Bob Smith

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Madam President, is there any time remaining at all?

Mr. SMITH. I just would like to respond briefly to the last point that Senator McCain made. In the committee bill in question here, the language that my amendment strikes is under the heading ``Title II,'' which is ``Bilateral Economic Assistance, Agency for International Development, Development Assistance.'' This is to furnish assistance to any country. Now, here we have a situation where this is under economic assistance, so it is going directly to Vietnam because that is exactly what the language says. The actual committee language reads: ``Funds appropriated under this heading shall be made available to assist Vietnam,'' et cetera. That is what the language says. So that is what is happening. Maybe the intent is different. I do not question anybody's intent here, but the language says that this money is to assist Vietnam. And that is what I object to. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, this is really a very simple amendment. I will not take too much of the Senate's time to discuss it. Oftentimes, little things that seem rather insignificant get tucked inside these bills that ought to be looked at more carefully, and they do cost the taxpayers a considerable amount of money. I think this is an example of one of them. The amendment that I am offering removes a provision that now exists in the committee bill that provides up to $1.5 million in taxpayer assistance for the Communist Government of Vietnam for economic assistance. I want to point out to my colleagues that this is not humanitarian foreign aid. This is economic assistance that is above and beyond what we would call humanitarian aid. Very specifically, the bill language states: Funds appropriated for bilateral economic assistance shall be made available, notwithstanding any other provision of law, to assist Vietnam to reform its trade regime through, among other things, reform of its commercial and investment legal codes. The committee report language, I say to my colleagues, is even more revealing. It is more specific. It says: ``The initiative seeks to assist the Government of Vietnam's efforts to develop trade relations with other nations through reforming its legal system and trade regime so as to provide the necessary framework for commercial transactions, foreign investments and trade.'' I might just say that, depending on your point of view, it may or may not be a worthwhile vote. The question is, should the taxpayers of the United States of America provide that help when, in fact, there are companies who will stand to gain substantially if this trade does take place? In other words, under the bill, the money from the American taxpayers will be spent for the cause of making a Communist nation more attractive to corporate America. A Communist nation--this does not go to the people of Vietnam. This goes to no humanitarian aid here; this goes to the Communist Government of Vietnam. Mr. President, I believe this is wrong, pure and simple. That is why I am offering this amendment to strike this provision. We are in a very difficult time. A lot of cuts--we are trying to balance the Federal budget. When you talk about $1.5 million, that may not seem like a lot of money; it is a lot of money where I went to school, a lot of money in most families in America unless you hit the lottery--$1.5 million to the Communist Government of Vietnam. We do not provide that kind of dollars to Cuba or North Korea. Why are we doing it to Vietnam? The majority of Americans have been very clear over and over again to this Congress in making their voices heard--reduce foreign aid spending. This is hardly the time to start a new foreign aid program for a Communist country. I know those who disagree with me will say the opposite, but the truth of the matter is, this is the camel's nose under the tent. This is the beginning of foreign aid to a Communist country; $1.5 million is so small when you look at some of the other line items in the foreign aid bill, but it is a substantial sum of money for many, many families in America today who, I am sure, would love to have just a very small part of that $1.5 million to help with their budgets, perhaps their fuel oil, or paying for the mortgage, or feeding their children. Why are we providing this money? Why are we putting $1.5 million tucked in, hidden in the language of this bill, in the report language? Why are we doing this? Who stands to gain? What is the purpose of this? This is not a case--I want to make this very clear--this is not a Vietnam bashing situation. It has nothing to do with POW's and MIA's. It has nothing to do with MFN. It has nothing to do with how you feel about normalization, or opening up diplomatic relations with Vietnam. That is not the issue. We have already debated that. So let us not get into that corner. But Vietnam is not a struggling democracy out there like some of the Eastern European countries who are trying to come out now from under the cloak of communism. Vietnam criticized the U.S. Government in its relationship with Cuba by applying the sanctions tighter to Cuba, criticized President Clinton and criticized Senator Helms and others for Helms-Burton. This is not a democracy that is getting this $1.5 million. It is a Communist government, not the people, the Communist Government of Vietnam. They just finished holding their Communist Party meetings in Hanoi last month. So they are still there. They are still repressive. They still have people in forced labor camps. There is still repression. Why do we provide from the pockets of the American taxpayers $1.5 million to encourage the investment of corporations from America? Again, that debate has been lost. Corporations are investing in Vietnam. Let them pay their own money to invest in Vietnam. They will get a return for their money. The taxpayers do not need to help some of the largest corporations in America to the tune of $1.5 million. Again, I want to point out that this is not humanitarian aid. This is not helping kids who have lost their limbs in the war. It is not helping people get an education, helping people who may have illnesses. That is not what this is about. We have done that before, and I have supported some of that because I believe that in war innocent people do suffer. Unfortunately, that is the case and in the case of Vietnam, that was the case. Innocent people sometimes suffer on both sides of the war, and I have supported humanitarian aid for some of those people. But the committee provision represents nonhumanitarian assistance for the Government of Vietnam. There is a big, big difference. I want to again repeat it for emphasis because it is the essence of the argument: This is nonhumanitarian aid. This is helping the government, the Communist repressive regime of Hanoi, to do better business with American businesses. I want to point out, Mr. President, that in the same bill that we are debating here on the floor, there is a provision which prohibits foreign aid to countries like Vietnam that are in default. It says here--this is again the same bill, the exact same bill, Mr. President, under ``limitation on assistance to countries in default,'' section 512: ``No part of any appropriations contained in this act shall be used to furnish assistance to any country which is in default during a period in excess of 1 calendar year in payment to the United States of principal or interest on any loan made to such country by the United States pursuant to a program for which funds are appropriated under this act.'' Let me just say that this provision has been law for 20 years. Every year it is in the committee bill and every year it is passed and signed into law. I am sure it will again happen this year. Why is it in there? It is in there because we do not want to reward countries who owe us money that have not paid us back by giving us more. That is why it is there. So I want to draw the attention of my colleagues to a report from the Agency for International Development dated July 3, 1996, which I have sent around to every Senator's office. I hope every Senator will look at it because it is important. According to this report which I just cited, Vietnam has been in violation of this law, the law that I just referenced, since May 29, 1976, 1 year after the North invaded and conquered the South. When it toppled the South, we all remember the helicopters, the people falling off rooftops and falling off helicopters in that terrible tragedy, when the tanks from the North roared through Saigon, when it toppled the South, North Vietnam automatically incurred responsibility for over $150 million in economic loans owed to the United States by the Government of South Vietnam. Those dollars are still on the books, Mr. President. The country of Vietnam still owes that money. It is still unresolved. I am told that negotiations to resolve this debt have been underway between the United States and Vietnam for sometime now, but no timetable for an agreement is in sight. So with $150 million of outstanding debt being held up, not being paid, we now slide quietly, ever so slightly, sleight-of-hand, tucked into this bill a little paragraph that says: ``Here is another $1.5 million. We are going to reward you. You owe us $150 million. You are still a repressive Communist regime. You repress your people. And now we are going to trade with you, and that is fine.'' That decision has been made. I don't agree with it. The decision has been made. But the question is, should those who decide to trade, some of the largest corporations in America, should they be given another $1.5 million of taxpayers' money to further their efforts in Vietnam to a country, A, that is Communist, B, that is repressive to its people, and, C, that has not paid its debt back to the United States of America? That is the basic question. I know that there are a lot of big issues out here on this bill and other bills that we face here in Congress, but these little issues, so- called, really are a lot bigger than they appear to be. That was not easy. We had to read this bill to find this. Let me just say there are other countries that are on this list of countries that owe us money, and they are in violation of the Brooke amendment. They are such countries as Syria, Afghanistan, Sudan, Somalia, and others. So the question you have to ask yourself is, should we reward this country with another $1.5 million--just under the table: Here it is? Why should we be asked to make an exception for Vietnam in this bill for nonhumanitarian assistance? What is the reason? Why was this tucked in the bill without debate, without any information regarding the background of this surfacing? Why should we make an exception for Vietnam among other nations in the world that also owe us money? Why should we be asked to circumvent the intent of Congress? My colleagues, that is what we are doing, because it is very clear in the legislation, very clear, as I said, under section 512, that ``no part of any appropriation contained in this act shall be used to furnish assistance to any country which is in default.'' So the language is placed in the bill ``notwithstanding any other provision of law,'' which basically wipes this off for the country of Vietnam--no explanation, no rationale, just tucked in the language. So why are we doing it in this manner? In conclusion, Mr. President, we should not be authorizing a new foreign aid program on an appropriations bill for the first time in this clandestine, undebated, secretive manner. That is the issue. That is what we are doing. This is neither the time nor the way to start a new development assistance program to promote trade with Vietnam regardless of the amount of money involved. These things tend to grow. We all know that once an economic aid program begins--the Senator from North Carolina, who is in the Chamber, knows full well once a bureaucracy is started, once an aid program is begun, it is pretty hard to keep it from getting an increase, let alone eliminated. It reminds me of the Market Access Program which the majority of my colleagues have voted to scale back. So we should keep in mind this is not a case where the taxpayers have to fund this, No. 1. IMF, the International Monetary Fund, has helped Vietnam. United States dollars go into that. The World Bank, United States dollars go into that. They help Vietnam. The Asian Development Bank, they have already given Vietnam millions of dollars in loans to help their economy develop. These loans are supported by United States tax dollars in part. You can make a case that we should not do that, but I am not making that case. I am saying those are already out there. That is another issue. So why provide another $1.5 million in bilateral economic assistance when we are already contributing through multilateral organizations? There are also private foundations helping Vietnam, helping in the reform of its commercial code, such as the Ford Foundation and IRI. I can certainly think of, as I said before, a lot better use of $1.5 million. I am simply asking that we delete it. My amendment simply deletes the dollars, and I do that because I think we can use it better. A, we can put it on the debt, which would be my first choice, or B, we might be able to use it for something else, for some other more needy cause. There are lots of causes out there that I think are deserving of dollars ahead of this if we want to put $1.5 million somewhere. I think the American people would agree. So, again, Mr. President, this is a small amount of dollars in a big bill and in a big budget. I agree with that. But it is not a small amount of dollars for the average family in America today struggling to make ends meet. The problem is there are a lot of these little $1.5 million tucked away through the 13 appropriations bills as they weave their way through Congress. They all add up, as Senator Dirksen used to say, to real money. A million there, a million there. Then it is $1 billion, $1 billion here and $1 billion there. Then it is $1 trillion. I do not even know what comes after $1 trillion. What is it, quadrillion? I do not know. But it adds up. This is a small item. Granted, maybe it is not worth an hour of debate, somebody will say, but let me tell you something. If you take care of dollars, hundreds of dollars, thousands of dollars, and millions of dollars, you will take care of billions and trillions. They will take care of themselves. This is a very important statement we are going to make here. If this amendment is defeated, if my amendment is defeated, what we have said is that providing additional taxpayer aid to the country of Vietnam, a Communist nation like Cuba, is more important than helping children, helping the sick, helping people with AIDS, helping people who need help with their education, their student loans or retiring, helping to retire the national debt. Again, I cannot emphasize more strongly how I feel that it is wrong to put this in this legislation. So let me, at this point, Mr. President, before yielding the floor, ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

Mr. SMITH. I yield the floor. Mr. JOHNSTON addressed the Chair.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Thomas as a cosponsor to my amendment.

Mr. SMITH. Madam President, I hope that we are not going to make this amendment something that it is not in the debate here in the closing moments. This amendment is very simple. It simply strikes $1.5 million out of the bill, saves the money, which is, in essence, $1.5 million in foreign aid to the country of Vietnam. Vietnam is a Communist country. It has nothing to do with diplomatic relations. It has nothing to do with any of the other issues--normalization, or other issues that we have had some differences here on in the past. This is a question, and I think it is the ultimate question, of $1.5 million going to North Vietnam, or the country of Vietnam. These are dollars that allegedly, by opposition--by the discussion from the Senator from Louisiana, Senator Johnston--are going to be used by the American Bar Association to somehow make Vietnam suddenly a system that is going to be falling in line with our legal system here in America, or at least that is the ultimate goal. The point is the American Bar Association donates tens of millions of dollars to candidates, mostly candidates on the other side of the aisle. They have plenty of money. There is no need to take $1.5 million of the taxpayers' money to do this. The country of Vietnam, I say to my colleague, is $150 million in arrears. The law which is in this very bill says very clearly under bilateral economic assistance that this is precluded; this is forbidden. Now they have made an exception in this provision, in this bill. That is what is wrong. So the issue here is, Do you believe that North Vietnam, a country that denies basic human rights to its people, should get $1.5 million that the American Bar Association can certainly spend on their own, if they want to promote a legal system in Vietnam that may or may not be patterned after the United States of America? We have no guarantee this is going to happen. There are no guarantees whatsoever that if the American taxpayers spend $1.5 million that somehow, miraculously, Vietnam is going to adopt our legal system. It is absolutely outrageous. It is the most outrageous argument I have heard since I have been in the Senate. It is crazy. Not only that, if we are really concerned about having a legal system in Vietnam that is like America, what about a legal system that would protect these poor unfortunate souls who are imprisoned all over Vietnam with no charges against them, who have been held in reeducation camps for years and years with no charges--just held there, no system, no trial, no nothing? That is what this is issue is about. If the people in the trade council want to trade with Vietnam, we have had that debate. Senator McCain and I have had that debate. This is not that debate. That is fine. The issue is not that. The issue is whether or not, in the interest of producing a legal system that somehow is going to reflect ourselves, our own legal system, that we should spend $1.5 million of the taxpayers' money. This is a new foreign aid program. It is the camel's nose under the tent. It is $1.5 million of foreign aid to a Communist country that owes us $150 million in debts. They have not paid them. They have not tried to pay them. There has been no restructuring, or anything else, any attempt whatsoever. That is the issue. It is not the responsibility of the American taxpayers to pay for this just because there is a group --if you look at the corporations, these are big corporations, not to mention the ABA. There is plenty of private money. We have the world banks and other international organizations that have helped Vietnam. We donate to those. We provide dollars. We give dollars to these international organizations. Why now have another $1.5 million of taxpayers' dollars in new foreign aid go to this country? It is wrong. It is absolutely wrong. No matter how you feel about the issue of trade with Vietnam, that is not the issue here. The issue is, do we give Vietnam another $1.5 million in foreign aid in the hopes that somehow they are miraculously going to adopt our legal system and have trial by jury and have this nice legal system patterned after the United States of America? It is absolute nonsense. Maybe they will or maybe they will not, but they will not use $1.5 million of the taxpayers' money to do that. How about reforming Vietnam's election laws, to become a democracy? This is not what this is all about. The argument about the nations of Eastern Europe who have come out from under the yoke of communism, that is the point. They came out from under the yoke of communism, and when they did, then we could help them as we have done. This is not the case here. What is next? Maybe we ought to help the North Koreans. Maybe we ought to give them a couple of million bucks, and maybe they will-- maybe they will--pattern their legal system after ours. How about Cuba? Maybe they will pattern it if we give them a couple million, too. This is absolutely wrong. I am absolutely shocked that there would be a lot of opposition to an amendment to take $1.5 million out of this foreign operations bill for something like this. So, in conclusion, the point is very simple. If you want to give $1.5 million of new foreign aid to North Vietnam in the hopes that they are going to pattern their legal system after the United States of America, vote against the amendment. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize American Legion Post No. 88 as they dedicate a memorial to our Nation's veterans. Post No. 88 undertook the creation and dedication of this war memorial to mark their 50th anniversary. This emblem of service will endure as a reminder of the veterans' sacrifice made for our liberty. On July 4, Post No. 88 dedicated a demilitarized M6OA3 tank and placed it on permanent display at South Village Road in Louden, NH. Joining the legionnaires in this solemn occasion were local Boy Scouts and Cub Scouts, young musicians, local clergy, and town leaders. The monument was dedicated to the memory of those veterans who served their country, with a special remembrance for POW's and MIA's. Our veterans have made it possible for us to live free in this great country. The strong, sound granite of the memorial stone, cut from our New Hampshire hills, is representative of America's best and bravest. The men and women who have served this country in the Armed Forces will be honored through this memorial and the community will remember their service and their sacrifice. This monument is just one of many examples of the way American Legion Post No. 88 serves their community. Members of the post donate countless volunteer hours, fundraising for veterans' needs, support youth education, and assist the medically needy. Post No. 88 has been an integral part of the community for the past 50 years and has served the community with dedication and with pride. I congratulate American Legion Post No. 88 for their service and dedication to their community. The new war memorial is a fitting tribute to our Nation's veterans and another fine example of Post No. 88's commitment to honoring our Armed Forces.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Timothy Marquis, Joanne Millette, Syma Myrza, and Kenneth Johnson and congratulate them on being named White House Presidential Scholars. These students were among the 141 students chosen for this prestigious award from more than 2,600 high school seniors. Last month, these New Hampshire students were in Washington to participate in special events highlighting Presidential Scholars National Recognition Week. The Presidential Scholars Program was created by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964 to honor our Nation's most outstanding students. In 1979, the program was expanded to include accomplished students from the visual, creative, and performing arts. This year, the General Motors and Saturn companies sponsored the Presidential Scholars Program and the events in Washington. Timothy, Joanne, Syma, and Kenneth are four outstanding New Hampshire students who have worked very hard to achieve academic excellence. Their dedication deserves this special recognition. They were selected as Presidential scholars on the basis of academic success, essays, school recommendations, leadership, character, and commitment to high ideals. One of the primary goals of this program is to help young people recognize the value of their accomplishments. In addition to receiving this award, each student was asked to name the teacher who most influenced them during their high school career. These teachers are named as a National Distinguished Teacher and are invited to participate in the National Recognition Week. These students have worked hard to achieve excellence and this award honors their hard work and perseverance. These students are remarkable because they have achieved not only academic excellence, but are also leaders in their schools and dedicated to community service. Each student has given back to the community that nurtured them. I am proud to recognize these four outstanding young people as New Hampshire's finest and congratulate them on the receipt of the White House Presidential Scholars Award.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Paul Bofinger from Concord, NH, as he retires as president of the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests. Paul ends a distinguished 35-year career with this organization, serving as its president for the last 23 years. This exceptionally hard-working man has long been recognized as one of the top conservationists in our State. The last 35 years have seen a steady period of growth and awareness of conservation issues in New Hampshire, and Paul has played a large role in this development. In the last three and a half decades, New Hampshire became the first State to establish statewide control over septic systems, and the first to take steps toward preserving wetlands. Paul is justly proud of his record and the fact that the number of New Hampshire residents who are concerned about protecting the environment is increasing each year. Paul is described by many as a master of negotiations. During the struggle over the Wilderness Protection Act, he negotiated a balanced agreement which set aside 77,000 acres as national forest land while preserving land for timber as well. He demonstrated understanding for both sides but always urged what was best for the land. Another of Paul's brilliant negotiations involved the construction of the Franconia Notch Parkway, a compromise between the preservation of forest lands and the construction of a four-lane interstate highway. Paul had a rare intuition for politics and policy and his heart was always in the right place when it came to protecting our State. Paul's many projects, from the Trust for New Hampshire Lands and the Northern Forest Lands Council to the fight against acid rain and his support of current use legislation, have earned him numerous awards. Some of his more prestigious awards include: the John Aston Warner Medal for American Forests, the President's Conservation Achievement Award from the Nature Conservancy, and the Tudor Richards Award from the Audubon Society of New Hampshire. As Paul leaves the field of nature conservation, he will be sorely missed, but his memory and work will endure. It is he and others like him whom we should credit for preserving our beautiful New Hampshire wilderness for the next generation of Granite-staters. I thank Paul for his 35 years of service and commend him for an extraordinary job. We will miss his strong voice on behalf of our State's forests and his devotion to protecting our natural environment.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to A1c. Peter J. Morgera of Stratham, NH. Last Tuesday, this courageous young man fell victim to a tragic act of terrorism at the United States military complex in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. Peter leaves behind his parents, Richard and Diane, and his two brothers, Tommy and Michael. He honored his country by serving overseas in Saudi Arabia and his family and community will miss him greatly. Peter, a 25-year-old flight mechanic, was one of 19 American servicemen who lost their lives just 2 weeks ago when a truck bomb detonated outside military housing in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. This blast which, in addition to taking the lives of Peter and 19 others, wounded 270 and was the worst incident of terrorism since the attack in Beirut in 1983. Peter, who was scheduled to return home on June 30, had served his country for 3 years in the Air Force. Peter was a 1990 graduate of Exeter Area High School and is described by those who knew him as a great person, a hard worker, and someone who was always ready to lend a hand. When remembering Peter, his family and friends invariably mention his strong sense of community spirit and compassionate nature. He always did everything he could to help people when they needed it. At age 16, Peter began working with the Stratham Volunteer Fire Department and his fellow firefighters described him as extremely reliable and an excellent co-worker. One of the many ways he served the community was through teaching fire prevention at area schools. Peter had the kind of love for family and community this country is built upon, and it is individuals such as him that make this country great. Peter's memory will be one of leadership and charity. He chose not to ignore the needs of those around him but to help meet those needs. Whether someone needed a helping hand or just a friendly face, Peter was there. Just last week, he was honored, along with his fellow servicemen who also died in the blast, at a special funeral ceremony by President Clinton. He served not only his community but his country as well, and his country will never forget his service or his sacrifice. We should, however, look beyond the tragedy of this great loss and let Peter's sacrifice be an example for us all. Although he left this world prematurely, he touched many lives with his caring ways and his memory will endure in many hearts. Although Peter's death weighs heavily in the hearts of his family and friends, we should not dwell in sadness, but remember his zeal for life and continue to uphold those principles which he held dear. Peter's dedication to community was the embodiment of the American ideal, people like him are the backbone of their communities and the Nation. He gave his life as a guardian of the community and the Nation he loved so well. Therefore, let us mark this tragedy and remember what we have lost, but let us also celebrate Peter's life and the light he gave to those around him. His family and community will miss him dearly and honor him as a valiant American.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, during the past 5 years our Nation commemorated the 50th anniversary of a series historic World War II events. These ceremonies highlighted the enormous valor, sacrifice, and honorable service of our Nation's veterans. They also showcased some of the unique aircraft, ground vehicles, and naval vessels that helped turn the tide of war in Europe and the pacific. Many of these extraordinary combatants have long since been retired. Others have been converted to museums. Still others are in use with foreign military services through agreement with our Government. Recently, it was brought to my attention that one specific class of Navy ship, the LCS class, has only one surviving ship left in existence: The LSC-102. The LCS' were shallow draft gunboats designed and built to provide a high rate of firepower for marines going ashore. The Navy built 130 of them, outfitted with 20mm and 40mm guns as well as rocket launchers for beach bombardment. They saw extensive action in New Guinea, Borneo, Iwo Jima, the Phillippines and Okinawa. Twenty-six were sunk or damaged in combat operations. As I said, the LCS-102 is the last ship in its class in existence. It is in service with the Royal Navy of Thailand through agreement with our Government. The Thai Navy has indicated that they plan to keep the ship in service through at least the year 2000. Mr. President, the LCS class has a distinguished history. Our former colleague Senator John Tower served in combat as a boatswain's mate on an LCS in World War II. Former Navy Secretary Bill Middendorf also served aboard an LCS. And John F. Lehman, Sr., the father of Chris Lehman and former Secretary of Navy John Lehman, Jr. commanded the LCS- 18 and was awarded the Bronze Star for service during the Okinawa campaign. The National Association of USS LCS (L) 1-130 has for several years sought to return the LCS-102 to the United States so that it can become an exhibit at the U.S. Navy shipbuilding museum at Quincy, MA. Time is running out for thousands of sailors who served aboard LCS's during World War II and want to see this last-of-its-class ship brought home to port. The amendment that I am offering today would express the sense of the Senate that the Secretary of Defense should use existing authorities in law to seek the expeditious return of the LCS-102 from the Government of Thailand in order for the ship to be transferred to the United States shipbuilding museum. The amendment does not require any specific action or force the return of the ship. Rather, it convey's congressional interest in working with our friends in Thailand to return this last of its kind ship for exhibition in the United States. Mr. President, I understand there are concerns over who actually holds title to the vessel, how much longer the royal Thai navy may want to hold onto it, and who would pay the bill to return it to the United States. According to the Navy, the LCS-102 is now known as the LSSL 102, having been transferred to Thailand under the old military assistance program. There is revisionary right retained by the United States providing that when Thailand no longer needs the vessel for intended purposes it is to notify the United States. It is entirely possible that Thailand may insist upon some alternative compensation if they agree to give back the ship. While this amendment does not address that issue, it is intended that the Secretary of Defense would exercise his existing authority, in consultation with the State Department, to explore various options and consummate such an arrangement, if appropriate. Let me make clear that I do not propose using Defense Department funds to return this vessel to the United Sates and transport it to Quincy, MA. In my view, this is something that should be paid for through private contributions. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from William M. MacMullen, the executive director of the shipbuilding museum, committing to raise the necessary funds for such an effort, be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. SMITH. I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting this amendment. It is fitting that we pay tribute to the collection of American warriors, including our former colleague John Tower, who served aboard this unique class of combatants. Let us bring LCS-102 back stateside, to permanent home port in Quincy, MA, so that future generations can better understand and appreciate its legacy of service. Mr. President, I understand that this amendment has been cleared on both sides and, if that is the case, I urge adoption of the amendment. Exhibit 1 U.S. Naval Shipbuilding Museum, Massachusetts Military Research Center, June 19, 1996, Quincy, MA. Hon. Robert C. Smith, U.S. Senate, Seapower Subcommittee, Senate Armed Services Committee, Washington, D.C. Dear Senator Smith: I am writing to provide you my assurance that the United States Naval Shipbuilding Museum here in Quincy, Massachusetts is prepared to take the former LCS-102 and give her a home at the Museum. We are committed to raise the necessary funds working with the LCS Association to maintain the vessel and prepare her for use as an exhibit. We have the room here and we think that the addition of one of the ``fightingest'' ships in the World War Two Navy would be a fine addition to our Museum. Many LCSs were actually built here in Quincy during World War Two and it would be fitting to have one of those, (in fact, the only ship of its class left in the world), ships back here in Quincy at our Museum. It is my understanding that there is a possibility that the Congress may soon endorse the idea of bringing the last LCS home to serve as a museum piece. Many Navy veterans from New Hampshire would be pleased to have the ship so close to home. I urge you to support this initiative to bring this ship to Quincy, Massachusetts, and so honor the tens of thousands of sailors who served on amphibious ships during World War Two. Respectfully, William M. MacMullen, Jr. Exec. Director, USNSM.

Mr. SMITH. It is my understanding that the triparty agreements will remain unaffected by this amendment. We do not intend that this provision effect the pace of cleanups or shift costs from the Federal Government to the States. More specifically, in the paragraph setting forth the condition that must be met before a transfer can occur, clause (iv) states that a deferral shall not increase, diminish, or affect in any manner any rights or obligations of a Federal agency with respect to a property transferred.

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

Mr. SMITH. Triparty agreements have proven to be an effective tool to coordinate the cleanup efforts at Federal facilities. These agreements should be used where appropriate, and nothing in this amendment would impede the ability of Federal regulatory agencies and States to enter into such agreements.

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, during the Armed Services Committee consideration of S. 1745, Senator McCain and I introduced language to amend section 120(h)(3) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 [CERCLA] otherwise known as Superfund--to allow for the sale of contaminated properties at former Federal facilities prior to the completion of hazardous waste remedial action. Although the Federal Government would remain responsible for the cost of cleaning up the existing contamination, the early transfer of these properties would allow for the expedited redevelopment of excess Federal properties, such as those closed under the Base Closure and Realignment Act, without having to wait for the completion of the cleanup activities. This language, which was developed with the assistance of the Department of Defense, was cleared as official administration policy by the Office of Management and Budget. In addition to section 346 being supported by the administration, we have been contacted by a number of States that believe that it is important that the transfer process be expedited so that necessary redevelopment takes place as soon as possible. As a result of my close involvement with efforts to redevelop Pease Air Force Base, as well as my chairmanship of the Senate Superfund Subcommittee, I am aware of instances where potential land redevelopment efforts were hindered because of the Federal agency's inability to provide potential purchasers with a fee simple transaction prior to the time the property was cleaned up. By making this necessary revision to CERCLA 120(h), I believe that we will avoid needless complications in getting these properties into beneficial economic reuse, yet at the same time, ensure that they will be appropriately cleaned up in a timely manner. Recently, I have received letters from a few State attorneys general expressing concerns about section 346, and seeking assurances that these properties will be expeditiously cleaned up. The attorneys general were primarily concerned that we ensure that all appropriate remedial action is taken at thee sites in a timely manner, that schedules for completion of the cleanup be identified, and that existing agreements, including tri-party agreements remain enforceable. In response to these concerns, my staff on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee have been working with the staffs of Senators Baucus, Lautenberg, and Chafee, as well as the staff on the Armed Services Committee and representatives of the military services, to address the concerns raised by the attorneys general. The amendment that I am offering today would accomplish a number of goals. First, it would ensure that those facilities that are transferred prior to their cleanup would receive the same environmental protections as those facilities currently cleaned up under section 120(h). Similar to current law, the deed transferring the property would be required to contain assurances that all appropriate remedial action will be taken at the property, as well as identify schedules for the investigation and completion of all necessary remedial actions. In addition, the current language in section 120(h) would continue to hold the Government responsible for any additional cleanup found to be necessary after the date of the transfer. Second, this amendment specifically states that the Federal obligations for these facilities would not be diminished or affected as a result of these transfers. The functional effect is that contractual obligations, such as tri-party agreements, that have been entered into by the Federal Government prior to the transfer, would remain unaffected by this change. Third, this amendment would ensure that State laws, including State environmental laws, will continue to apply to facilities that are transferred as a result of this section. Thus, in no way does this amendment affect the ability of States to fully enforce their State environmental cleanup requirements. Mr. President, my staff has been contacted by the representatives of a number of Governor's who have told me that they strongly support the existing language in section 346. However, I am willing to modify my language to address the concerns raised by attorneys general. As a result of these changes, I believe that this amendment will not only clarify our intention to allow these pre-cleanup transfers, but it will also ensure that these cleanups will take place in a prompt fashion. I urge the support of my colleagues for this amendment.

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, it is reality of declining defense budgets that not every program conceived by the Armed Forces or the defense industry can be funded. The Services are forced to examine their military requirements and prioritize among many competing programs. When they do, disappointed defense contractors may seek legislative intervention to achieve objectives they could not satisfy in the budgeting process. An example of such activity exists in the House version of the defense authorization bill. The bill contains a provision that would require the Secretary of the Navy to spend $29 million, authorized and appropriated for other purposes in fiscal years before fiscal year 1997, for development and procurement of a pulse Doppler upgrade modification for the Navy's AN/SPS-48E radar system. In other words this provision would force the Navy to take money away from programs of higher priority that were considered and approved by Congress in prior years and allocate it to a program that failed to make the cut. Aside from this provision's abuse of the congressional authorization and appropriation process, complying with it would create an outyear demand for substantial additional resources that are not in the future years defense program. Thus, its fiscal abuses would proliferate into the future to undermine stronger and more urgently needed programs. In summary, we will be confronted in conference by a provision in the House bill that seeks to earmark prior year finds for a program for which there is no funding in the budget or in the future years defense program, for which there is no development or procurement plan, and for which there would be substantial outyear financial burden. I think it important to provide our future conferees clear guidance that such a provision is unacceptable. My amendment would accomplish this. I encourage my Senate colleagues to join me in supporting it.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Madam President, if there are no other Senators who wish to debate at this point, I ask unanimous consent that the Lautenberg amendment be temporarily set aside, and that at the hour of 3:25 today the Senate resume consideration of the amendment, and there be an additional 5 minutes equally divided for debate, prior to Senator Craig or his designee being recognized in order to make a motion to table the Lautenberg amendment and, further, that no second-degree amendments be in order prior to the vote on the tabling motion.

Mr. SMITH. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SMITH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, at the hour of 4 p.m. today the Senate lay aside any pending amendments to the DOD authorization bill and Senator Pryor be recognized to offer his amendment regarding GATT; and immediately following the reporting by the clerk, Senator Hatch be recognized to offer a relevant perfecting amendment limited to 30 minutes equally divided in the usual form, with an additional 10 minutes under the control of Senator Specter and an additional 5 minutes under the control of Senator Pryor; and following the disposition of the second-degree amendment, if agreed to, Senator Pryor be recognized to offer a further second-degree amendment and there be 30 minutes time for debate prior to a motion to table to be equally divided in the usual form, with an additional 10 minutes under the control of Senator Specter and an additional 5 minutes under the control of Senator Pryor; that following the conclusion or yielding back of time, Senator Lott be recognized to move to table the second- degree Pryor amendment, and no other amendments or motions be in order prior to the motion to table.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the adjutant general of Michigan and a memorandum from the Camp Grayling Training Site Manager, Lt. Col. Gary J. McConnell, be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to express some strong concerns that I have regarding this country's ability to produce and maintain our vital supply of tritium. I am deeply concerned that the administration is proceeding down a costly and uncertain path, and that we are failing to take necessary action to protect our national security interests. Mr. President, tritium is a man-made radioactive isotope of hydrogen. It has a half-life of about 12 years and decays at a rate of about 5.5 percent per year. It is essentially the ``booster'' that gives a nuclear weapon much of its explosive power. Even though the cold war is over, the United States still requires a downsized nuclear deterrent to ensure our security from continuing threats, including those from emerging Third World nations with nuclear capabilities and a demonstrated willingness to use terrorist tactics to achieve their national objectives. With regard to the tritium production decision, Secretary Hazel O'Leary and now this Congress are about to travel down a path with far- reaching implications for both national security and U.S. taxpayers' pocketbooks over the next half century. In October 1995, Secretary O'Leary announced a dual-track approach of more studies for meeting future tritium requirements for the next 3 years. According to the legislation before us, we are authorizing $160 million in fiscal year 1997 for tritium production studies. According to the legislation, approximately 90 percent will go to Los Alamos National Laboratory's linear accelerator research project. The remaining 10 percent of the $160 million will go toward continued research for use of an existing nuclear reactor to produce tritium. With regard to the linear accelerator for tritium production, the Department of Energy's last attempt at building a new accelerator was the superconducting super collider--now an empty ditch full of rusting equipment and shattered dreams, sitting idle on the plains of Texas. Like the accelerator that the DOE wants to build, the Department started out with an estimate of only a few billion dollars to build the super collider. However, after several years and billions of dollars of taxpayer money, the project began running behind schedule and the cost estimates began to balloon out of control. Finally in 1992, when the cost estimate had grown to more than $11 billion, Congress said ``enough is enough'' and pulled the plug on the collider program. Now the DOE proposes to start a new accelerator research project, using the Nation's need for tritium as the excuse. Although the project is being justified by national security needs, scientists at DOE's national laboratories are lining up to propose new research programs for which the accelerator can be used. Mr. President, the Department of Energy has a poor track record of starting large projects and then helplessly watching the costs and schedule expand out of control. Virtually every major project ever started by DOE has been terminated during construction or before beginning any useful operation. Besides the money wasted on the Super Collider, there was the Clinch River Breeder Reactor, the Fast Flux Test Facility, upgrades to the K-Reactors, et cetera, et cetera. Each of these were multibillion-dollar projects. Recently, the Department provided a forecast of the funds required to fulfill the tritium mission during the research, development, and proposed construction phases. According to the chart, the Department plans on spending $4.863 billion on the accelerator and an additional $535 million on civilian light water reactor research. Mr. President, over the next several years, we are going to ask the taxpayers to foot a bill of over $5 billion for tritium production and that is simply to get the program up and running. That does not include the several billion dollars it will take in annual operation and maintenance. Indeed, according to the Department's own estimates, the accelerator could cost taxpayers in excess of $20 billion over its lifetime. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the ``Tritium Production Budget Forecast'' be printed in the Record. Obviously, it is clear that when President Clinton commented during his State of the Union speech that ``the era of big government is over.'' He forgot about this project.