we be surprised? What is the underlying message? And this amendment sends the same message. The underlying message is: Go to school today, Johnny. Go to school today, Mary. You be good kids. You do the right thing. And meanwhile, while you are at school, we will abort your brother or your sister. That is the message we are giving to our kids. That is the message this amendment is giving to our kids. That is the message this amendment is giving to all Americans--that now we are going to say the taxpayers can support this kind of thing. I wish the Senator from Washington would come down here on the floor with an amendment that might say we could provide a little help, a little counseling, a little love, a little compassion, a little understanding to this woman who wants this abortion, and explain to her the beauty of life and explain to her what a great opportunity it would be for her to have that child and to have that child grow up into a world where that child could be loved and could be understood and could have the opportunity to perhaps follow her mother's ambitions and serve in the U.S. military or perhaps to follow in her mother's wake and be a mother herself, to enjoy the fruits of the greatest nation in the world. Let's not agree to this amendment and violate the spirit of the Hyde amendment and violate more unborn children, intrude into the womb, take the lives of unborn children. When are we going to wake up? Would it not be wonderful to come down on the floor of the Senate just one year when we did not have to deal with this, when people would respect life and we would be offering amendments to protect life rather than to take it. That is an America I am dreaming of, Mr. President. That is an America I would like to see in the 21st century, not an America of death but an America of life, where we respect life. Allowing abortion on demand in military facilities would violate the moral and religious convictions of millions and millions and millions, tens of millions, of Americans who believe, through their own religious convictions, or in any other way, as I do, that the unborn child has a fundamental right to life, a right to life that comes from the Declaration of Independence, from the Constitution, and from God Himself. Yes, from God Himself. That is where it comes from, and we do not have the right to take it. For the sake of one or two votes on the floor of the Senate, in a very few minutes we are going to make that decision. Whichever way it goes, we are going to find out how many more children have to die. How many more children have to die? When are we going to wake up, America? How much more of this do we have to take? Why are you surprised when your children do something wrong? What kind of message do we send? This amendment is not about the so-called right to choose abortion that the Supreme Court created in 1993. I disagree with Roe v. Wade. Everybody knows that. I just said it. I introduced a bill, S. 907, that would reverse Roe v. Wade, establishing that the right to life comes with conception and protecting that life. I dream of the America of the future when we will respect it. But, as I said, this amendment is not about the larger issue of abortion; it is about taxpayer funding of abortion. Millions and millions of pro-life Americans, who believe to the very core of our being that abortion is the taking of an innocent life, should not be forced to pay for abortions, not directly, not indirectly, not any way you can define it, with taxpayer dollars. I urge my colleagues, no matter what their personal views are, to reject this amendment, to vote to preserve current law, to vote to protect and be consistent with the Hyde amendment. Let's get the military involved in protecting America and not taking innocent children's lives. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I yield 3 minutes to the opposition side.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that Paul Barger, a national defense fellow in Senator Inhofe's office, be given the privilege of the floor during the remainder of the debate on the defense authorization bill.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Lesley Spraker, a military affairs fellow in the office of Senator DeWine, be granted the privilege of the floor during the consideration of S. 1059.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, at this time, I yield whatever time he may consume to the Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, the leader has asked me to make a couple of announcements this morning. The Senate, of course, will resume consideration of the defense authorization bill, and under the previous order the Senate will debate several amendments with the votes on those amendments occurring in a stacked sequence beginning at 2:15 today. Therefore, Senators can expect at least three votes occurring at 2:15 this afternoon. It is the intention of the majority leader to complete action on this bill as early as possible this week, and therefore Senators can expect busy sessions each day and evening. I thank my colleagues for their attention to this matter.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator from Arkansas.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I will certainly yield to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to share with my colleagues a brief story from the closing days of World War II, the war in the Pacific. It is a harrowing story, with many elements. Bad timing, bad weather. Heroism and fortitude. Negligence and shame. Bad luck. Above all, it is the story of some very special men whose will to survive shines like a beacon decades later. I should point out that it is because of the efforts of a 13 year old boy in Florida that I introduce this bill today. Hunter Scott, working for nearly two years on what started as a history project, compiled a mountain of clippings, letters, and interviews that ultimately led Congressman Joe Scarborough to introduce this bill in the House, and for me to do so in the Senate. Hunter, on behalf of the survivors of the U.S.S. Indianapolis, the family of Captain McVay, and your country, I thank you for your courageous efforts. Mr. President, we have the opportunity to redeem the reputation of a wronged man, and salute the indomitable will of a courageous crew. I had the distinct honor and priviledge of hosting two distinguished members of that courageous crew just this morning; Richard Paroubek, of Williamsburg, VA, who was a Yeoman 1st Class, and Woodie James of Salt Lake City, UT, who was a Coxswain. The bill I introduce today will honor these two men, and their fellow shipmates of the U.S.S. Indianapolis, and redeem their Captain, Charles McVay. A 1920 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, Charles Butler McVay III was a career naval officer with an exemplary record, including participation in the landings in North Africa and award of the Silver Star for courage under fire earned during the Soloman Islands campaign. Before taking command of the Indianapolis in November 1944, Captain McVay was chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee of the Combined Chiefs of Staff in Washington, the Allies' highest intelligence unit. Captain McVay led the ship through the invasion of Iwo Jima, then the bombardment of Okinawa in the spring of 1945 during which Indianapolis' antiaircraft guns shot down seven enemy planes before the ship was severely damaged. McVay returned the ship safely to Mare Island in California for repairs. In 1945, the Indianapolis delivered the world's first operational atomic bomb to the island of Tinian, which would later be dropped on Hiroshima by the Enola Gay on August 6. After delivering its fateful cargo, the Indianapolis then reported to the naval station at Guam for further orders. She was ordered to join the battleship U.S.S. Idaho in the Philippines to prepare for the invasion of Japan. It was at Guam that the series of events ultimately leading to the sinking of the Indianapolis began to unfold. Hostilities in this part of the Pacific had long since ceased. The Japanese surface fleet was no longer considered a likely threat, and attention instead had turned 1,000 miles to the north where preparations were underway for the invasion of the Japanese mainland. These conditions led to a relaxed state of alert on the part of those who decided to send the Indianapolis across the Philippine Sea unescorted, and consequently, Captain McVay's orders to ``zigzag at his discretion.'' Zigzagging is a naval maneuver used to avoid torpedo attack, generally considered most effective once the torpedoes have been launched. The Indianapolis, unescorted, departed Guam for the Philippines on July 28. Just after midnight on 30 July 1945, midway between Guam and the Leyte Gulf, she was hit by two torpedoes fired by the ``I-58,'' a Japanese submarine. The first blew away the bow, the second struck near mid-ship on the starboard side adjacent to a fuel tank and a powder magazine. The resulting explosion split the ship in two. Of the 1,196 men aboard, about 900 escaped the sinking ship and made it into the water in the twelve minutes before she sank. Few life rafts were released. Shark attacks began at sunrise on the first day, and continued until the men were physically removed from the water, almost five days later. Shortly after 11:00 A.M. of the fourth day, the survivors were accidentally discovered by an American bomber on routine antisubmarine patrol. A patrolling seaplane was dispatched to lend assistance and report. En route to the scene the pilot overflew the destroyer U.S.S. Cecil Doyle ( DD-368), and alerted her captain to the emergency. The captain of the Doyle, on his own authority, decided to divert to the scene. Arriving hours ahead of the Doyle, the seaplane's crew began dropping rubber rafts and supplies. While doing so, they observed men being attacked by sharks. Disregarding standing orders not to land at sea, the plane landed and began taxiing to pick up the stragglers and lone swimmers who were at greatest risk of shark attack. As darkness fell, the crew of the seaplane waited for help to arrive, all the while continuing to seek out and pull nearly dead men from the water. When the plane's fuselage was full, survivors were tied to the wing with parachute cord. The plane's crew rescued 56 men that day. The Cecil Doyle was the first vessel on the scene, and began taking survivors aboard. Disregarding the safety of his own vessel, the Doyle's captain pointed his largest searchlight into the night sky to serve as a beacon for other rescue vessels. This beacon was the first indication to the survivors that their prayers had been answered. Help had at last arrived. Of the 900 who made it into the water only 317 remained alive. After almost five days of constant shark attacks, starvation, terrible thirst, and suffering from exposure and their wounds, the men of the Indianapolis were at last rescued from the sea. Curiously, the Navy withheld the news of the sunken ship from the American people for two weeks, until the day the Japanese surrendered on August 15, 1945, thus insuring minimum press coverage for the story of the Indianapolis' loss. Also suspicious, conceding that they were ``starting the proceedings without having available all the necessary data,'' less than two weeks after the sinking of the Indianapolis, before the sinking of the ship had even been announced to the public, the Navy opened an official board of inquiry to investigate Captain McVay and his actions. The board recommended a general court-martial for McVay. Admiral Nimitz, Commander in Chief of Pacific Command, did not agree--he wrote the Navy's Judge Advocate General that at worst McVay was guilty of an error in judgment, but not gross negligence worthy of court-martial. Nimitz recommended a letter of reprimand. Overriding both Nimitz and Admiral Raymond Spruance who commanded the Fifth Fleet, Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal and Admiral Ernest King, Chief of Naval Operations, directed that court-martial proceedings against Captain McVay proceed. Captain McVay was notified of the pending court-martial, but not told what specific charges would be brought against him. The reason was simple. The Navy had not yet decided what to charge him with. Four days before the trial began they did decide on two charges: the first, failing to issue orders to abandon ship in a timely fashion; and the second, hazarding his vessel by failing to zigzag during good visibility. It's difficult to understand why the Navy brought the first charge against McVay. Explosions from the torpedo attacks had knocked out the ship's communications system, making it impossible to give an abandon ship order to the crew except by word of mouth, which McVay had done. He was ultimately found not guilty on this count. That left the second charge of failing to zigzag. Perhaps the most egregious aspect however, was in the phrasing of the charge itself. The phrase was ``during good visibility.'' According to all accounts of the survivors, including written accounts only recently declassified and not made available to McVay's defense at the trial, the visibility that night was severely limited with heavy cloud cover. This is pertinent for two reasons. First, no Navy directives in force at that time or since recommended, much less ordered, zigzagging at night in poor visibility. Secondly, as Admiral Nimitz pointed out, the rule requiring zigzagging would not have applied in any event, since McVay's orders gave him discretion on that matter and thus took precedence over all other orders. Thus, when he stopped zigzagging, he was simply exercising his command authority in accordance with Navy directives. Unbelievably, this point was never made by McVay's defense counsel during the subsequent court-martial. Captain McVay was ultimately found guilty on the charge of failing to zigzag, and was discharged from the Navy with a ruined career. In 1946, at the specific request of Admiral Nimitz who had become Chief of Naval Operations, Secretary Forrestal, in a partial admission of injustice, remitted McVay's sentence and restored him to duty. But, Captain McVay's court-martial, and personal culpability for the sinking of the Indianapolis continued to stain his Navy records. The stigma of his conviction remained with him always, and he ultimately took his own life in 1968. To this day Captain McVay is recorded in history as negligent in the deaths of 870 sailors. We need to restore the reputation of this honorable officer. In the decades since World War II, the crew of the Indianapolis has worked tirelessly in defending their Captain, and trying to ensure that his memory is properly honored. It is at the specific request of the survivors of the U.S.S. Indianapolis that I introduce this resolution. Since McVay's court-martial, a number of factors, including once classified documents not made available to McVay's defense, have surfaced raising significant questions about the justice of the conviction. Although naval authorities at Guam knew that on July 24, four days before the Indianapolis departed for Leyte, the destroyer escort U.S.S. Underhill had been sunk by a Japanese submarine within range of the Indianapolis' path, McVay was not told. Although a code-breaking system called ULTRA had alerted naval intelligence that a Japanese submarine (the I-58, which ultimately sank the Indianapolis) was operating in his path, McVay was not told. Classified as top secret until the early 1990s, this intelligence--and the fact it was withheld from McVay before he sailed from Guam--was suppressed during his court-martial. Although the routing officer at Guam was aware of the ULTRA intelligence report, he said a destroyer escort for the Indianapolis was ``not necessary'' and, unbelievably, testified at McVay's court- martial that the risk of submarine attack along the Indianapolis' route ``was very slight''. Although McVay was told of ``submarine sightings'' along his path, he was told none had been confirmed. Such sightings were commonplace throughout the war and were generally ignored by Navy commanders unless confirmed. Thus, the Indianapolis set sail for Leyte on July 26, 1945, sent into harm's way with its captain unaware of dangers which shore- based naval personnel know were in his path. The U.S.S. Indianapolis was not equipped with submarine detection equipment, and therefore Captain McVay requested a destroyer escort. Although no capital ship without submarine detection devices had sailed between Guam and the Philippines without a destroyer escort throughout all of World War II, McVay's request for such an escort was denied. The Navy failed to notice when the ship did not show up in port in the Philippines. U.S. authorities intercepted a message from the I-58 to its headquarters in Japan informing them that it had sunk the U.S.S. Indianapolis. This message was ignored and the Navy did not initiate a search. The Indianapolis transmitted three distress calls before it sank, and one was received at the naval base in the Philippines. Again, no search was initiated and no effort was made to locate any survivors. It was not until four days after the ship had sunk, when a bomber inadvertently spotted sailors being eaten by sharks in the water below, that a search party was dispatched. Although 700 navy ships were lost in combat in World War II, McVay was the only captain to be court-martialed as the result of a sunken ship. Captain McVay was denied both his first choice of defense counsel and a delay to develop his defense. His counsel, a line officer with no trial experience, had only four days to prepare his case. Incredibly, the Navy brought Mochitura Hashimoto, the commander of the Japanese I-58 submarine that sunk the Indianapolis to testify at the court-martial. Hashimoto testified that just after midnight the clouds cleared long enough to see and fire upon the Indianapolis. He also implied in pretrial statements that zigzagging would not have saved the Indianapolis because of his clear view, but this point was not raised by McVay's defense during the trial itself. Another witness in the trial, veteran Navy submariner Glynn Donaho, a four-time Navy Cross winner was asked by McVay's defense counsel whether ``it would have been more or less difficult for you to attain the proper firing position'' if the Indianapolis had been zigzagging under the conditions which existed that night. His answer was, ``No, not as long as I could see the target.'' This testimony was either deliberately ignored by, or passed over the heads of, the court-martial board, and it was not pursued further by McVay's defense. Many of the survivors of the Indianapolis believe that a decision to convict McVay was made before his court-martial began. They are convinced McVay was made a scapegoat to hide the mistakes of others. McVay was court-martialed and convicted of ``hazarding his ship by failing to zigzag'' despite overwhelming evidence that the Navy itself had placed the ship in harm's way, despite testimony from the Japanese submarine commander that zigzagging would have made no difference, despite the fact that although 700 Navy ships were lost in combat in World War II McVay was the only captain to be court-martialed, and despite the fact the Navy did not notice when the Indianapolis failed to arrive on schedule, thus costing hundreds of lives unnecessarily and creating the greatest sea disaster in the history of the United States Navy. The resolution I am introducing corrects a 54 year old injustice, restores the honorable name of a decorated Navy combat veteran, and honors the wishes of his loyal and faithful crew. It will also honor the crew of the Indianapolis for their courage in surviving this awful tragedy. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and I am proud to offer it on behalf of Captain McVay and the wonderful and honorable men of the U.S.S. Indianapolis, two of whom are sitting with us in the gallery today, Mr. President.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I thank the Senator from Illinois. I ask unanimous consent that the roster of the final crew of the U.S.S. Indianapolis be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Maj. Clint Crosier, an Air Force fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges throughout the proceedings on the fiscal year 2000 authorization and appropriations bills.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs will meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 26, 1999, at 9:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing on American Indian Youth Activities and Initiatives. The hearing will be held in room 485, Russell Senate Building.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice Oversight, of the Senate Judiciary Committee, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Monday, May 24, 1999, at 3 p.m. to hold a hearing in room 226, Senate Dirksen Office Building, on: ``Bureau of Prisons Oversight: The Importance of Federal Prison Industries.''

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today just as the Cox report is about to enter the public domain. This report--a bipartisan report by Congressman Chris Cox of California and Congressman Norman Dicks of Washington--will go to an issue of great importance to the United States; it is the issue of Chinese espionage in the United States. I am rising on the Senate floor today to introduce legislation--which I will do at the conclusion of my remarks--establishing a bipartisan select committee to examine Chinese espionage against United States national security interests, responding to what is increasingly being viewed as the greatest security breach against the United States in our history--the loss to China of our most sensitive nuclear warhead data over many years from the Los Alamos National Lab, and from other national security facilities and programs. Through no one's fault, and with the best of intentions, congressional efforts to examine this matter have been disjointed and inconsistent. I respect every Senator on both sides of the aisle who has been working and doing their best to try to get to the bottom of this, especially the chairmen of those committees with some claim to jurisdiction over the Labs and over this whole issue of Chinese espionage. Unfortunately, that is the problem. There are too many individuals conducting too many independent investigations, if you will, and too many committees going down the same path. The result has been a duplication of witnesses, many of whom have come back and testified four or five times before the Senate. I don't think this makes a lot of sense. I think my colleagues on these respective committees--and I chair a subcommittee on the Armed Services Committee with direct jurisdiction over this matter, so I say that as one who would be involved in such an investigation--will agree that there is too much duplication. We need to streamline this effort and we need to put the full weight of the Senate behind it. That means an investigation, a true investigation, the power to call witnesses and administer oaths, and a unified focus of our shared bipartisan concern. I have had the privilege to serve on two such bipartisan committees. One, the Senate Ethics Committee, is a nonpartisan committee, really, of three members from each party. We look at all the matters before us in a truly nonpartisan way. That is exactly what needs to be done here. I also served on the Senate Select Committee on POWs and MIAs a few years ago, where Senator John Kerry was the chairman and I was vice chairman. It was a bipartisan effort. That is what it is going to take in the Senate, just as the House has been well-served by its committee chaired by Congressman Cox of California and Congressman Dicks of Washington. It was a bipartisan effort and it has come to a bipartisan--and unanimous--conclusion. We need to do this in the Senate. We need to take what was in that report, review it carefully, find out where it leads, and take appropriate action. But I do not think we are going to accomplish that if we are going to have all of these witnesses called in five, six, seven, or eight times before all these different committees, and not have one consistent message. It will waste a lot of money and time. I think it is better to consolidate, which is why I am calling for a select committee. I am not interested in scoring partisan points here. This is concerns the national security of the United States of America. No partisan points were scored in the classified presentation I attended the other day with Congressman Dicks and Congressman Cox. It was presented in a way that I felt was truly bipartisan. Members of both parties were there. It is a lot bigger than that. The national security of the United States is a lot more important than any of the partisan attacks. We all want answers. We deserve answers, and we deserve to put these witnesses under oath, under threat of perjury, and to speak before the Senate--together, not as five or six different committees of jurisdiction. The Cox committee did heroic work in the House--much of it despite obstacles put in their path by the administration. They had to dig and claw to get the information, and the report that will be released tomorrow has been blocked for several months by the administration. It is time for the Senate now to do its part, to focus its collective concern about these matters into a coherent and effective committee. I believe a select committee with a specific intent, with the opportunity to call witnesses, to put people under oath, and to have investigators look into this is the correct approach. Otherwise, it is going to be defused all over the Government and we are going to have all kinds of stories popping up from this committee and that committee, this subcommittee and that subcommittee, and this Senator and that Senator, and it will all be disconnected. So I urge colleagues to support this legislation. I urge our leaders to support it as well. I think it is a good idea. It has worked in the past when we have had serious issues like this. And our effort here is to gain the truth, to get the facts. I believe this select committee will get the job done. I want to review briefly what has happened, and why I think it is so important to have a select committee. About 5 months ago, a special congressional committee investigating security problems with China questioned whether the Department of Energy had adequate safeguards to protect its nuclear secrets. On February 1, 1999, President Clinton responded, saying safeguards were ``adequate'' and getting better. That was the statement of the President on February 1. With all due respect, and being as nice about it as I can, that was not true then. It is not true now. One week later, on February 8, Mr. Lee failed a polygraph test. More than a month later, the FBI finally searched his computer. This is not something one can take lightly. When the President says that safeguards were ``adequate'' and getting better, that simply was not true. Between the time the Justice Department refused the FBI's request for a court order to search Lee's computer and Lee's firing, there were more than 300 break-ins involving the computer network on which Lee had allegedly transferred nuclear secrets. When Ho Lee was hired by Los Alamos National Laboratories in 1978, he first came under suspicion in 1982 when he made a telephone call to a scientist from Lawrence Livermore Lab who had been fired as a result of an investigation into evidence that a spy had passed neutron bomb secrets to China. In 1989, when Lee's 5-year security renewal was up for review, Energy Department officials learned of the FBI's inquiry into Mr. Lee. But a file put together on Lee that was sent to DOE headquarters for security review was ``lost.'' And it was not until 1992 that the Department hired an outside contractor to reconstruct the ``lost'' file. In 1994, a Los Alamos employee reported to security officials that Lee was ``embraced'' by a Chinese intelligence officer during a delegation visit, and that Lee had discussed with the Chinese the nuclear weapons code similar to the ones he is now suspected of stealing. In 1995, the Energy Department and the CIA began to learn the record of China's alleged espionage. In early 1995, scientists at the Los Alamos Nuclear Lab had told Mr. Notra Trulock, then intelligence director at the Energy Department, of their fears that China had achieved a remarkable breakthrough in its nuclear tests. About that same time those fears were raised, U.S. intelligence files showed that a Chinese agent had handed over a secret document to American officials containing evidence that China had stolen design data on American nuclear warheads and missiles. In 1996, the CIA concluded American secrets had been stolen. Lee emerged in early 1996 as the FBI's ``prime suspect'' at the Laboratories. In 1996, Mr. Trulock tried to raise warnings about espionage at the Laboratories but was thwarted by his superiors at the Energy Department. Trulock said he finally talked to administration officials as early as April of 1996. He said he met with Sandy Berger. He said Mr. Berger had said subsequently that he briefed Mr. Clinton and took steps to address the problem. We are in 1996 now--3 years ago. President Clinton denied that. But I will get to that in a minute. Like all employees, Lee had signed a waiver permitting his e-mail and personal computer to be reviewed without his knowledge. Despite the waiver, the Justice Department, in 1996, decided that a court warrant would be needed before his computer could be searched, and denied the request. Coincidentally--or not--in 1996, President Clinton relaxed all controls on sales of advanced computers to countries like China. The next year, his administration resisted congressional efforts to retighten those controls. The Cox committee reportedly concluded that some of the computers sold to China went to organizations involved in military activities, and they might have been used for military purposes--like upgrading nuclear weapons or developing more accurate missiles. When something goes to China, it does not just go to private industry. It goes to the military too. Let's make sure we understand that. The relaxation of export controls on technology is something I have been hammering away at in my subcommittee--the Strategic Forces Subcommittee--in the Armed Services Committee for seven years. I have watched these controls relax in this administration. I have watched the State Department and the Defense Department and the Justice Department lose the fight time after time after time to the Commerce Department. In 1996, President Bill Clinton shifted licensing responsibility for some commercial satellite sales from the security-oriented State Department to the business-friendly Commerce Department. I do not know what most Americans think about all of this, but I am going to say what I think about it. I think this is the worst breach of national security in the history of the United States of America. It is not just about Los Alamos, as we are going to find out tomorrow when this report is declassified when we can talk about it in more detail. Unfortunately, I cannot talk about some of it today. But I urge everyone to get a copy of it and you will see what I am talking about. The Rosenbergs in 1953 were executed, in my view, for less than what has happened here. I have seen, time after time, witness after witness from this administration come before the Armed Services Committee--either taking the fifth amendment, refusing to come, or fleeing the country, or lying under oath, or being unable to remember. That is one thing during some financial inquiry about who gave how much money to some candidate. But I am going to tell you one thing. I am not going to stand for people coming before the Senate--when the security of the United States of America is at stake, when nuclear weapons have been transmitted to a foreign nation who is an enemy of the United States--I am not going to stand for people coming before this Senate and not telling the truth. I will say it on the record: somebody is going to be held accountable for what has happened. Somebody is going to be held accountable. Every nuclear weapon in the United States arsenal has been compromised--every one of them, every warhead. I am not going to stand by and take no for an answer. I am not going to stand for this being obfuscated all over the Senate and all over the country with defused, mixed messages. We will get to the bottom of this. Nobody in this Senate should have any objection to that. Whoever did this, whoever is responsible for this, wherever it leads, needs to be held accountable, period. In 1996, the American intelligence community concluded that China had stolen the secret design information about the neutron bomb. In April 1997, the FBI recommended measures to tighten security at the Labs. No action was taken; no action. In July 1997, Mr. Trulock, concerned about lack of progress, went back to the White House to ask for assistance. He gave National Security Adviser Sandy Berger a fuller briefing. Berger briefed the President of the United States as early as July 1997. Twice in 1997 the Justice Department rejected a request by FBI counterintelligence officials to seek a search warrant authorizing more aggressive investigative techniques, including a wiretap and clandestine searches of homes, offices, and computers. The request for a wiretap was turned down by a political appointee, Frances Townsend. A request for a wiretap was turned down. The numbers of wiretaps authorized each year is classified, but we know there are hundreds in any given year. We also know that seldom are more than two or three in a given year denied. Put yourself in Frances Townsend's place at the Justice Department for a moment. Somebody comes in from the FBI and says, we have a problem. Somebody stole all the nuclear weapon secrets from the United States of America and sent them to China. We have a suspect. We need to wiretap him. And your answer is, no. Now, I am not going to accept some feeble explanation about why that happened. Somebody is going to answer that question in my presence in this Senate before I leave here; I state that right now. In August of 1997, FBI Director Louis Freeh recommended Mr. Lee's access to classified information be cut off immediately. What happens? Lee is still granted access to top secret warhead data despite the recommendation. What is going on? This kind of thing does not happen unless somebody makes it happen and wants it to happen. When the FBI Director says no, the answer is no. But somebody decided that Mr. Freeh was not going to have the last word here. They decided that Mr. Lee was going to continue to have access to top secret warhead data. During the 1998 congressional investigation into satellite export controls, Trulock has said, acting Energy Secretary Elizabeth Moler ordered him--I emphasize the word ``ordered,'' because I heard him say it in my presence--ordered him not to disclose the Chinese espionage in testimony before the U.S. Congress. A political appointee in the Energy Department ordered Mr. Trulock, a subordinate, not to tell the Congress. Now she denies it. Clearly, we need these two witnesses to come forth in public session before this select committee. Let the public decide who is lying and who isn't. Mr. Lee retained access to classified information after he came under suspicion of spying, from October 1997 to October 1998. On April 28, 1999, the Clinton administration finally admitted that secret nuclear weapons data had been compromised. They finally admitted it when Bill Richardson, the new Secretary of Energy, to his everlasting credit pushed this issue and refused to stand for it anymore. Wen Ho Lee was fired on March 8. His computer was not searched until the following week. They found he had transferred legacy codes covering many U.S. nuclear weapons from the classified to an unclassified computer system where they could be vulnerable to outsiders. In a computer search, more than 1,000 top secret weapons files had been deleted after being improperly transferred from a highly secure computer system. Those are the facts as I can outline them without going into classified materials. I point out in the framework of the last 4 or 5 months, this information has been withheld from the public. Certain Senators and Congressmen, if they took it upon themselves, could get a briefing on the Cox report, but it was not allowed to be released. What happened? What did the President know and when did he know it? That sounds familiar. March 19, 1999, at a press conference, the President assured the public, ``There has been no espionage at the Labs since I've been President.'' Let me repeat that: ``There has been no espionage at the Labs since I've been President.'' And, ``No one reported to me that they suspect that such a thing has occurred.'' The President, in March of this year, March 19, says, ``There has been no espionage at the Labs since I've been President,'' and, ``No one reported to me that they suspect that such a thing has occurred.'' Mr. Berger told the Cox Committee he didn't speak with the President about Chinese spying for at least a year, but he did say he did it in early 1998. Berger's aides now say he remembers informing Clinton in July of 1997. Mr. President, this is serious business. When atomic secrets in 1953 were passed to the Russians, a man and a woman--a husband and a wife-- were executed. We have got to get to the bottom of this. Any Senator worth his or her salt, regardless of political party, ought to be ready to go on this with no nonsense. We are not going to accept ridiculous ``I don't remember'' answers anymore. I do not want to hear any of this. And I do not want to be bound by some committee rule where I have 5 minutes to ask a question, and the witness answers for 4\1/2\ minutes, and I cannot ask any more. I want the time to ask my questions. I want the time for every Senator to ask these questions on behalf of the American people. I have never in my life seen anything like the witnesses they have paraded before the committees of this Congress that I have been a party to--Government Affairs Committee investigations, the Armed Services Committee--time and time and time again, saying ``I don't remember, I can't recall.'' That is not good enough. That does not cut it. And it does not cut it on the part of the President of the United States, either. He should have been up here testifying during his impeachment trial. By golly, if we have to have him come up here and testify on this, then bring him up here. This is the national security of the United States we are talking about. This is classified, nuclear, codeword-level information that has been passed, and the President needs to tell us what he knows, if he knows anything. According to the New York Times, what counterintelligence experts told senior Clinton administration officials in November of 1998 is that China poses an acute intelligence threat to the weapons labs--an acute intelligence threat to the weapons labs. We now know the President had been briefed in November of 1998 about FBI and CIA suspicions, and in January had even received the secret Cox report detailing those security lapses during the Clinton watch. What is going on here? All right, so he does not tell us the truth about Monica Lewinsky. But this is national security. According to Mr. Berger, his own National Security Adviser, President Clinton was told about the problems at the weapons labs in July of 1997 or February of 1998. On May 9, 1999, Tim Russert, on ``Meet The Press,'' extracted from Energy Secretary Bill Richardson the acknowledgment that President Clinton was ``fully, fully briefed,'' an admission for which, news reports say, Richardson was savaged by Clinton aides. Here is the explanation. Clinton put in ``at the labs'' and ``against the labs'' because we technically don't know if the stolen info came from the labs or somewhere else. Richardson also said, ``there have been damaging security leaks. The Chinese have obtained damaging information during past administrations and the current administration.'' Perhaps this spying started in previous administrations, but this administration knew it was going on and did not respond to it. That just does not cut it. This is not about ``what is is.'' This is about the security of the United States of America. On May 23, 1999, the deputy intelligence director at the Department of Energy suggested the White House was informed about China's theft of United States nuclear secrets much sooner than it has acknowledged. The inaction from this administration did not come in a vacuum. It came in the thick of a 1996 reelection effort that we now know included campaign contributions from those with ties to the Chinese Government, ties to the military, and ties to the intelligence organization. Mr. Berger first briefed in April of 1996, and not until 2 years later does the White House move to tighten security after receiving more detailed evidence in 1997. NSC sought a narrowly focused CIA report to cast doubt on Energy Department claims. At the same time the FBI and CIA were investigating the source of the Los Alamos leak, Vice President Al Gore was passing the hat among wealthy Buddhist nuns, the President was serving coffee at the White House to PLA arms dealer Wang Jun, and the administration responded favorably to a request from the man who would be the Democratic Party's largest single donor in 1996, Loral chairman Bernard Schwartz, to transfer authority over licensing of satellite technology from the State Department to the Commerce Department. Two years later, Loral would be granted a Presidential waiver to export its technology to China, even though it was under criminal investigation by the Justice Department for previous technology transfers. Wake up, America. Wake up. What is going on here? Who knows what? Officials from those two companies, I have news for you. You are coming in here, and you are going to answer some questions as well. In April of 1996, Energy Department officials informed Mr. Berger that Trulock had uncovered evidence which showed that China had learned how to miniaturize nuclear bombs and it appeared the Chinese had gained that knowledge through the efforts of a spy at the Los Alamos Labs. Berger was told the spy might still be there. What action did the White House take? Absolutely nothing. But the warning came at an awkward time, the verge of the 1997 Strategic Partnership Summit with Beijing. The administration was also facing the congressional investigations into charges that the P.R.C. had illegally funneled money into their 1996 Clinton-Gore reelection campaign. I do not know where these dots connect or if they connect, but there were a lot of dots. Mr. Berger assigned an NSC staffer to look into things and asked the CIA to investigate. The CIA's report comes back that the Trulock analysis was an unsupported worst case scenario. That is not what he told us in private. Finally, in February of 1998, President Clinton formally ordered the reforms into effect. But, curiously, Energy Secretary Federico Pena never followed the order and soon after left the Cabinet. Reforms were not instituted until Bill Richardson did so in October of 1998, 30 months after Trulock's first warning, 9 months after the President's directive. In the meantime, Assistant Secretary Moler orders Trulock not to tell Congress because it could be used against President Clinton's China policy. Do not tell Congress? If this Senate tolerates that kind of action, we deserve all the criticism we get and 10 times more. We have oversight responsibility. This area, the labs and the security of those labs and those weapons, is directly under this Senator's supervision and oversight responsibility as the chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee. I am going to tell you something; I do not accept that answer. I am not going to accept that answer. Someone is going to talk, and whoever is accountable, in my view, if they did these things, they are going to go to jail, because that is where they belong. We are going to find out where this path leads, if it is the last thing I do. Political contributions poured in and United States technology flowed out to China day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year--flowed out to China, made possible by the easing of export controls to this strategic partner of the President's. We are going to hear that this is China bashing. This is not China bashing. This is the national security of the United States. I hope when the American people read the Cox report, they will understand that the Chinese gained vital information on every nuclear warhead in our arsenal. They now have the missile to fire it, the warhead to put on it, and the targeting information to direct it at any city in the United States of America--all thanks to the relaxation of export controls, and to the fact we left a spy in our labs. When are we going to wake up? All through March and April of 1999, the White House fought over the release and declassification of this report. No wonder they do not want it released. The Cox report believes China is still spying. I believe they are too. This has to be investigated. In conclusion, we need a bipartisan select committee to find out where this trail leads, wherever it leads.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I am pleased to join the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works in introducing the Superfund Program Completion Act of 1999. This is a good day for the environment and for the American taxpayer, because this bill addresses many of the problems in Superfund that have wasted resources and delayed the cleanup of hazardous waste sites across the country. Since I became chairman of the Superfund, Waste Control and Risk Assessment Subcommittee in 1995, I have had one overriding goal with respect to Superfund reform: To increase cleanups by decreasing the unfairness of the law. By now, most are well aware of Superfund's dismal history. The program was created in 1980 to clean up abandoned hazardous waste sites. Begun with the best of intentions, Superfund has failed to meet even minimal expectations. Despite public and private expenditures of more than $40 billion dollars, less than 14% of approximately 1,300 sites have been cleaned up and removed from the National Priorities List over the last nineteen years. The primary reason for this abysmal performance is Superfund's retroactive, strict, joint and several liability scheme. Under joint and several liability, the EPA or a private party can seek to hold any other potentially responsible party liable for the entire cleanup cost at a site--regardless of the type of contamination, when the material was disposed of, or whether the activity was legal at the time. Joint and several liability allows the government or a larger polluter to legally extort payments far in excess of a company's true share of responsibility for waste at a site. Most reasonable people would agree that such a liability scheme is simply unfair. Worse yet, this unfairness has significantly hindered progress in cleaning up sites and wasted vast amounts of taxpayer funding. As one might expect, when a company is faced with paying 100% of the costs at a site for which their true liability may be less than 10%, that company will delay, negotiate, and litigate at every stop of the process. That, unfortunately, is the well-documented history of Superfund. It is important to recognize that this unfairness is not confined to EPA's enforcement of the law. EPA merely begins the process at most sites by targeting one or more large parties who are potentially responsible for cleanup. Then those parties typically turn around and sue tens or hundreds of other parties--average citizens, small businesses, schools, churches, and others who face huge legal bills and years of expensive litigation if they don't pay up. My position on this issue has been constant: I believe that retroactive, strict, joint and several liability is fundamentally unfair. If I had my way, I would repeal it today. Some of my colleagues see things differently, however, and the bill we introduce today represents a reasonable resolution of conflicting views on that topic. While our legislation does not go as far as many would like, I believe it goes as far as we can if we are interested in passing a bill this Administration will sign into law. There's an old saying around here: ``Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.'' That is certainly the case with Superfund and the legislation we introduce today. This is a good bill. It will make a profound and positive difference in the lives of millions of Americans. It is a bill that can pass the Senate on a strong bi-partisan basis; and it is a bill that the President should sign into law. The Superfund Program Completion Act makes major reforms in six areas. Specifically, the SPCA: 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 CERCLA Information System (CERCLIS). Clearly allocates responsibility between states and EPA for future cleanups. Protects municipalities, small business, 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, the SPCA 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, the SPCA 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 appears to have diverted resources from EPA's fundamental mission--protecting human health and the environment from releases of hazardous waste. GAO reported last year that there are still 3,000 sites awaiting a National Priorities List decision by EPA, most of which have been in the CERCLIS inventory for more than a decade. According to the report, however, more than 1,200 of those sites 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 the 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. Unforfunately, 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 a strategy. Nonetheless, Congress has an obligation to provide direction and assistance to EPA in this effort. The Superfund Program Completion Act provides that direction by: Requiring EPA to finish evaluating and/or archiving old sites stuck in the CERCLIS inventory, 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 than 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 Program Completion Act, on the other hand, assists, recognizes and builds on the growth of state cleanup programs. The SPCA 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. The SPCA 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 represents the culmination of years of hard work. In the four years I have been Chairman of the Superfund Subcommittee, we have heard from more than 100 witnesses, representing every viewpoint, in an effort to grapple with the problems caused by the Superfund law. We have communicated with thousands of individuals and organizations who have urged us to fix this law. Senator Chafee and I have spent long hours with our Democratic colleagues on the Environment and Public Works Committee, and with EPA Administrator Carol Browner. So far, we and our staffs have devoted more than 600 hours to this effort. We have negotiated issues, identified areas of agreement, eliminated many areas of controversy, and pinpointed those few remaining areas where our differences will need to be resolved through the legislative process itself. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle during that process. Before I close, let me say a few words about taxes. Simply put, there are no taxes required to finance this bill, and I will oppose all attempts to attach them to it. Congress has appropriated more than $20 billion to support EPA's Superfund program during the past 19 years. The GAO reports that amount includes more than $6 billion of unrecovered ``recoverable costs.'' ``Recoverable costs'' are taxpayer expenditures that EPA made in anticipation of recovering them from individual polluters at sites. That sum alone would be sufficient to finance EPA's cleanup efforts throughout the life of this reauthorization. Our bill allows those funds to be used for cleanup when EPA does recover them. Further, there should be no doubt that Congress will continue to appropriate funds needed for EPA to finish its job. More taxes are not required to finance this bill or to finish the Superfund program. During the last two Congresses, I was willing to support the reimposition of taxes to finance Superfund legislation with major changes in the areas of remedy selection and natural resource damages--as well as more sweeping liability reforms than are contained in the bill we introduce today. There remains a real need for those reforms, and I pledge to continue my efforts in that regard. The bill we introduce today, however, is designed to achieve all that we can under the current Administration. It represents substantial, real reform that will help thousands of communities and millions of Americans. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to final passage of S. 254, the Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender Accountability and Rehabilitation Act of 1999. I do so because I believe that the gun control amendments to this bill that have been adopted by the Senate will do lasting damage to the fundamental right to keep and bear arms, which is guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. I am outraged, Mr. President, that the gun control lobby in this country has taken advantage of the tragedy last month at Littleton, Colorado, as well as the incident today in Georgia, to mount an unprecedented assault on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners. They cast blame on law-abiding gun owners, while leaving the movie moguls and video game makers who promote wanton violence to children virtually unscathed. Frankly, Mr. President, I am also disappointed by some of my colleagues in my own political party here in the Senate. I have spent a great deal of time, over the past two weeks as the Senate has debated this bill, arguing privately with these colleagues and trying to persuade them to hold the line against this onslaught of gun control amendments. Sadly, Mr. President, I have not been successful. Nevertheless, I am proud to have stood up for the Second Amendment, even, in one case, when I was only one of two Senators to vote against a gun control amendment to this bill. I am particularly angered, Mr. President, by what the Senate has voted to do with respect to gun shows. Sadly, it seems evident to me that the practical effect of the Lautenberg Amendment, adopted earlier today when Vice President Gore cast the tie-breaking vote, will be effectively to ruin gun shows--to put them out of business. This, unfortunately, seems to me to be the aim of the Lautenberg Amendment. I am also deeply concerned about the effects of the so-called ``trigger lock'' amendment. Even though the amendment appears only to require trigger locks to be sold with guns, the legal effect of the amendment may well be to do great damage to the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners. This is 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. If, in fact, the law develops such that gun owners have a legal obligation to use trigger locks, these law-abiding gun owners may be forced to put their safety, and that of their families, at risk. It is certainly not unreasonable to imagine a single mother of small children, depending on her gun for safety, panic-stricken as she struggles unsuccessfully with her trigger lock in the middle of the night after hearing a burglar break into her home. Mr. President, these are but two examples of the grave harm that the gun control amendments adopted to this bill by the Senate have done to the Second Amendment rights of Americans. When the heat of this moment is gone, and the passions so shamelessly stirred up by the gun control lobby have subsided, I am afraid that many of those who supported these amendments will realize that they have done the Second Amendment serious and lasting harm. Sadly, though, it will be too late. Mr. President, I yield the floor. amendment no. 322

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I am pleased to join the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works in introducing the Superfund Program Completion Act of 1999. This is a good day for the environment and for the American taxpayer, because this bill addresses many of the problems in Superfund that have wasted resources and delayed the cleanup of hazardous waste sites across the country. Since I became chairman of the Superfund, Waste Control and Risk Assessment Subcommittee in 1995, I have had one overriding goal with respect to Superfund reform: To increase cleanups by decreasing the unfairness of the law. By now, most are well aware of Superfund's dismal history. The program was created in 1980 to clean up abandoned hazardous waste sites. Begun with the best of intentions, Superfund has failed to meet even minimal expectations. Despite public and private expenditures of more than $40 billion dollars, less than 14% of approximately 1,300 sites have been cleaned up and removed from the National Priorities List over the last nineteen years. The primary reason for this abysmal performance is Superfund's retroactive, strict, joint and several liability scheme. Under joint and several liability, the EPA or a private party can seek to hold any other potentially responsible party liable for the entire cleanup cost at a site--regardless of the type of contamination, when the material was disposed of, or whether the activity was legal at the time. Joint and several liability allows the government or a larger polluter to legally extort payments far in excess of a company's true share of responsibility for waste at a site. Most reasonable people would agree that such a liability scheme is simply unfair. Worse yet, this unfairness has significantly hindered progress in cleaning up sites and wasted vast amounts of taxpayer funding. As one might expect, when a company is faced with paying 100% of the costs at a site for which their true liability may be less than 10%, that company will delay, negotiate, and litigate at every stop of the process. That, unfortunately, is the well-documented history of Superfund. It is important to recognize that this unfairness is not confined to EPA's enforcement of the law. EPA merely begins the process at most sites by targeting one or more large parties who are potentially responsible for cleanup. Then those parties typically turn around and sue tens or hundreds of other parties--average citizens, small businesses, schools, churches, and others who face huge legal bills and years of expensive litigation if they don't pay up. My position on this issue has been constant: I believe that retroactive, strict, joint and several liability is fundamentally unfair. If I had my way, I would repeal it today. Some of my colleagues see things differently, however, and the bill we introduce today represents a reasonable resolution of conflicting views on that topic. While our legislation does not go as far as many would like, I believe it goes as far as we can if we are interested in passing a bill this Administration will sign into law. There's an old saying around here: ``Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.'' That is certainly the case with Superfund and the legislation we introduce today. This is a good bill. It will make a profound and positive difference in the lives of millions of Americans. It is a bill that can pass the Senate on a strong bi-partisan basis; and it is a bill that the President should sign into law. The Superfund Program Completion Act makes major reforms in six areas. Specifically, the SPCA: 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 CERCLA Information System (CERCLIS). Clearly allocates responsibility between states and EPA for future cleanups. Protects municipalities, small business, 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, the SPCA 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, the SPCA 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 appears to have diverted resources from EPA's fundamental mission--protecting human health and the environment from releases of hazardous waste. GAO reported last year that there are still 3,000 sites awaiting a National Priorities List decision by EPA, most of which have been in the CERCLIS inventory for more than a decade. According to the report, however, more than 1,200 of those sites 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 the 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. Unforfunately, 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 a strategy. Nonetheless, Congress has an obligation to provide direction and assistance to EPA in this effort. The Superfund Program Completion Act provides that direction by: Requiring EPA to finish evaluating and/or archiving old sites stuck in the CERCLIS inventory, 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 than 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 Program Completion Act, on the other hand, assists, recognizes and builds on the growth of state cleanup programs. The SPCA 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. The SPCA 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 represents the culmination of years of hard work. In the four years I have been Chairman of the Superfund Subcommittee, we have heard from more than 100 witnesses, representing every viewpoint, in an effort to grapple with the problems caused by the Superfund law. We have communicated with thousands of individuals and organizations who have urged us to fix this law. Senator Chafee and I have spent long hours with our Democratic colleagues on the Environment and Public Works Committee, and with EPA Administrator Carol Browner. So far, we and our staffs have devoted more than 600 hours to this effort. We have negotiated issues, identified areas of agreement, eliminated many areas of controversy, and pinpointed those few remaining areas where our differences will need to be resolved through the legislative process itself. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle during that process. Before I close, let me say a few words about taxes. Simply put, there are no taxes required to finance this bill, and I will oppose all attempts to attach them to it. Congress has appropriated more than $20 billion to support EPA's Superfund program during the past 19 years. The GAO reports that amount includes more than $6 billion of unrecovered ``recoverable costs.'' ``Recoverable costs'' are taxpayer expenditures that EPA made in anticipation of recovering them from individual polluters at sites. That sum alone would be sufficient to finance EPA's cleanup efforts throughout the life of this reauthorization. Our bill allows those funds to be used for cleanup when EPA does recover them. Further, there should be no doubt that Congress will continue to appropriate funds needed for EPA to finish its job. More taxes are not required to finance this bill or to finish the Superfund program. During the last two Congresses, I was willing to support the reimposition of taxes to finance Superfund legislation with major changes in the areas of remedy selection and natural resource damages--as well as more sweeping liability reforms than are contained in the bill we introduce today. There remains a real need for those reforms, and I pledge to continue my efforts in that regard. The bill we introduce today, however, is designed to achieve all that we can under the current Administration. It represents substantial, real reform that will help thousands of communities and millions of Americans. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I move to table the Feinstein amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.