Bob Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Santorum, for his leadership on this issue. I pick up on what Senator DeWine just said about Nurse Shafer. Thirteen years she worked in an abortion clinic. She testified before the Judiciary Committee, and I think it might be interesting to read her statement about what she saw, word for word. I don't think anybody has done that. Listen to Nurse Shafer, who witnessed this partial-birth abortion. I stood at the doctor's side and I watched him perform a partial-birth abortion on a woman who was 6 months pregnant. The baby's heart beat was clearly visible on the ultrasound screen. The doctor delivered the baby's legs and arms. Everything but his little head. The baby's body was moving. His little fingers were clasped together. He was kicking his feet. The doctor took a pair of scissors and inserted them into the back of the baby's head and the baby's arms jerked out in a flinch, a startled reaction like a baby does when he thinks that he might fall. Then the doctor opened the scissors up. Then he stuck a high-powered suction tube into the hole and sucked the baby's brains out. Now the baby was completely limp. I never went back to the clinic, but I'm still haunted by the face of that little boy. It was the most perfect angelic face I have ever seen. My colleagues, if we continue to tolerate this, somehow, some way, some day, we are going to be judged. This is wrong. This is immoral. When we see and hear the things that are going on in our country today and read and hear the polls, maybe we shouldn't be surprised. This is the standard that we set for our children? What a disgraceful thing to do, not to override this veto. The President's own Southern Baptist religion, past and current president of the Southern Baptist Convention, wrote a letter to the President of the United States pleading with him to change his position, telling him why they believe he was wrong, that there is no medical reason to improve the health or to save the life of the mother. There is no medical reason to perform this--180 doctors in a letter I referred to yesterday on the floor said so; 4 doctor at a press conference yesterday said so; so did Dr. Koop, one of the most respected people ever to serve in government, former Surgeon General. Yet here we are. This is a terrible thing. I just hope and pray that my colleagues in the next hour or the next half hour will see the light, if you will, and change their position so we can win this vote.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator for his leadership. I wish to start my remarks by saying what an honor and privilege it is for me to stand here on the Senate floor with such distinguished colleagues as Senator Frist, Senator Faircloth, Senator Santorum and others who have spoken out so eloquently against this terrible practice that takes place, unfortunately, too many times in the United States of America. I was particularly impressed with the remarks from our distinguished colleague, Senator Frist, who today I think is more important as a doctor than as a Senator perhaps, listening to his very impressive and technical remarks about just exactly what this procedure is and how it is not necessary for the health or the life of the mother, to save the life or to enhance the health of the mother, and he noted, as has been said, the fringe element who perform these horrible procedures. In addition to that, I would just mention that here in this notebook--Senator Frist you heard from. He had a press conference this morning with four distinguished physicians, obstetricians and gynecologists, who spoke out saying the exact same thing that Senator Frist said. Here in this book are 180 letters. These are just the ones I have received in my office. These are from all the doctors who say that it is unnecessary to save the life of the mother or to enhance the health of the mother--180. I am sure there are many other Senators who have received similar correspondence saying exactly the same thing. But having been involved for almost 4 years now in this debate, coming to the floor, fighting your heart out, losing, it is pretty tough, and it is very emotional. And I know it has been the same for my dear friend and colleague, Senator Santorum of Pennsylvania, who has poured his heart and soul into this issue. I remember very clearly, and I am sure the Senator does as well, in 1995, when I was pretty much alone on the floor of the Senate--and I want to get into that a little bit in a moment as to why I was here-- there was a newly elected Senator, fairly newly elected Senator from Pennsylvania named Santorum who was not saying anything but listening to the debate. There was a very emotional exchange privately between the Senator and myself. He just indicated to me that he had to get involved in this because of the horror of it, and he has. He has been a great leader, and I certainly appreciate another horse in the harness, so to speak. This is beyond, I should say, the in-your-face politics that we have endured on the floor in the past. I know I have gotten beyond it. I don't want to get into anybody's face on abortion or partial-birth abortion. I want to get in your heart. I want to get in your hearts because that is what this is about. I know that as we debate on the floor you don't see a huge crowd here. Hopefully, somebody is watching on the monitor. Of that 36 out there who have yet to see our way, maybe somehow, some way, some will see that it is wrong to continue to tolerate this in America and their votes will change, at least enough votes will change to end this horror. This is America, supposedly the moral leader of the world. What does it say to our children when we kill children, their colleagues, with a pair of scissors and a suction hose as they exit the birth canal? What does that tell them? How do you say to your children, ``Be good today; do your homework; mind your parents; do what's right; live a good life; be a good Christian; do unto others; be good''--how can you say that and support this? What message are you giving them? No one should be surprised about the immorality that we see in our country today because we are not setting the example. We have an awesome responsibility as leaders in this country, whether we are in the Senate or whether we are just ordinary parents every day setting an example for our children. It is an awesome responsibility. I remember when I spoke in the Chamber 3 years ago, I was chastised by a colleague for showing those same medical charts that Senator Santorum has shown in front of young pages sitting in the well. Well, I think they had to see that. I think they needed to know what we as adults are doing to their younger colleagues, the unborn children who have done nothing against anybody. This is the execution of a child as it enters the world. You cannot color it up. You cannot make it any nicer. You can talk about all the legalities. I heard my colleague, Senator Durbin from Illinois, a few minutes ago say we had to follow the guidance of Roe v. Wade. I might change that slightly and say the misguidance of Roe v. Wade. This is not about technicalities. It is not about legal definitions. It is not about falsely creating definitions of what threats to health or threats to life are. This is about real children really dying every day as we speak. As this debate occurs, more will die, and we are letting it happen. And three votes in this Chamber tomorrow morning, three more than we had the last time, will end it all, will stop it. So when you think about whether your vote counts, whether it matters, my colleagues, it matters. It matters. I stood in the Chamber 3 years ago. Initially, I didn't know what this was. I could not believe that anything that would even resemble a so-called partial-birth abortion would occur in this country. I didn't believe it. So I checked it out. I talked to people who actually assisted and performed them. I took the charts. I came down in the Chamber. I held up the same medical doll that four doctors held up in a press conference today. I showed exactly what happened with a medical doll--not a plastic fetus, as the critics in the press like to call it, but a medical doll. I simply showed the same size as a real child, the same size as that child who is being held by the abortionist, to simply show what happens. I said then and I will say now, in any community in America--you pick it, you name it, your hometown, wherever it is--if you picked up your hometown paper tomorrow and in that hometown paper it said all the puppies and cats in your local humane society were going to be killed with no anesthetic, with a scissors to the back of the skull, open the skull and insert a tube to suck the brains out, I think you would probably be pretty upset. And you know what? It would probably be stopped. It probably wouldn't happen. But it is happening to children and we are letting it happen right here, tomorrow, on the floor of the U.S. Senate unless three Senators have the courage to put the politics aside and change their vote. When I came down here in 1995, I had one cosponsor because, frankly, people didn't know what this was. Senator Phil Gramm of Texas was an original. We have come a long way since then, and we are not there yet. When the partial-birth abortion ban first passed the Senate on December 7, 1995, it did so with the support of 54 Senators. When the Senate voted whether to override President Clinton's veto on September 26, 1996, 57 Senators voted, and when the Senate passed H.R. 1122, on May 20, 1997, 64 Senators voted in favor. You see, in here it is a numbers game. It is a game of numbers. But out there every day in those abortion clinics, it is a life game. It is a little child that is being killed for no other reason, other than it is not wanted. That is the reason. I, as I total up those thousands, and I think about it, I ask myself how many times have I said this, night after night, as I thought about the horrors of this--how many of these children may have grown up to be a physician? Maybe a chaplain? Maybe a President? Maybe a scientist, to cure cancer? Jefferson wrote so eloquently the Declaration of Independence that we have ``the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'' You cannot have liberty, you cannot pursue your dreams, if you are killed before you are born. I do not often quote from the Bible, but you reap what you sow, and we will reap what we sow if we do not end this practice in America. When the historians write about this age and this era--and I am standing right now at the desk of Daniel Webster. I think about it every time I speak. It is the only original desk in the Senate. There was a resolution passed in the 1960s that said for now and ever more, this desk belongs to the senior Senator from New Hampshire. Nobody else will ever get it. That is one of the highest honors that anybody could ever have. But the point I am making is we are here for only a short time. Webster occupied this desk. It did not belong to Webster, and it does not belong to me. It belongs to the people of New Hampshire and the people of America. The years will go by and the historians will look back, just like they look back on Lincoln and the Civil War, and they are going to write about this era. I know one thing, Senator Santorum, we are on the right side. History is going to judge us as being on the right side, I promise you that. Don't worry about it. It is a done deal. We are on the right side, for the same reason that Abraham Lincoln was on the right side. Can you imagine Abraham Lincoln taking a poll on whether or not we should end slavery? Putting his finger to the wind and trying to decide what the politically expedient thing to do is, to end slavery? Could you imagine Patrick Henry taking the floor of the Virginia Assembly and saying I wonder if these folks want liberty or whether they want death? Maybe I ought to poll them before I make this speech. Those were men of principle. Those were men of principle. They were not afraid of the political ramifications. When Patrick Henry said ``Give me liberty or give me death,'' he meant it. He was prepared for death if he could not have liberty. He meant every word of it. And Lincoln meant every word of it when he said slavery was wrong and it was immoral. And I mean every word of it when I say that this is wrong and this is immoral, and we will be judged on the basis of this vote. We have the chance to override the veto and send a powerful message. Today, 3 votes short, 67 votes. There have been a lot of facts presented here today and there will be more, probably, before the day is over. Take a fresh look, I ask my colleagues. I beg you. Examine your consciences. This is a huge conscience issue. I believe the reason we have made so much progress towards our goal of outlawing partial-birth abortion is that more and more Senators are realizing that the opposition to this bill was built on a foundation of lies--lies. I do not use that word lightly. I am using the very word that one of the Nation's leading abortion industry lobbyists used, Ron Fitzsimmons. He has been quoted here earlier, but he publicly admitted last year that he ``lied through [his] teeth'' when he helped orchestrate the campaign against partial-birth abortion. When I stood on the floor here, I was told that there were just a few dozen a year, that I was some kind of an extremist, a radical. President Clinton, Vice President Gore, Mrs. Clinton, came to New Hampshire in 1996 and campaigned against me in the last week of the election on this issue. In an interview published in the New York Times on February 27, 1997, and in an article published in the American Medical News on March 3, 1997, Fitzsimmons made the surprisingly candid admission that he had ``lied'' when he claimed that partial-birth abortions are rare. In those same interviews Fitzsimmons also conceded that he ``lied'' when he claimed that partial-birth abortions are performed only on women whose lives are in danger or whose unborn children are severely disabled. ``It made be physically ill,'' he told his interviewer. ``I told my wife the next day, `I can't do this again.' '' A man of conscience. In seeking to justify his veto of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act last year, the New York Times points out, ``President Clinton echoed the argument of Mr. Fitzsimmons.'' In other words, in justifying his veto, Mr. Clinton relied on the same statements of ``fact''--or wrong facts--that have now been conceded by a key leader of the abortion industry to be ``lies.'' In summary, the President used Fitzsimmons' argument; Fitzsimmons was lying, and the President should change his position. If the President of the United States, tonight, would say to his colleagues in the Senate, ``I was wrong, override me,'' imagine the impact that would have on this Nation. Regarding the President, I called upon the President a couple of years ago with a personal, handwritten note, to meet with me, to meet with my colleagues privately, publicly, any way he wanted to; on the record, off the record, with doctors, with his doctors, with my doctors--any way he wanted, any location, any way, any how, any shape or form, to discuss this issue so I could present, in 5 or 10 minutes-- that's all I asked for--what I believe to be the truth and to show where he was being told things that were wrong. He never answered my letter. Never answered my letter. Let me repeat it tonight, Mr. President, and I think I speak for Senator Santorum. We would love to come over and talk to you tonight about this. We will bring our doctors. You can have all of yours. I appeal to you to take me up on this. What have you got to lose? Maybe you will agree with us. If you do, you can ask your colleagues in the Senate to change their votes. The truth, Mr. Fitzsimmons told the New York Times, is that ``[i]n the vast majority of cases, the [partial-birth abortion] procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 or more weeks along.'' Five months. And, as Mr. Fitzsimmons told the American Medical News, ``[t]he abortion rights folks know it, the anti-abortion folks know it, and so, probably, does everybody else.'' Except, Mr. Fitzsimmons might have added, for President Clinton, who vetoed this bill, even though the reasons he gave to justify his previous veto had turned out to be lies. Mr. President, following Mr. Fitzsimmons' startling revelations, on March 4 the Washington Post ran an unusually blunt editorial entitled, ``Lies and Late-Term Abortions.'' After recounting Mr. Fitzsimmons' lies and his candid admissions that he lied, the Post editorial drew the final conclusion: Mr. Fitzsimmons' revelation is a sharp blow to the credibility of his allies. These late-term abortions are extremely difficult to justify, if they can be justified at all. Usually pro-choice legislators such as Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Representatives Richard Gephardt and Susan Molinari voted for the ban. . . . Opponents of the ban fought hard, even demanding a rollcall vote on their motion to ban charts describing the procedure from the House floor. They lost. And they lost by wide margins when the House and Senate voted for the ban. They probably will lose again this year when the ban is reconsidered. And this time, Mr. Clinton will be hard-pressed to justify a veto on the basis of misinformation on which he rested his case last time. Please listen, Mr. President. Please listen to those words. When the President vetoed H.R. 1122, he did so on the same discredited basis that he used before. Partial-birth abortions, he said, are ``sometimes necessary to preserve the woman's health.'' That is a false statement. We have had doctor after doctor say it. We had Dr. Frist say it on the floor, and we have had other testimony, and, as I said, 180 letters from other physicians saying it as well. Mr. President, President Clinton's assertion that partial-birth abortions are sometimes needed to protect a woman's health, again, is not true. Even the AMA, who has been quoted today, has said that. The American Medical Association said in the New York Times, May 26, 1997: The partial delivery of a living fetus for the purpose of killing it outside the womb is ethically offensive to most Americans and physicians. Our panel could not find any identified circumstances in which the procedure was the only safe and effective abortive method. In other words, as Senator Frist has said on the floor, it is a fringe element that performs that. There you have it, Mr. President. My colleagues can take a look at these choices: On the one hand, the claim by the President that partial-birth abortions should remain legal because it is needed to protect a woman's health; on the other hand, the American Medical Association, which is, by the way, pro-choice, saying that partial- birth abortions should be banned because it never was needed to protect a woman's health. I will take the American Medical Association on this one. Aside from the Fitzsimmons revelations and the AMA's dramatic decision to support H.R. 1122, I believe another reason why the partial-birth abortion ban continues to attract greater and greater support in the Senate is that Senators are coming to realize that this issue really does transcend abortion. I never made any secret about my position on abortion. All abortions are wrong. I am speaking for myself. They all are a taking of a human life, and they are all wrong, which is why I have introduced a human life amendment to the constitution of the amendment. I am proud of it. I don't care if I only get five cosponsors. I am proud of it. I stand on that record, and I think I will be judged correctly for having introduced it, whether I get any cosponsors or not. Indeed, as one Senator, Senator Moynihan, who supported us on the veto override in the last Congress, put it, partial-birth abortion is ``too close to infanticide.'' Let me go one step further, and it has been said here, it is infanticide. All abortion is wrong, but this is not abortion. This is infanticide. This is taking a child in your hands and executing it. We need to move away from the partisan rhetoric--not partisan, but the rhetoric on the pros and cons whether the pro-life community or the pro-choice community supports this; get away from that and look into your hearts. It is never too late to change your position on something. I have done it, and others have in here, I am sure. This was a pretty stark, truthful way to put it by Senator Moynihan, Mr. President. It took courage for him to say it, and I commend him for it. It takes a real person with a lot of courage and a lot of guts to say he was wrong and change his vote. Another Senator who didn't support the bill the first time around also joined us on that override, Senator Arlen Specter, who believes, he says, that partial-birth abortion is more like infanticide than it is abortion. Senator Specter said it on the Senate floor September 26, 1996: In my legal judgment, the medical act or acts of commission or omission interfering with, or not facilitating the completion of a live birth after a child is partially out of a mother's womb constitute infanticide. I stood on that Senate floor in 1995 with Senator Specter arguing with me heatedly and differing with me. To Senator Specter's credit, he studied it, he looked at it, and he had a change of heart. Again, that takes courage. The line of the law is drawn, Senator Specter said: When the child is partially out of the womb of a mother, it is not an abortion, it is infanticide. When you hear about this being an abortion to protect the health of the mother or the life of the mother, how does it help the health or life of the mother to restrain a child from being born, holding it in the birth canal, head only, until it is killed? No doctor has told me yet how that enhances the health or the life of the mother. Those are strong words from Senator Specter, a pro-choice Senator. It took a lot of guts for him to say it, but he said it. We are picking up support in the Senate. As I have argued today, more and more Senators are realizing that the case against this bill is on a foundation of what have now conceded to have been ``lies.'' We are also picking up greater and greater support because more and more Senators are realizing that this issue transcends abortion--that the tiny little human being whom we are talking about is a partially born baby who is just inches from drawing her first breath. To those Senators who are still considering joining the ever- increasing majority of Senators who support the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, let me address a few more comments to you. Perhaps the Nation's most respected and revered doctor--``America's Doctor''--is the former Surgeon General of the United States, C. Everett Koop. I am particularly proud of Dr. Koop because he is a part-time resident of my home state of New Hampshire. This is what Dr. Koop has to say: ``Partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to protect a mother's health or future fertility. On the contrary, this procedure can pose a significant threat to both her immediate health and future fertility.'' We all know that Dr. Koop is not a man who uses words lightly. On the contrary, Dr. Koop is a doctor who chooses his words with care and precision. Listen to those words again: ``Partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to protect a mother's health or future fertility.'' Now, of course, Mr. President, as I mentioned earlier, even the American Medical Association, which is ``pro-choice'' on abortion, has endorsed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. So, my colleagues, if you are worried about protecting women, listen to the words of Dr. Koop and listen to the American Medical Association. They are for the Partial- Birth Abortion Ban Act because partial-birth abortion is never necessary to protect a woman's health. In addition, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues who are still undecided about this bill to look at it in light of our beloved Nation's history. We all know those beautiful and majestic words that Thomas Jefferson wrote for our Declaration of Independence: ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.'' Mr. President, one does not have to agree with my view that human life begins at conception to see that a living baby who is in the process of being born has, in Jefferson's words, been endowed by her Creator with the unalienable right to life. Can anyone seriously doubt where that great American, Thomas Jefferson, would stand on that question? Another of America's greatest leaders, Abraham Lincoln, made one of the most dramatic and prophetic statements of his life in a speech that he delivered on June 16, 1858. In that speech, Abraham Lincoln said ``I believe this government cannot endure permanently, half slave and half free.'' Today, Mr. President, as we debate this Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in this great Capitol of the Union that Lincoln saved, I would say this: The moral foundation of this government cannot endure permanently when even the half born are not free to live. Can anyone really doubt where that moral giant, Abraham Lincoln, would have stood on the question before us here today? Let us rise to the moral level to which our Nation's history calls us. Let us recognize the unalienable, God-given right to life of the partially-born. Let us protect the partially-born from a brutal death. Let us be worthy of the Nation that Jefferson helped create and that Lincoln surely saved. Let us pass the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act with a two-thirds' majority and thus override President Clinton's unconscionable, immoral, and dishonest veto of this bill. I was honored when, in 1996, the National Right to Life Committee recognized my work in the Senate on behalf of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act by presenting me with its ``Proudly Pro-Life Award'' at a banquet at the historic Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York City. The most memorable moment of the evening, however, was not when I received the award. Rather, it was when I heard Gianna Jessen sing. Gianna Jessen is a beautiful young woman whose life was nearly ended before she was born. Gianna's teenage biological mother had her aborted in the final three months of pregnancy by the so-called saline solution abortion procedure, but Gianna miraculously survived. Though she survived the abortion attempt, Gianna weighed just two pounds at birth and was afflicted with cerebral palsy. She spent the first few months of her life in a Southern California hospital. Though her doctors doubted that she would ever be able to sit up, to crawl, or to walk, after years of physical therapy and surgeries, Gianna, now 21 years old, today enjoys an active, productive, and happy life. As Gianna Jessen stood before the crowd at the Waldorf-Astoria that night and sang ``Amazing Grace,'' there was not a dry eye in the house--including mine. In July of this year, a media report reached my office about the first known survivor of an attempted partial-birth abortion. According to the Associated Press and other media accounts, personnel at the A-Z Women's Center in Phoenix, Arizona, told a 17-year old mother that her unborn baby was between 23 and 24 weeks' gestational age (in other words, between 5 and 5\1/2\ months). Reportedly, after beginning the partial-birth abortion procedure, abortionist John Biskind found himself dealing with a 6-pound, 2-ounce baby girl of about 37 weeks (near full term), and he delivered her alive. She was kept in the hospital with a fractured skull and ``two deep lacerations'' on her face, but no brain damage. When I learned about this baby, who pro-life activists call ``Baby Phoenix,'' I immediately thought of Gianna Jessen. How wonderful it is that Baby Phoenix will now be able to grow up in this great country of ours. She may some day stand in front of a pro-life dinner and sing ``Amazing Grace.'' She may become a scientist and help find a cure for cancer. She may become a United States Senator. She may become the first woman President of the United States. She may become a Supreme Court Justice and vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. With life, anything is possible. I praise God that Baby Phoenix lives. The case of Baby Phoenix, the first known survivor of an attempted partial-birth abortion, illustrates that we are dealing with real human beings here. For Baby Phoenix, once that partial-birth abortion procedure was started, all that stood between her and a full life was an abortionist. In his hands, he held the power of life and death. Thankfully, Mr. President, the abortionist in Baby Phoenix's case, John Biskind, had a conscience. He saw that he was dealing with a little human being--all 6 pounds and 2 ounces of her. And he didn't brutally punch a hole in her skull. He didn't take a suction device and remove her brain. He didn't kill her. He let her live. Unfortunately, Baby Phoenix is the only known survivor of an attempted partial-birth abortion. All the other abortionists who perform the partial-birth abortion procedure don't have the conscience of John Biskind. They, too, know that they are dealing with little human beings. They manipulate their little living bodies. They feel those tiny babies move. Then, with unspeakable brutality, they forcibly restrain those little babies from being born, brutally poke scissors into their little skulls, and then literally suck the lives out of them. Today, we can put a stop to the unspeakable brutality of partial- birth abortion. Two-thirds of the United States House of Representatives has said ``Yes, stop partial-birth abortion.'' The American Medical Association has said ``Yes, stop partial-birth abortion.'' President Clinton has said, ``No, I want partial-birth abortion on demand to be legal.'' Today, the United States Senate can say to President Clinton, ``You are wrong.'' I plead with my colleagues. Listen to two-thirds of the House of Representatives. Think about Baby Phoenix. Listen to the American Medical Association. Don't listen to the cravenly political deceptions of President Clinton. Vote your conscience. Vote your heart. Vote to stop partial-birth abortion. Vote to override the President's veto and let the Partial- Birth Abortion Ban Act become the law of this land. We will be a better country for it. I can go on, Mr. President. I know there are lots of other things that I can say, but I will close at this point in the debate by again reminding my colleagues to separate yourself from the heated exchanges that we have all had. I see the Senator from Nebraska on the floor. We have had a couple of exchanges in the past on this issue. But try to look into your hearts and see if we can't get out of each other's faces and into each other's hearts and see if we can't get three more votes to change this horrible procedure. I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, it is with some regret that I am here today to join my colleagues, Majority Leader Trent Lott and Environment Committee Chairman John Chafee, in announcing that we will be unable to enact legislation this year to reform the remediation waste provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. As many of my colleagues know, since I became Chairman of the Senate Superfund Subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over the RCRA, it had become apparent to me that hazardous waste cleanups in the United States take too long, are too costly, and result in widespread areas of our country becoming brownfield wastelands. Since I introduced RCRA remediation legislation in the 104th Congress, S. 1286, I have attempted to work with Senators Lott, Chafee, Breaux, Baucus, and Lautenberg, with the Clinton administration, States, and members of the industrial and environmental communities to achieve a bipartisan fix to this confusing and burdensome law. Despite our best efforts and the dedicated work of our respective staff, we weren't able to come to agreement. It is particularly troublesome that we come to this juncture given the fact that just about a year ago we received a report from the GAO (Hazardous Waste--Remediation Waste Requirements Can Increase the Time and Cost of Cleanups) that demonstrated the urgency of fixing the remediation waste program. Although I have quoted that report previously, I believe that it is worth repeating today. Despite the fact that remediation waste ``does not pose a significant threat to human health and the environment,'' the RCRA requirements are so costly and time consuming that ``parties often try to avoid triggering the requirements by containing waste in place or by abandoning cleanups entirely.'' The report further stated that RCRA ``can drive parties to use less aggressive and perhaps less effective cleanup methods, such as leaving contaminated soil in place and placing a waterproof cover over it rather than treating it.'' Instead of dealing with the problem, the statute forces parties to ``purchase land elsewhere for their plant expansion or other needs.'' Even the EPA, which is responsible for implementing the statute is quoted in the report as stating: ``Although cleaning up a site may offer economic benefits, such as relief from liability for contamination and increased property values, industry sometimes concludes that the costs of complying with RCRA can outweigh the benefits.'' According to the GAO report we could save upwards of $2 billion per year by making some common sense legislative fixes to RCRA--cost savings that would really jump-start the efforts by industry to address these languishing sites. Nonetheless, despite tireless efforts by members and staff, and notwithstanding good progress in translating these changes into legislative language, it appears that we will not be able to accomplish our shared goal of passing a RCRA remediation waste rifle shot during the time we have left in the 105th Congress. As I conclude my statement, I would like to join Senator Lott and Senator Chafee in pledging my desire to press forward on this issue when the Senate returns next year. Perhaps the additional time will give the staff the additional opportunity to bridge the gaps that currently separate us. Finally, in addition to thanking Senator Lott and Senator Chafee for their leadership on this issue, I would like to thank our staff, Jeff Merrifield, Lynne Stauss, Ann Klee Carl Biersack and Kristy Sims for their hard work on this issue. Similarly, I would like to recognize Senator Baucus and Lautenberg and their staff for their hard work on attempting to come to a consensus. Again, I am disappointed that we were unable to make this happen this year, but I am hopeful that we can make it happen in 1999.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise in very strong support of the marriage penalty amendment. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the amendment. I want to say, under our current tax system, getting married increases your taxes. That does not make a lot of sense. The typical family pays more than $100 per month in extra taxes because of the marriage penalty. I have looked at this matter for years and never understood the rhyme or reason for the policy in the first place. Why on Earth such legislation would ever pass the U.S. Congress is mind-boggling. I guess there are some out there who think the institution of marriage has no special importance. Even if there are those people who feel that way, it would be hard not to acknowledge that taxing people simply because they got married is discriminatory, pure and simple, no matter how you feel about marriage. Why should you be discriminated against in the Tax Code because you get married? Let's not overlook the importance of marriage and the family to our country's success. Children do best when they are raised by two happily married parents. We have some in the liberal establishment who would probably take issue with that as well, but I believe that is the case. I think the statistics speak for themselves. Study after study indicates that children raised in such families are more successful in school, are less likely to commit crime, do drugs, or bear illegitimate children. They do better in the workplace when they get out of school. They do better and they are more likely to stay married as adults if they have that kind of family unit to learn from. So, imposing a tax penalty on marriage is probably one of the most antichild and antifamily policies that we could have. Often, those hardest hit by the marriage tax are those young married couples who are just trying to get started. We hear all the time from our constituents--I know I do--about this. Here is a letter from a young man in Salem, NH. I am not going to have the letter printed in the Record, just for the purpose of protecting the individual's privacy, but let me quote from that letter: You see, Senator, my wife and I are both working very hard to make a decent life for ourselves and our future children, if we can ever afford to have them. Unfortunately, we made a tactical error some 15 months ago. We decided that we loved each other enough to get married, and now I realize that before making such a decision, I should have consulted the Tax Code to see what the incremental tax liabilities would be. In 1997, our tax liability was approximately $1,100 more than it would have been had we simply decided to live together out of wedlock. That is a very powerful statement from a young couple who love each other, who got married, and then paid a penalty in the Tax Code for doing that. There is one other letter from a constituent in Lee, NH. My husband and I got married this past August. He is a police officer and I started a new job as a project engineer for a large plastics manufacturer. We purchased our first home together in September, thinking we would get taxed on our savings for a home. We thought we were establishing ourselves quite well as a young married couple. It was to our surprise that when we met with our CPA we found out that there was a couple of thousand dollars tax penalty just for being married, which has cost us $2,700. This, of course, increased the amount of money that we owed to the IRS. We both expected to owe taxes, a small amount, due to the fact that we are a double income family without children as yet. However, the last thing we expected to be taxed on was our marriage. This has placed a very large burden on my husband and me and since it wasn't in our budget it is affecting our home security. In our country, I think that one of the last things we need to penalize is marriage. We have enough divorcees, deadbeat parents, and abusive families to worry about. Does it really make sense to attack the families that do not fall into these categories? I understand the money has to come from somewhere, but families like ours also have to control our expenses. Why can't the Government bring in funds without this tax penalty and control its expenses? Mr. President, these constituents are very perceptive. I agree with them. There is no excuse for withholding tax relief from American families. I agree with them. There is no better place to start cutting taxes than the marriage penalty. There is no excuse for maintaining a tax policy that undermines children and marriage. This amendment, which would allow a husband and a wife to each claim half of their joint incomes and be taxed in the lower brackets that apply, will send a very clear message to the American people from this Congress that marriage is a valued institution, that we want to encourage it, not discourage it, and that we ought not to be penalized in the Tax Code for being married. We want to adopt a policy that does not discriminate against marriage by effectively eliminating this marriage penalty. New CBO projections call for Federal budget surpluses exceeding $500 billion over the next 5 years. Thus, the full elimination of the marriage penalty would equal less than one-third of the projected budget surplus. This surplus gives us the opportunity to have a positive impact upon millions of American families, hard-working American families who are trying to do the right thing to raise their children in the right way and send a message saying that marriage is important to our culture. This amendment is long overdue--long overdue--and I agree with the Senator from Missouri that the business of Government is to create an environment in which the family can flourish, and we need to encourage institutions like the family. The more we encourage the family, the less need we are going to have for Government to step in. Maybe that is the reason why we had the marriage penalty in the first place. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. There will be all kinds of reasons given why we shouldn't, but I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to eliminate the penalty that the Tax Code imposes on the American family. I yield the floor, Mr. President. Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, it is with a great deal of personal pleasure that I recognize the major accomplishments of an individual who dedicated his career to serving the interests of our country by strengthening our national security for more than 30 years. On August 31, 1998, Mr. Charles L. Fox will retire as Senior Vice President, Congressional Relations for the Raytheon Company. Under Chuck's leadership and dedication, Raytheon has contributed tremendously to the effectiveness of our national security. Mr. Fox has headed Raytheon's Congressional Relations Office since May 1995. In this capacity he was responsible for ensuring that issues and programs of interest to Raytheon in supporting national security requirements were communicated to members and staff of Congress in an effective manner. Mr. President, I can tell you, I know of no one more professional than Mr. Fox. In all his dealings with the Congress, he was a true professional, dedicated to ensuring national security interests, and the security of our country were always well served. Prior to joining Raytheon, Chuck served a distinguished career of more than twenty seven years in the United States Air Force, retiring as a Colonel. He served in a variety of staff, operations and command positions around the world. He served as both a base and wing commander, as well as the Chief of Staff of the Pacific Air Forces. In the two years prior to his retirement from the Air Force, Mr. Fox was the Deputy Director of Legislative Liaison for the Secretary of the Air Force in the Pentagon. He was responsible for managing all Congressional actions for the Secretary of the Air Force and the Air Force Chief of Staff, and supervised a staff of 90 personnel. Mr. Fox holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from Seattle University with a major in Political Science. He received a Master of Arts degree in International Relations from the University of Washington. Chuck and his wife Marilyn will reside in Charleston, South Carolina. Mr. Fox has two married daughters, Rachel and Sarah. Mr. President, fellow colleagues, please join me in paying tribute to the exemplary accomplishments of Mr. Charles L. Fox, for a lifetime of achievements as a business and military leader, patriot and servant of the United States of America.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Alan Shepard, the first American to fly in space, and a native of Derry, New Hampshire. On Tuesday, this American hero fell victim to leukemia at the age of 74, and leaves behind his widow, Louise, two daughters and six grandchildren. As the first American to fly in space, Alan Shepard was a pioneer for manned space exploration as we know it. On May 5, 1961, at a time when the American space program was marked by many failures and setbacks, Shepard courageously made a 15-minute suborbital flight, spending five of those minutes in space, and forever distinguishing himself as an American hero. Shepard was also one of the seven original Mercury astronauts, NASA's first space pioneers. On January 31, 1971, Shepard returned to space for his second and last flight as the commander of Apollo 14. This trip allowed Shepard to become the fifth of only twelve Americans ever to walk on the moon, and the only man to hit golf balls playfully on the lunar surface. In addition to his space endeavors, Shepard headed NASA's astronaut office in the years between his two flights, and he began investing in banks, oil wells, quarter horses and real estate. Shepard was also a Navy test pilot, sacrificing a great deal for the future of his country. He retired from the space agency and from the Navy as a rear admiral in 1974, in pursuit of many and varied interests. Alan Shepard was known for his determination and ready wit. He never backed down from a challenge, and was characterized as the most eager to be picked from among three astronauts who were finalists for the historic first flight. These traits are exactly what make Alan Shepard nothing short of a hero in American history. Without his willingness to make sacrifices for the good of his country, the United States of America never could have achieved such glorious accomplishments in its space programs. He was a modest explorer, a man of integrity, a modern role model and one for ages to come. The bravery of this man gave Americans the confidence to continue pursuing the space program, in spite of the enormous challenges that were in sight. Alan Shepard will be missed dearly across the nation, and especially in Derry, New Hampshire, the town of his birth. His motivation and dedication to the American space program and the American people serve to encourage all to welcome challenges and follow dreams to whatever heights they may soar. Let us mark the passing of this great leader not with sadness, but with gratitude and deep appreciation for being such a valiant American.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, there is nothing inappropriate at all about continuing the updating of the certification process. The President of the United States still must certify. This does not change that. This does not, as the Senator from Arizona said, close down the consulate at all. It simply says the process, ongoing, is to continue to have the Vietnamese participate fully and cooperate fully with accounting for MIAs. That is all it is. We have had correspondence from Mr. Berger on this matter. We have had comments from Senator Kerry himself, and Senator McCain, on the floor, indicating this is a process that should work--forward. So there is absolutely no reason to oppose it. I point out, 70 former POWs have supported what I am doing in a letter, as does the American Legion, as does the League of Families, the Alliance of Families, and VVA, and many others. I think the evidence is there to say this does not interrupt certification and the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts should be tabled.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I have statements from the League of Families, the Alliance of Families, from 70 former POWs, from major veterans groups, including the American Legion. And I know that others support what we are doing, like the National Vietnam Veterans Coalition, and many others support the language and support the committee process. So I hope that we will defeat this effort. Exhibit 1 National League of Families of American Prisoners and Missing in Southeast Asia, Washington DC, July 23, 1998. Hon. Bob Smith, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Smith: The POW/MIA families strongly support the language currently in the Commerce, State, Justice appropriations bill as the best way to motivate the Socialist Republic of Vietnam government to account for Americans still missing from the Vietnam War. The League is not surprised that the Clinton Administration, faced with another Congressional certification requirement, prefers broad language that is politically easier to finesse, than specific criteria that must be met. However, at the League's 29th Annual Meeting, U.S. Ambassador to Vietnam, the Honorable Douglas ``Pete'' Peterson, expressed frustration that the language was too broad, requiring either certification of full cooperation or nothing, leaving no room for incremental judgments. The League's position is based upon past and current official assessments of what Vietnam can do unilaterally to account for missing Americans. Unilateral actions do not simply mean support for joint field operations, a necessary process in the longer term, but steps by the government of Vietnam to locate and return identifiable remains and provide relevant documents that are still being withheld. Congress has the ability to stand behind those who serve-- past, present and future--by retaining the language in the Committee's bill. Efforts by Senators John Kerry and John McCain to remove this language may be well-intended, but are illogical. There is no risk that Vietnam will halt bilateral POW/MIA cooperation and risk achieving their priority mission of MFN. By retaining the Committee's language, Congress can signal it recognizes that more can and should be done by Vietnam on this issue of stated highest national priority to the Clinton Administration and understandable importance to the American people. Please stand with the POW/MIA families and America's veterans and oppose the Kerry/McCain amendment to remove relevant POW/MIA language. Respectfully, Ann Mills Griffiths, Executive Director.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. For the Senator from Massachusetts and others now to basically prevent the committee from updating the language based on the President's own words, and based on the words of Sandy Berger and others, sends a terrible message, a message that I simply do not understand, for the life of me, why we have to fight this battle day in and day out, year in and year out, on the floor of the Senate. There is nothing wrong with this language, I say to my colleague, with all respect. The President still has the right to certify. And he does in spite of the fact that I disagree, many times, with his reasoning for the certification. To prevent the committee from updating this language sends, I think, a terrible message to the Government of Vietnam: It is OK, do whatever you want. Go ahead, provide us documents, don't provide us documents; provide us access, don't provide us access, it doesn't matter. The families of 2,000-plus American service personnel still unaccounted for, don't worry about it. Our Nation's veterans, we no longer attach the same priorities to the POW/MIA effort in our development of relations with Vietnam which we had in the last 3 years. Don't worry about that. Let's go ahead, pursue lines of trade, sell oil, buy oil, whatever. Set up a full diplomatic mission. Don't worry about these things. Don't worry about POW/MIA. That is a side issue that is not really important. That is reason alone for the Senators and my colleagues to table this amendment. Don't send this kind of message to the families. God knows they have been through enough. They support the language in the committee bill. That should be enough right there. These are the people who have suffered. It hasn't been Senator Smith; it hasn't been others on the Senate floor--well, in some cases, there has been great suffering by some of my colleagues in the Vietnam war. But it is the families of the missing who want this message. We should do it for them, if for no other reason. They have been in touch with me as recently as this morning. They passionately object to what the Senator from Massachusetts is trying to do. They have told me that. I ask unanimous consent that their statements be printed in the Record immediately following my remarks.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, with all due respect of my colleague, on that last point, this is a document entitled the Comprehensive Report of the U.S.-Russia Joint Commission on POWs/MIAs, of which Senator John Kerry is a member, and I am, as well as others. In that document, which Senator Kerry signed, is this phrase: There is debate within the U.S. side of the commission as to whether the numbers cited in these reports are plausible. The U.S. Government has concluded that there probably is more information in Vietnamese party and military archives that could shed light on these documents. But, to date, such information has not been provided by the Vietnamese government. That is an absolute statement signed by Senator Kerry, which goes exactly in the opposite direction of what the Senator is trying to do by striking the language. It says simply that the Vietnamese have not provided all of the information. This commission says so and it was signed by the Senator himself. So I do not understand how the Senator can sign one document and come to the floor and try to strike all the language that supports the document that he signed. I think the whole matter is just subject to great criticism in that regard alone. In addition, I have a letter from Sandy Berger, the President's National Security Adviser, that says, ``Vietnam's full faith efforts in cooperating on this issue are essential to the development of the relationship.'' We have that in our language. In addition, there is another letter from Mr. Berger, dated April 10, 1997. The previous one was August 15, 1997. The same point: We will continue efforts already underway to require additional information on these documents, the 735 document, including access to this document, and on and on and on--all of these relating directly to the language. In addition, the Senator from Arizona, who I understand is supporting the Senator from Massachusetts, said on the floor of the Senate on April 10, Madam President: I thank [the Senator from New Hampshire] because if it had not been for him, this very important letter from the White House would not have come to our leader signed by Sandy Berger, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. It lays out a very important set of priorities for further actions that need to be taken by the United States and by the Vietnamese so that we can finally put this difficult chapter behind us. That is exactly what we are doing in this language, laying out this series of priorities. It is updating it and laying out the priorities. I urge my colleagues to simply look at 405 and respect the wishes of the families and veterans groups and others, and please keep the language in there for the sake of those people who have suffered so much throughout this process. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I yield myself 7 minutes at this point. I rise to support the committee language that is in the bill before us with respect to Vietnam. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to listen carefully to the debate between myself and my colleague from Massachusetts. It seems that we can depend on three things anymore in America-- death, taxes, and the fact that Senators Kerry and McCain will somehow oppose any language that I try to support in regard to the POW/MIA issue. Senator Kerry said that this is not workable, that the term ``fully forthcoming'' is not workable. Of course it is workable. It is workable because the language says that the President's judgment, the President's own judgment, is based on information available to the U.S. Government. There is nothing unworkable about that language at all. It is very workable. The President has continued to certify the very language that the Senator from Massachusetts wants to revert back to, which was language that I helped to write and put in the bill last year. We are simply upgrading it a little bit. That is not anything to be concerned about. The President still does the certification. It is his judgment. No one is changing that. I might not agree with the President's judgment from time to time, but he has the right to make that judgment under the law. That is the issue here. I hope the Senators and their staffs who are monitoring this debate will look at section 405 to see what the Senator from Massachusetts is striking--it is found on page 96 of the committee bill--because it is reasonable. I think most Senators will resist the effort to strike it. It is reasonable. Senator Gregg and the committee support this language. The committee language continues a certification process that was begun in 1995 when the President established full diplomatic relations with Vietnam. It has continued, through this year, when the President issued his latest certification in March. Now, whether or not we agree or disagree with the President's certification is not the issue. I happen to disagree. I didn't believe he should have certified based on the evidence. But he did, and he has the right to do that under the law. What the committee has done is to further modify the language in an appropriate manner based on developments and communications from the executive branch over the last year. Each time, in the end, the President has complied with the certification process. I have no doubt he will do it this time. In fact, let me refer to the President's own words when he issued the most recent certification in March of this year. In making this determination, I wish to reaffirm my continuing personal commitment to the entire POW/MIA community, especially to the immediate families, relatives, friends, and supporters of these brave individuals, and to reconfirm that the central, guiding principle of my Vietnam policy is to achieve the fullest possible accounting of our prisoners of war and missing in action. That is the President. I have that document right here, signed by the President of the United States. I ask unanimous consent this document be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. It is my understanding I have 10 minutes.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the life and accomplishments of Thomas Clifford Estes, of New Ipswich, New Hampshire, who recently passed away at the age of 66. The family of Tom Estes can take comfort and pride in the way that he lived his life. Born on November 28, 1931, to the late Bedford and Emily Estes of New York, Tom graduated from Erasmus Hall High School and later studied at RCA Institute. Following his father's distinguished example in serving this country in the armed forces. Tom joined the United States Navy in 1951, shortly after the outbreak of the Korean War. For three of his four years of active duty, Tom served on the U.S.S. Tarawa, a Navy aircraft carrier that entered the Asian war zone. He earned a number of Navy awards, including the Korean Service Medal, the United Nations Service Medal, the China Service Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the Good Conduct Medal and the Navy Occupation Service Medal. Tom's service to the nation was commendable, not just during the Korean War, but throughout his thirty-two years of Federal civil service. He began his career as a quality assurance engineer for the United States military in Florida and later moved to Dallas, Texas, before settling in New Hampshire in 1967. Upon his retirement, Tom was recognized by the Defense Logistics Agency for his contributions. Tom was admired for his integrity, dedication to his community and positive demeanor. He remained a devoted husband to his wife, Mary, throughout almost thirty-five years of marriage and helped care for his disabled sister for many years. An accomplished chess player, Tom also enjoyed baseball and studied the law. He and his wife ran a small, twenty-acre farm in New Ipswich for many years. He was a man who cared about the needs of others and his community, whose sense of humor, cheery smile and knack for storytelling will be missed by all who knew him. Tom will be buried with military honors at Arlington National Cemetery on Monday, August 3, 1998. I extend my deepest sympathies to his wife, Mary, his daughter, Evelyn, his sons Thomas and Peter, and his sister, Nancy. It is my great pleasure to pay tribute to this special American in the official Record of the annals of Congress.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

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

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, this amendment relates to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's new National Instant Criminal Background Check System, otherwise known as the NICS, which is scheduled to take effect on December 1 of this year. The so-called Brady Act had two provisions. One of those provisions was an interim provision, and the other was a permanent provision. In the interim provision is the waiting period for gun purchases that is now in effect but which will expire on November 29 of this year. Now, the permanent provision, which takes effect on December 1, mandates--I emphasize the word ``mandate''--mandates the establishment of a National Instant Criminal Background Check System, known as the NICS, which is to be operated by the Department of Justice. The purpose of this National Instant Criminal Background Check is to prevent the purchase of guns by persons with criminal backgrounds who are prohibited otherwise from owning firearms. Under this new system, persons seeking to buy guns will be required to submit certain identifying information for clearance through this NICS. Now, this raises serious concerns. I have concerns here that the FBI has stated that in cases where the NICS background check does not locate a disqualifying record, information about that individual, according to the language, will only be retained temporarily for audit purposes and will be destroyed after 18 months. My question to my colleagues is this: Why hold on to this information for 18 months? These are innocent people who have no disqualifying record. They are entitled, under the second amendment, to own their firearms. I don't think any records ought to be kept for 18 minutes, let alone 18 months. There is simply no reason that the FBI needs to retain private information on law-abiding American citizens--in this case, gun owners--for any time at all, let alone for 18 months. There are no legitimate audit purposes for retaining private information on law-abiding gun owners in the FBI. Now, we have seen abuses. We have seen files turning up from the FBI on individuals who happen to appear in the White House, and on and on and on. This is an opportunity to abuse the privacy rights of millions of American gun owners. It is simply wrong if you didn't do anything. If your record is clear and there is no disqualifying information, then there should be no record kept, period. I have heard a lot from law-abiding gun owners in the country who view this FBI gun owners ID record retention scheme as an ominous step toward national gun registration, which I believe is probably the ultimate goal here. Justifiably, in my view, they see this plan as a threat to their second amendment right under the Constitution of the United States. I agree with them. I feel deeply about this. I emphasize again that FBI files have been abused, and to keep, for any period of time--especially as long as 18 months--files on people who have done nothing wrong, in the FBI, is wrong. Stated simply, my legislation will put a stop to the FBI's plan to keep records of private identifying information on law-abiding citizens who buy guns. My amendment will require the immediate destruction of all information submitted by or on behalf of any person who has been determined not to be prohibited from owning a firearm. Mr. President, my amendment has another purpose as well. The Department of Justice has proposed to charge fees--a gun tax, if you will--for the NICS, using the authority of a provision in the 1991 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations Act. As Appropriations Committee Chairman Stevens noted when he introduced the No Gun Tax Act of 1998 earlier this year, the 1991 Appropriations Act was passed 2 years before the law establishing the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Moreover, as Chairman Stevens properly observed, the 1991 act ``was never intended to allow fees under the NICS program.'' ``This limited 1991 authority,'' Senator Stevens noted, ``allowed fees only `to process fingerprint identification records and name checks for noncriminal justice * * * and licensing purposes.' '' ``It was not intended,'' concluded Senator Stevens, ``to apply to programs like the NICS program, which checks the criminal background of purchasers and has nothing to do with licensing.'' In introducing his No Gun Tax Act of 1998, which I was honored to cosponsor, Senator Stevens also aptly observed that, ``The imposition of a fee would encourage some to try to obtain firearms on the black market.'' ``No matter how you feel about gun control,'' Senator Stevens said, ``we should all do what we can to make sure that the new background check system works.'' My amendment would prevent the use of funds by the Department of Justice for the ``implementation of any tax or fee'' in connection with the implementation of this new National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Under the second amendment, law-abiding American citizens have the right to own a firearm. And if the Congress, in its wisdom, decides that we are going to have this background check and a person is not disqualified, he or she should not have to pay for it. It is their constitutional right to have a weapon if they are honest, law-abiding citizens, and they should not have to pay a fee because somebody said they needed to check to find out if they were honest people or not. It is wrong. This is ``big brother,'' Mr. President, and it is wrong. So my amendment would create a civil cause of action, as well, on behalf of any person who is aggrieved by a violation of this act, which can be brought in the Federal district court for the district in which the person resides. So if your rights are violated, then you have a right to take this matter to court, as any citizen would. If successful, such a lawsuit would entitle the gun owner wronged by a violation of the provisions of my amendment to an award of damages and any other remedies deemed to be appropriate by the court, including attorney's fees. We must not allow a trampling of the second amendment. We must not allow fees to be charged to people who have done nothing except own a firearm and be legal, law-abiding citizens. They should not have to pay a fee. I hope this amendment will have broad support. The sound operation of the new National Instant Criminal Background Check requires neither the retention of ID records on law-abiding gun purchasers nor the imposition of a user-fee gun tax. So, in conclusion, let me just say, No. 1, my amendment says if the background check is conducted, no record is kept if you have done nothing wrong, you are a law-abiding person, and you are entitled to that gun. No record is kept, period. Secondly, no fee is charged. Thirdly, if records are kept in violation of this act, then you have a remedy in court. That is the amendment, Mr. President. So I say to my colleagues, if you support the second amendment and the rights of law-abiding people not to be harassed, you will support my amendment. We have seen harassment by the IRS, and this will invite harassment by the FBI if we do not stop this process. How many files will be retained? What information will be used on these people in these files? When I think of the FBI and I think of a file held in the FBI on somebody, I think of someone perhaps doing something wrong or being accused of doing something wrong. These people have done nothing wrong, except own a gun. That is not wrong; that is legal under the Constitution of the United States. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Yes.

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

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

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Reserving the right to object, just to clarify. I have remarks that would not be more than 15 or 20 minutes. The only thing is, I don't know if there are others who may wish to speak for or against the amendment. I didn't want to preclude that opportunity. I certainly have no objection to going back to your amendment. That is perfectly appropriate, and I appreciate your offer-- if we could somehow get the timeframe to make my remarks but not to preclude other people coming back to speak for or against my amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I send a second-degree to my own amendment and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I have a separate amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays be vitiated on the underlying amendment.

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I would be willing to have the 2 minutes that Senator Domenici used come off of my 10 minutes in order to keep the vote at 6 o'clock. I ask unanimous consent to do that.