Bob Smith

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Chafee. Mr. President, this bill is a compromise bill. It is not going to please everyone, and maybe that is the reason why it is a good piece of legislation, I do not know. But a little more than 2 months ago, the Superfund Waste Control and Risk Assessment Subcommittee, which I chair, held a hearing to consider proposals to regulate the interstate transportation of solid waste and whether to provide local control authority to State and local governments. The controversy here surrounding the interstate transportation of municipal solid waste is one that the Senate has been considering since 1990. Today, 47 States export approximately 14 to 15 million tons of municipal solid waste per year for disposal in other States--14 to 15 million tons. While short-distance waste exports have been occurring for some time, the development of a long-haul waste transport market has been a more recent development. With tipping fees as high as $140 per ton in some large cities, compared with the national average of between $30 and $50 a ton, there is an incentive, obviously, from municipalities to transport these wastes by truck and rail to distant States for some permanent disposal. That is a pretty big incentive. Anywhere from $30 to $50 to $140 a ton is a huge disparity. Those States that have recently been the recipients of large amounts of long-haul waste have raised a concern that their limited capacity for solid waste is being filled and that they have become a dumping ground for somebody else's waste problems. So over the last few years, 37 States have passed laws to prohibit, limit, or severely tax waste that enters their jurisdiction. However, almost all of these laws have been struck down by the Supreme Court for violating the commerce clause of the Constitution. So while there has been a recent easing of disposal and the capacity to dispose nationwide, there is still significant concerns about the future consequences of this long-haul system. Congress needs to define what the future is, whether we are going to honor the interstate commerce clause or not, or whether we are going to adjust it or micromanage it, or do something with it. But there are people out there who are impacted, as we speak, by the fact that this decision is still in limbo. So to address these concerns, Congress--specifically the Environment and Public Works Committee--has been attempting to strike a balance between importing and exporting States. Last year, the Committee on Environment and Public Works, of which I am a member, unanimously reported S. 2345 to address this problem. A number of Members, both on and off of the committee, including very prominent Members who will be involved in this debate over the next couple of days, like Senators Coats, Specter, Lautenberg, Moynihan, and others, took a very active role in attempting to develop a compromise that importing and exporting States could live with. While the Senate easily passed this compromise by a voice vote on September 30, 1994, it was the end of the session and time ran out before this issue could be finally resolved. So this legislation has been a balancing effort, a real balancing effort. In regard to the interstate transportation of municipal solid waste, we have tried to carefully balance the issues of both the importers and the exporters, and nobody is happy with the interstate language. Perhaps that indicates to me, as I said earlier, that we might be on to something. The bill that Senator Chafee and I introduced incorporates the interstate waste bill that unanimously passed the Senate last year. Let me repeat that, because I think in the debate, as the chairman, Senator Chafee, knows, it is getting lost. What Senator Chafee and I are offering in the area of interstate waste transfer unanimously passed the Senate last year. That is what we put in our bill. That is simply all we are offering this year.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, we have an amendment offered by Senator Kempthorne. I send the amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to salute CWO-2 Peter A. Davis, who died April 24, 1995, in a helicopter crash in Williamson County, TX. The accident that took the life of this fine man was a terrible tragedy for his family and for all those who knew him. Mr. Davis, born in Kittery, ME and educated in Laconia, NH, was on active duty and has served in the U.S. Army for 21 years. He is the son of Phillip and Maria Davis of Laconia. He is also survived by his wife, Bonnee Davis and son Nicholas Davis, both of Fort Hood, TX. Peter died in service to his country in the U.S. Army. I extend my deepest sympathies to Peter's family and friends. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I am honored to represent Peter's family in the U.S. Senate. CWO-2 Peter Davis joins a distinguished list of American patriots who have given their lives in service to their country.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to one of New Hampshire's finest law enforcement officials, Raymond J. Landry, chief of police of the city of Nashua, on the occasion of his retirement on May 1, 1995. As a veteran of the U.S. Navy, I am particularly proud of the distinguished professional accomplishments of Chief Landry, who is a Navy man himself. A Nashua native, Chief Landry has held progressively more responsible positions within the Nashua Police Department since he first joined it in 1964. After serving as a front line police officer for 7 years, Chief Landry was promoted to sergeant in 1971. Less than 2 years later, in 1973, Chief Landry became a lieutenant. Five years after that, in 1978, Chief Landry was promoted to captain. by 1984, he was named major. Finally, Mr. Landry attained his current high rank as chief of police of the city of Nashua in 1988. By any measure, Chief Landry has had a most impressive career in the law enforcement field. Throughout his career, he has demonstrated the initiative, dedication, and foresight to gain the best available training to serve the citizens of Nashua. A graduate of the Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI] National Academy, Chief Landry also is an alumnus of the Command Training Institute and the Advanced Management Practices Program of Babson College. Finally, Mr. President, Chief Landry is a graduate of the Police Executive Development Program of the Pennsylvania State University. Beyond his first-class training and professional development efforts, Chief Landry has been active in numerous leadership organizations in the law enforcement field. He is a member of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the New England State Police Information Network, the New Hampshire Association of Chiefs of Police, the New England Association of Chiefs of Police, and the Hillsborough County Chiefs Association. In addition, Chief Landry serves on the executive board of the drug task force of the office of the attorney general of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I understand that there will be a surprise gathering of upwards of 700 people in Nashua on May 5 to honor Chief Raymond Landry as he retires. Law enforcement officials from throughout New Hampshire, as well as State and local dignitaries, will be in attendance. Mr. President, our Nation's police officers richly deserve the respect in which they are held by our citizens. They serve quietly and effectively, protecting the public and keeping the of duty. Having risen to the very top of his profession, Chief Landry can take a great measure of pride in his accomplishments and the admiration in which his colleagues and his constituents in Nashua and throughout New Hampshire hold him. So, Mr. President, I salute Chief Raymond Landry. I will be with him and his friends in spirit as they celebrate his magnificent career on May 5. May God bless him and grant him a long, happy, and healthy retirement.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the Londonderry High School ``Lancer'' Marching Band and Colorguard from Londonderry, NH. The Lancers recently performed here in the Nation's Capital for the 1995 Washington, DC St. Patrick's Day parade and received awards for their performance. The Lancer Marching Band and Colorguard, under the able direction of Mr. Andrew Soucy, have a proud tradition of representing the Granite State in parades across the country. In addition to the St. Patrick's Day parade, they have marched in the Pasadena Tournament of Roses Parade and, just this year, performed for the New England Patriots football team at Foxboro Stadium in Massachusetts. These fine young men and women demonstrate the hard work and dedication that is characteristic of the Granite State students. They have proven that determination and teamwork are the hallmark of success both as musicians and students. The Lancer Band and Colorguard are outstanding ambassadors for New Hampshire. Mr. President, I want to express my thanks to both the students and faculty at Londonderry High School for their commitment to excellence. It is an honor to represent them in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Barbara (B.J.) Bedford of Etna, NH for capturing three gold medals for swimming in the women's 100 meter and 200 meter backstroke, and as a member of the 4 x 100 meter medley relay, at the Pan American Games held in Mar del Plata, Argentina, March 11 to 26, 1995. The U.S. Olympic committee sent 800 athletes, including 159 current Olympians, to compete in the 12th Pan Am Games--its largest contingent ever. B.J.'s performance was remarkable and one for which she can be very proud. B.J. has not only excelled at the Pan Am Games, but she was the bronze medalist in the 100 meter in the 1994 World Championships and is the 11th fastest woman in history in the 100 meter backstroke. At the 1994 Goodwill Games, she won two gold medals in the 200 meter backstroke and 400 meter medley relay and a silver medal in the 100 meter backstroke. She is a three-time U.S. national champion. Currently, B.J. is training for the 1996 Olympics in Gainsville, FL. B.J. is the daughter of Frederick and Jane Bedford of Etna. She attended Hanover High School and Kimball Union Academy in New Hampshire where she swam with the North Country Aquatics Club. She graduated from the University of Texas in 1994 with a degree in Art History. On behalf of the citizens of the Granite State, congratulations to Barbara Bedford for a job well done. We are very proud to have this world-class competitor represent New Hampshire at the Pan American Games and look forward to following her future successes. It is an honor to represent Barbara and her family in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, first of all, let me say that the resolution that we have before us is a resolution to allow the Ringling Bros. Circus to come on the Capitol Grounds at some point this next week. I believe it is Wednesday. I could be wrong on the date. As a youngster, I enjoyed the circus many times, as most of us have. I have no objection to many of the acts that you see in the circus. My objection here to this resolution is the issue of using elephants in a way that they are used in the circuses throughout the United States, in this case Ringling Bros., because they are planning to bring, I cannot get the exact number, a certain number of adult elephants onto the Capitol Grounds. Amendment No. 449 (Purpose: To prevent the use of elephants in the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus celebration)

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, the amendment is a very simple amendment. It simply says the circus can proceed on the Capitol Grounds without the use of elephants. Now, this is the type of amendment that tends to bring some ridicule of me by others who have in some way expressed their concern about this. I am going to go through this because I think it needs to be said. I am going to be very methodical about it. It concerns two areas. One area is how the elephant in a circus is treated; not how you see the elephant out there doing its performance, but how it is treated in order to do that performance, and how it is kept, how it is transported. And, second, I am going to outline a number of incidents that have taken place in the past few years involving these huge, several-thousand-pound animals that are used in the circus. I am not going to in any way try to misrepresent facts. I realize-- and I want to say it up front--that in some areas the Ringling Bros. people do some very fine things with animals. I know for a fact that one of the trainers at Ringling Bros. who trains dogs saves some of those dogs from death at the pound and trains those animals to be used in the act. I do not object to any of that. This involves elephants. I hope that the cameras can pick this up, but this, in only a very small way, conveys the horror of what I am talking about, because I cannot explain it or show it with pictures. I have films. I have tried for about 2 weeks now to interest any of my colleagues, any one of my colleagues--any one--in this issue, to no avail. So that all my colleagues will know, lest they be worried about it, I have decided not to call for a rollcall vote on this issue, because I know what the vote will be. It will be a voice vote. But I want my colleagues to know that what they are doing by allowing these animals on the Capitol Grounds is a grave risk, a grave risk not only to the animals but also to the children who have been invited to be here. This elephant in this picture here was shot over 100 times when it went berserk in Honolulu. It killed a trainer and injured some people. These animals--you might say, what is it about them that would cause them to do this? Well, for those who care, I would think that they must not have reacted too well to some of the training and some of the things that they are required to do in these acts. Now, does this mean that deliberately people try to inflict harm upon these animals? In some cases, that may be true. Are they fed well? Of course, they are fed well. But that is not the issue here. The issue is, should an animal this big go through the procedures that we put them through, and is it safe to have them around little children on the Capitol Grounds? Now, I want to again repeat, I do not object to Ringling Bros. being here. I know they do a lot of things in the breeding of elephants and help to somehow enhance some species that may even be on the endangered species list. That is not what I object to. I object to them being transported and used in the way they are used. I have a film of this animal from beginning to end. I have asked some of my colleagues to look at it. Nobody has taken me up on it. Maybe if they took me up on it, somebody might come down on the floor and ask for a recorded vote. It would be nice to have a little company. But let me start by relaying some incidents. Because, bear in mind, now, sometime this week, or whenever we do it--I would like to be wrong on the number and I stand corrected if I am--but somewhere around 15 elephants are going to be brought onto the Capitol Grounds. Maybe it is less. I do not know how many it will be. I have not been told. I cannot find out. So many elephants are going to be brought on the Capitol Grounds here. How do you restrain an elephant? So they are going to be brought on to the Capitol Grounds. As we hear about these elephants being brought on the Capitol Grounds here, remember this is my objection. Let us talk about some of the things that happened to elephants in circuses in the last few years. Let us just take a few minutes and go through them. I have talked to Mr. Ireland, who is a representative of the Ringling Bros. Circus. We had a very nice conversation. He is a good friend of mine; a former Congressman. He represents Ringling Bros. He came in and spoke to me. He made a very strong case, a good appeal to me. I ask him if he would simply remove the elephants from the act on the Capitol Grounds. This circus is going to be performing downtown in the armory for 20 days. All I ask is that the elephants be removed from the acts on the Capitol Grounds, because I thought first, it was a danger; and second, I objected to some of the ways and methods that were used to train these animals, to no avail. There was no agreement. They would not agree to do that. I cannot understand why it is so important to have these huge animals roaming around the Capitol Grounds. If people want to see them, they can go down the street at the armory, go to the circus and see them there. But they said that was out of the question. They would not agree. So here I am. It is an issue of public safety, Mr. President. It really is an issue of public safety. Now, it would be very easy for the skeptics, because, after it is all over, if nothing happened--and I pray to God nothing does; but if it does, then do not say I did not tell you so-- and if it does not--and I hope it does not--they will all say, ``Well, there was Smith out there wailing away on nothing. It is irrelevant. He took the Senate's time. Nobody cares about this.'' Well, at least 15 people have been killed by animals in the last 5 years in circuses--15 people. And I am going to go through these right now. This one here, 2 weeks ago, a circus elephant trampled two men to death in Bangkok. OK, that was not in America. OK; fine. I am preparing myself for the comments that will be coming. So let us move on. Ringling Bros.--that is who we are talking about here; that is who is coming to town, Ringling Bros.--Ringling Bros. Circus' most experienced trainer, Alex Gautier, was trampled to death in 1993. Lest somebody would doubt me, I have the obituary on that somewhere. Let me see if I can find it. I have it right here. This is an obituary from the New York Times. He was Ringling Bros.' elephant trainer. He was trampled to death 2 years ago by an elephant. He had been with Ringling for 35 years. So it was not exactly some inexperienced kid that came out and said, ``I'm going to train an elephant.'' He represents 35 years of training. Even if Ringling's most experienced trainers are at risk, how about the kids on the Capitol Grounds? Does anybody care about them? Hundreds of schoolchildren are going to be here. I heard Speaker Gingrich say how wonderful it was going to be; we are going to have animals on the grounds; it was going to be a wonderful thing for the children. A 51-year-old elephant trainer, leading trainer of elephants, performer all these years, died 2 years ago at a hospital at the University of Florida, Gainesville. One of the elephants he was working with at the Ringling Bros. elephant farm in Williston, FL, knocked him down and stepped on him. He was taken by helicopter to the hospital. He was a feature performer at one of the show's traveling circuses where he had been appearing in Asheville, NC. He was making a brief visit to the farm to check on the conservation and breeding program in the herd of 20 elephants. So that is the first instance. In 1994, Alan Campbell was crushed to death and a dozen spectators--a dozen spectators--were injured when an elephant with Circus International went on a rampage through downtown Honolulu. This is that picture. That elephant killed the trainer, came out of the little circle, the arena, came out of the tent, through a fence, out into the road. There was absolutely no protection for the people against this huge animal. They had to shoot this animal with anything they could find-- revolvers, whatever they could gear up; there was absolutely no protection--100 times before the animal fell down against a car, and even then they could not kill it and was able to immobilize the elephant for when they finally killed it. So 100 times. It was the second incident at the circus in 1 week. Was that Ringling? No. I am not maintaining that it is. It was a circus and that happened. Elephants are elephants. I do not think elephants know the difference between a Ringling Bros. Circus and any other circus. If they are asked to stand up on one leg on a barrel, I do not think they understand if it is Ringling asking them to do it or anybody else. If anybody can tell me how they know that, I would be happy to hear it. Backstage at ``Live with Regis and Kathie Lee,'' Yelena Aleynikova had her skull fractured, ribs broken and a lung punctured by a Moscow Circus elephant in 1994. She is suing the circus, the show, and ABC as a result of that incident. I hope our insurance is paid up on the Capitol Grounds, by the way. Schoolchildren looked on as an elephant crushed a man to death at the San Salvador National Zoo in 1993. He was the second person that this very elephant had killed. Char-Lee Torre was kicked to death by an elephant at the Lowry Park Zoo in Florida in 1993. Christopher Ponte was crushed to death in 1993 by an elephant at the Clyde Beatty-Cole Bros. Circus in New York. And in 1992, Jubal Cox was grabbed and slammed to death by an elephant in Texas while visiting the San Antonio Zoo. There is more. Eight children and their parents were pinned under a fence by an elephant at the Circus International in 1994--children. Twelve spectators were injured and a police officer was thrown to the ground when an elephant went on a rampage in Florida at the Great American Circus in 1992. The elephant was shot and killed by police. Again, members of the audience were trampled after an elephant at Circus Benneweis attacked her trainer and went running through the town's busy harbor area in 1994. The elephant later returned and was killed. In 1994 in Utah, Jordan Circus animal trainer Rex Williams suffered broken ribs, a broken arm and organ damage after being thrown and trampled by an elephant on whom children--children--were riding. Here is a Ringling animal trainer, George Lewis: An elephant, when brought into captivity, must make a tremendous adjustment to live with man . . . They come to hate their human masters, who are responsible for keeping them confined . . . That is a Ringling trainer. I do not have them all up here on the chart, but let me give you a couple more. On August 15, 1994, 10 people were injured when an elephant pinned them under a fence separating the ring from the audience in Honolulu, HI. Lion Country Safari: On February 1, 1992, 12 people were injured, including one police officer, when an Indian elephant broke loose during a performance at Brevard Community College in Palm Bay, FL. On June 8, 1990, a man was injured when an elephant attacked her trainer and ran into a crowd in Reading, PA. The trainer had repeatedly stuck the elephant in the mouth with a hook to gain her attention just prior to the attack. The trainer got her attention, I might add. In July 1987, two children were injured in Milwaukee, WI, by an elephant when she escaped from trainers with children on her back. The circus recovered the animal and she resumed giving children rides 2 days later. I wonder if the parents of the children who were brought to ride the elephant after the incident were told the animal had done that days before. Hanneford Family Circus: On June 21, 1990, David Dickerson, an elephant trainer, was killed when the elephant he was training crushed him after being startled by a passing car in Fort Lauderdale, FL. Commeford & Sons: On August 31, 1991, Brian Corring was severely injured by an elephant carrying children on her back during the Champlain Valley Fair in Essex Junction, VT. While the children on the elephant were unharmed, the parents felt the officials ignored the severity of the situation. This was the second time that the elephant had injured someone. Just a couple more. The Gatini Circus: Elephant trainer Eloise Berchtold was killed by an elephant during a performance at Rock Forest, Quebec. The elephant stepped on Berchtold and would not let anyone near her to provide medical assistance. Tarzan Zerbini International Circus: July 15, 1992, nine people were injured when elephants toppled a barricade during a performance at a shopping center in Lafayette, IN. I have been trying for the past several days to get somebody around this place to care about this, and I cannot do it. I cannot find anybody that cares. There is not exactly a crowd on the Senate floor right now. I asked the Sergeant at Arms how much does it cost for the extra security, extra police--just the extra police, not what it costs us every day. The extra police, just for a couple of hours while the circus is here for overtime--overtime for officers--$52,000. I then said to the Sergeant at Arms, ``I want to know what protection do we have for the children and the spectators on the Capitol Grounds if this elephant, or any elephant of the elephants you have on the grounds, goes berserk, what do we do?'' He said to my staff person, ``I will not tell you that. I will not tell you what the protection is.'' The implication is that it would be a security matter, and I respect that. But I am a U.S. Senator. The last time I looked, the Sergeant at Arms worked for us. Maybe somebody else has a different perspective on that. I thought the Sergeant at Arms worked for the Senate. I am a Senator, and I asked him, ``What do we have available to us if an elephant goes berserk on the Capitol Grounds?'' He refused to tell me. He refused to tell me. He did not say, ``I'll put it off,'' ``I'll tell you tomorrow,'' ``I'll look it up,'' or ``It is the following.'' He said, ``I won't tell you,'' period. ``I don't have to tell you, and I won't.'' And he did not, and I do not know why. I assume 99 of my other colleagues do not care. They are just going to have the elephants here. I was told by the office of the Senate Sergeant at Arms that the security requirements for this circus for 2 hours would be the equivalent of the State of the Union Address. So, apparently, they must think it is pretty serious. We were also told that the cost was mainly associated with the expected demonstrations against the involvement of the elephants in the circus. Of course, the elephants themselves pose a serious security threat and, thus, an enormous cost to the taxpayers in excess security personnel, but I cannot find out what the security is. It is my understanding that all shifts of the Capitol Police--all-- will be on duty during this event when they bring the circus to town. The Senate Sergeant at Arms told me it would require paying overtime for a number of officers--again, $52,000. Let us go into it a little bit more because sometimes when you talk about money around here, it is the only time you get anybody's attention. If a person does not care about the elephants, and they do not care about the kids out there, maybe we can get your attention with money. Of course, that is not including the regular Capitol Police officers who will be on hand, that is $200,000, in addition to the $52,000. If there are any arrests, any at all, anybody gets arrested out there-- protesting, demonstrating, making love, whatever they are doing out there on the grounds--each arrest will cost additional overtime hours on top of the $52,000. This does not include the additional security costs for the Washington, DC Police Department. It also does not include the setup costs of the circus. The Architect of the Capitol estimates that could be about $7,000. Remember now, the circus is right downtown for 20 days. Mr. President, for the past several days we have been debating decisions of previously appropriated funds. It is not an easy task, because many of the projects are worthy. These programs will be paid for. These programs we have been debating on the floor of the Senate will be paid for by our children and their children. Ringling Bros. said the elephants must be in the circus, cannot have a circus without elephants. I asked if enjoy it as well, without the elephants. Clowns, acrobats, dancing dogs. No, no, no, they want to see that, but the kids want to see the elephants. Well, I hope the kids enjoy it because they are paying for it. Right now the national debt says each child in America today is $18,500 in debt, so we will add to your debt. So I hope you enjoy the elephants. We will pay for it years from now. They will pay when they join the work force. By then, the national debt will be--I do not know what it will be by that time. It will be $6 trillion by the next 3 or 4 years. So, I suppose I could say if I was cynical, if we want to cut the cost of Government, we could vote for this amendment. If we pass the amendment, there will be no protesters, there will be no threat of elephants running amok on the Capitol Grounds. And we can pass it by unanimous consent. We save the taxpayers $52,000. There are all sorts of events on the Mall here in Washington. Cirque du Soleil has done performances on the Mall. No elephants, no protests, no threat to security, no cost to taxpayers. The kids loved it. They do not need elephants to have a good time. Neither does Ringling. Ringling Bros. circus is performing at the armory. If the kids really want elephants, they can go and see them at the armory or they can see them at the National Zoo. They can see them for free at the National Zoo. There are several there, as a matter of fact, for the benefit of anybody who might be listening who cares, including a baby elephant. They are not asked to stand on their heads or climb up on a barrel about the size of 1 foot, parade around with a hook in their mouths. They are just there, well-taken care of at the zoo. So, let me again comment on the Sergeant at Arms, because this is very critical. I think there is an arrogance here, No. 1. We have a right to know. A U.S. Senator asked the Sergeant of Arms about information about an event here on the Capitol Grounds. We have a right to know what it is. I will find out. With or without a vote on this amendment, I will find out what they are going to do and what the plan is. I asked, and the only reason I have not found out, I was not here, and I had to have a staff person do it on my behalf. I will find out or there will be hell to pay as to why I do not find out. Given all the instances I have mentioned that is not an unreasonable concern. What do they have on the grounds. How do we stop an elephant, Mr. President, if it goes berserk? What do we do? Do you use an AK-47? An M-16? An AR-15? They are illegal in Washington. A person cannot even carry them. All illegal. All banned. This is gun control in the city of Washington. Highest crime rate in the world, we have gun control. All illegal. Frankly, would that stop an elephant? I doubt it. I really doubt it. Do they have a bazooka? What is their plan of action? What is the plan if something happens? It took 100 rounds in this poor animal here that went wild in Honolulu and that still didn't kill it. It needed to be killed by lethal injection. People ought to see the film. My colleagues ought to look at the film of that. That is really something to watch. Look at the policemen, and then see if you can vote against this. I do not know where we will get 100 rounds. Last year's crime bill banned the manufacture, sale, or possession of all clips over 10 rounds, so I assume we will have 100 officers standing out there with pistols, with 10 rounds in a clip. I do not know. I cannot find out. Now, do we want to be firing AK-47 rounds around little children if something happens? I do not know. These are the issues that ought to be of concern. Overreacting, they will say. Yes, always overreacting until something happens. Is that not the way it is? Even those who do not have strong feelings about the treatment of animals ought to be concerned about the issue of public safety, as well as the cost. I want to stress a few points in closing here. Ringling Bros. maintains their training practices are not cruel and they are not abusive. I think they mean that. They may think that. But let me say when the elephants go berserk the first person they go after is the trainer. That ought to say something. When I met with Mr. Ireland he said that while Ringling Bros. does, in fact, use whips, whips are used because of the cracking sound, which is an audible cue to the elephants. I am not an elephant trainer. I do not know what the function of a whip is or how it works. I suppose if someone was whipping a cracking whip behind me I would probably do whatever they said, too. I have concerns about a number of other practices that are regularly employed in the training of elephants. I am not going to get into whether Ringling employs these are not. I do not know. We may never know, because no outside organizations are allowed to monitor or film their trainers. I was offered the opportunity to go down to a Ringling training area where they train elephants by Ringling. They said, ``You can come in and watch us train.'' I found that somewhat humorous. If they had any methods I would object to, I do not think they would use them while I was there. Maybe they would, but I doubt it. So, let me mention a few articles that I have here. Before I do, let me call my colleagues' attention to a section of the National Geographic. This piece from the National Geographic shows the methods that are used. Obviously, I cannot show it here. We do not have the facilities to do that. Might be a good thing to do some time. These tapes, I have them. I will be more than happy to provide them for my colleagues to look at, anytime they want to look at them. The hooks that are used, the methods of training the animals down, the cramped quarters to house the animals, and the methods used in breaking wild elephants. Let me just say for the record on wild elephants, Ringling has assured me they do not use wild elephants, that they breed their own and take young elephants, and I have no reason to deny that. In the past, and, in fact, in some other circuses, baby elephants are captured in the wild, taken from their mother, and beaten for days at a time while they are screaming. It is on the tape. Members ought to watch it. Beaten, for days and days, in shifts, by these people in the jungles of Thailand and Laos. Wherever the elephants are captured, beaten consistently until their spirit is broken, and until they have nothing left to offer resistance to. Screaming and crying. Ought to watch the tape. Does Ringling do that? No, I want to make it clear. But young elephants are captured and are used in circuses in that way. Now, the issue, we could go on and on and on. Elephant incident after incident after incident, where elephants have been on the rampage and done some of these things. The issue, really, is this. Should an animal this big, this wild, be used for entertainment? I do not think so. I do not see the need for it. There is no need for it. We do not see what happens when the circus is not around. When we are not watching the circus. We are seeing the animal out there with his trunk around another elephant's tail and gets up and does a trick. That looks cute and I have seen it. Frankly, before I knew more about this I thought it was great. How do they transport an elephant from Florida to California? You cannot put them on an airplane, so they put them in some kind of a truck. Ever look at the width of a highway? There is only so much size of a truck that can be used. So they are in cramped quarters. Now, when you have them on location for a circus--let us say down here at the Armory--how do you restrain these animals? How do you restrain an animal that weighs several tons? Let me tell you how you restrain them. You chain them. You chain them up. You can say we feed them hay, we feed them grain, we take good care of them--these are wild animals. So that is why things like this happen. That is why elephants go berserk, because they are not meant to do these kinds of things and it is cruel. It is cruel. We have an opportunity here today in the Senate to make a very small statement. We are not going to stop this by doing this. We are not going to Congressmen, that we do not want to risk having an incident like this happen on the Capitol Grounds, No. 1; and, No. 2, we think that, even though it is not intended to be cruel, the result is that it is cruel in the way that we treat these animals. They ought to be left alone in zoos, in parks, wherever we can; and not use--or abuse--them in the ways that is being done in these circuses. The little kids ought to be able to go down and see these elephants chained and restricted, or watch the training, which we are not allowed to watch. I think it is sad because all we have to do is just make a statement: No, we are not going to let the elephants come here on the Capitol Grounds because we do not think it is right. The elephants are still going to be performing down at the Armory. We are not going to be able to stop that. But we make a statement and maybe, by making that statement, we show the world and show the country that we care a little bit. I know the types of criticism and the ridicule that I get. People say you are an animal rights nut. I am not. I am not. But they do not have anybody. There is nobody who can come out here on the floor. An elephant cannot come out here on the floor. No animal can come out here. It does not have any Congressmen or Senators to represent it. So if somebody does not speak up, who do they have? So it is a very small thing to do, really. It is not a big deal. We just say Ringling, come on up; bring the clowns, bring the dog acts, bring the rings, bring the trapeze artists, and entertain the kids. But leave the elephants in the zoos and in the parks. Leave them alone. Circuses started back in the days when we did not understand this, or when we did not care. Those days are past. Let us move on. Let us get into the 21st century here. Elephants are a vanishing species, anyway. I doubt very much 100 years from now, when somebody stands here at Daniel Webster's desk where I stand now, I seriously doubt that person is going to know what a live elephant looks like. Unfortunately, I have to say that. In some cases, some of these groups like Ringling do a good deed by breeding these animals. But you do not have to use them in circus acts, which are unnatural for these animals. That is why these incidents happen. We have another quote here: Physical abuse and dominance control remain a major method of training elephants. That is by John Lehnhardt, the assistant curator at the National Zoo right here in Washington. These guys know what they are talking about. Do not take my word for it. These are people who work with these animals every day. They know what they are talking about. It is unnatural to make huge beasts the size of an elephant do the things we ask them to do. They are telling us that. They are warning us. Henry Ringling North, the Ringling Circus founder, said: When it came to teaching [the animals] the more involved tricks, [Ringling animal trainer Alfred Court] had to use a whip. If an animal got out of line, he flicked that animal in the most sensitive place you could hit either a male or a female. He hit, but only because the animal had made a mistake. Really? That is what the kids are going to patronize when they come on the Capitol Grounds. Let me just repeat, Mr. President, when I started this process I said if I get some support, if I get some people who will come forth and participate in this debate with me and share my concern, I would probably call for a rollcall vote. But it did not come. I know where the votes are and are not. There is no point in taking the Senate's time anymore on this. I will not call for a rollcall vote. I will call for a vote, however, at whatever time the Senate wishes to have it, either now or tomorrow. Unless someone else asks for a recorded vote, I will call for a voice vote on this matter and, if the wishes of the Senate are that it be now, in just a moment, I will do that by yielding the floor. Let me remind my colleagues, before I yield back the remainder of my time, of all the materials that back this up. This is not the only incident. There are many incidents like this. I will say again, in summary, I hope nothing happens. But I also say we are not prepared for it if it does. We are not prepared to handle a rampaging elephant with a bunch of little schoolchildren out on the Capitol Grounds. If we are prepared for it--and the Sergeant at Arms refuses to tell me whether we are or not--if we are, it would have to be with some humongous weapon, which would have to impose a danger on the children who would be here, because we do not know what direction this elephant would run, or any elephant would run, or elephants, if they were to do that, if they would be so inclined to do it. I have made my case. I think I have told the world, the Senate, and hopefully many families and children out there who may want to be coming to the circus--I hope, frankly, you do not. I hope you send a statement that this is wrong and we ought not to do it and we ought to be somewhat considerate, in a very small way, by saying this is wrong. Mr. President, at this time, regretfully, I yield the floor without requesting a recorded vote. At this time, I yield the remainder of--I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I am going to offer an amendment, and that amendment should be at the desk. I will offer that amendment at this time, an amendment to the underlying resolution. It is a very simple amendment.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. I yield back the remainder of the time on our side.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Guy J. Giunta, Sr., a resident of Sanbornton, NH, who played a significant role in the infamous capture by the Americans of the bridge at Remagen during World War II. This offensive resulted in shortening the war and saving thousands of lives. Guy was a private first class in the 78th Infantry Division. He was one of the American soldiers who crossed the bridge at Remagen over the Rhine River, 50 years ago this month. This battle illustrated the American military strength which caught the Germans by surprise. The events of March 7, 1945, were known as the ``Miracle of Remagen.'' Guy left his native Italy for the United States in 1927 where he worked as a machinist making parts for turbines for the U.S. Navy when the war broke out. Deferments as an essential worker kept him out of the war until 1943, but after learning of friends dying overseas, he enlisted in a war that included his birthland. When soldiers reached a plateau above Remagen on March 7, they saw German troops and civilians retreating across the Ludendorff Bridge. Violating instructions to proceed down the Rhine, Gen. William M. Hoge ordered his men to take the bridge. After refusing, the men heard a ``whoosh'' as 660 pounds of dynamite lifted the bridge from its stone piers. There was still shooting as soldiers fought their way up the big cliff on the eastern end of the bridge. Twenty-four Americans died on or around the bridge. Guy Giunta was one the 600 brave men who were involved in taking the bridge, including 200 engineers who cut wires to the unexploded dynamite. Guy's medals from the war include three major battle stars: the Ardennse, the Rhineland, and Central Europe. Guy Giunta is a retired Westinghouse machinist. His wife, Rina Passi, also a native Italian, didn't meet her future husband until after the war, but knew of him because she translated his mother's letters to him from Italian into English. They have lived in a white farmhouse in Sanbornton since 1985. I commend Guy for sharing his experiences at this important World War II battle with many in New Hampshire. His courage and patriotism are an inspiration to us all. It is an honor to represent Guy Giunta, Sr., and his family in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank my colleagues on the minority side, as well. Mr. President, this has been a very interesting debate, as we have heard from the other side. The same arguments that had been used by our colleagues on the balanced budget amendment are now being used against the line-item veto. This debate is really the same. The players are the same. The issues are essentially the same. No one expects that we are going to balance the Federal budget with a line-item veto. But if we are going to ask people on Medicaid or Medicare, or some other program, to take a hit to help us balance this budget, surely we can start with some of these ridiculous projects that we find tucked away in these appropriations bills. I am going to talk a little bit about that. First, I want to commend Senator McCain and Senator Coats for their leadership. They have been tenacious in the pursuit of this legislation for a number of years. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of S. 4, the Legislative Line-Item Veto Act of 1995. I hope that we will pass it. We fell short on the balanced budget amendment, but I hope that at least we can pass the second-best effort, which is the line-item veto. I am not surprised really that many of the same forces that lined up against the balanced budget amendment are also now seeking to kill this, because they are defenders of the status quo. They want to see things remain the same. They want to keep on spending, providing more pork for their States. Their addiction to wasteful spending has created a budget deficit crisis that makes these countermeasures so necessary. But in seeking to defend the status quo, the opponents of the line- item veto legislation often cite the checks and balances in the Constitution that give the authority to Congress to appropriate the money, the power that is checked by the authority of the President to veto appropriations bills. They say they want to preserve this balance of power between the legislative and the executive branches. Of course, that is an excuse. The Founding Fathers never imagined--never even imagined in their wildest dreams--these massive spending bills, often containing core unnecessary spending that is then larded with layers of pork. They never expected that. This is a process that has been built up over the years by the legislators and the legislatures, especially in recent history, to help them pass things that would not pass if that Congressman or Senator had to stand out on the floor and advocate that kind of a ridiculous expense. They could not face their constituents to do it. They could not face the voters across the country to do it. So they tuck it away in these appropriations bills. That is why we need the line-item veto. The President can make that choice between shutting that program down or signing it. He is the President of all the people. It is easier for him to do it than some Congressman or Senator who may not have the courage to do it. So, basically, the President is, in effect, without the line-item veto, faced with an all-or-nothing ultimatum. So we get an emergency earthquake relief bill, and it is amazing the number of things you find tucked away in the emergency earthquake relief bill. There are things in there for sewers in Chicago. And we also see dire emergency for natural disasters. There was a $1.3 million add-on to train attorneys at Drake University in that. The district of then House Chairman Neal Smith in Iowa had some interesting things. So it is crafty wording. It is slick, it is easy; it is done in a back room somewhere and nobody ever finds out about it. And that is the bottom line. As Senator Coats has said, they go back home and they say, ``Gee, I voted for emergency earthquake. I didn't know that was in there.'' Of course, they knew it was in there. Of course, they did. That is the whole issue. Let me give you an example. Sometimes, after looking at the minority leader's charts--he showed these very, very complicated charts, as if to say this somehow is going to be so much work for the President, he was not going to have time to get out of the White House. He was not going to have time to do anything except sit at his desk and deal with all of these measures that are coming down. Well, first of all, if we pass the line-item veto, there is going to be a lot less of the stuff put in the bill in the first place. That is for sure. Second, if the President and the Congress have to spend a little more time on these things, on the appropriations of the taxpayers' hard- earned dollars, so be it. That is the way it ought to be. If the President has to take a little less time running around the country somewhere and a little more time saving the taxpayers' dollars, so be it. If the Senators and Congressmen have to spend a little more time taking care of the taxpayers' dollars instead of running around the country somewhere, so be it. That is the way it ought to be. That is what we are here for. Now, this was very complicated. I was in the chair at the time watching the charts that the minority leader had up there, but let me make it simple for those of you out there who are wondering just what this is all about and why we are trying to pass this thing called a line-item veto. There are many things in a bill. Sometimes we call it an omnibus bill. These are huge, and they are loaded with items, and most of us do not read it. It would take us forever to read them all. But the problem is things get tucked in there that do not belong. Here is a very simple example to make you understand. We have all been to the supermarket. We go to the supermarket. We take the kids along. They are traveling along behind us, and we are pushing the cart. We decide that we are going to get the essentials today. We are going to get a loaf of bread; we are going to get some milk, maybe meat and potatoes, the essentials, whatever we are going to have for dinner that night or that week. They are the basics. We know what the budget is and what we are going to do. What are the kids doing? They are trailing along, and while we are picking up the loaf of bread, they are over there picking up the Reeses candy or the box of Cheerios and tossing them into the cart while we are pushing it along, and we are taking them out and putting them back because we do not want these things. We do not want our kids to have them; these are the goodies, these are the add-ons. That is exactly what these bills are. We push through the bill, and all these Congressmen and Senators are loading it up, hoping that Mom and Dad are not going to take those things out, and when they get home they will have the cookies and candy, or whatever else they want. That is exactly what is happening. That is the best way I know to explain exactly what is going on. Now, when we look at some of these examples, in 1995, this year, there is a study called the ``Congressional Pig Book,'' and I suppose a good analogy would be to say there are a lot of things piggybacked on these bills. Now, it is interesting, in these 88 projects that are highlighted in this pig book, what are the criteria to decide whether this is pork or not on these fiscal bills? Well, if it is only requested by one chamber of commerce, if it is not authorized specifically, if it is not competitively awarded, if it is not requested by the President, and it exceeds the President's budget request or previous year's funding, and it has not been the subject of hearings, I say it is pork. I do not care how good or bad the project is. There are many, many good projects that get put in here. That is not the issue. Should they be in there, in this particular bill? Should a sewer in Chicago be on an emergency earthquake relief bill in San Francisco? I do not think so. I do not think that is honest. I think that is dishonest. Now, when we look somebody on Medicaid in the eye and we say, you know, we are all going to have to bite the bullet; we have a $5 trillion debt; it is going to be $6.5 trillion under the President's budget in the next 5 years, and it is going up--not down, up--we look those people in the eye and we say everybody has to pitch in, well, when I do that, Mr. President--and we are all bullet here and balance the budget--I do not want to have to say to that elderly woman or gentleman who is desperately in need of something that we may have to reduce a little bit, well, you know what, I am going to cut you, but we are not, Congress is not going to take these kinds of things out: $93,000 added in conference for the National Potato Trade and Tariff Association; or $294,000 for regionalized implications of farm programs; or $119,000 for swine research at the University of Minnesota; or $8,783,000 for miscellaneous projects in the State of Arkansas, including a rice germplasm center in Stuttgart, AR; or $1,184,000 for an alternative pest control center at the University of Arkansas; or $946,000 for alternative pest control in general; or $624,000 for increased staffing at Fayetteville, Stuttgart, Bonneville, and Pine Bluff for forestry. I do not want to have to look those people in the eye and say we are funding that, and that this Congress does not have the courage to take those items out. Not this Senator. I do not want to have to do that. I wish to say, yes, we are going to have to take these hits because it is our children who are going to lose, not us. You will get your benefits. It is our children who are going to lose. And I do not want this stuff funded. If you are going to fund it, if you want to come in here and say you want $950,000 for the Appalachian Soil and Water Conservation Laboratory, then come down on the floor of the Senate and fight for it after the President vetoes it. Tell the American people you want it, and it is in your State, and why you need it. And if you get the votes, you can have it. But come down here and talk about it, fight for it, if you think that is important, if you think that is more important than Medicaid or Medicare or national defense or cleaning up a Superfund site. If that is more important, come down here. If you think $200,000 for Appalachian fruit research is more important than national defense or cleaning up a Superfund, come down here and fight for it. Come down here and say, Mr. President, I am sorry you took that out. You should not have vetoed that, Mr. President. I want that $200,000 for fruit research. That is important. By golly, that is more important than anything else you have out there, and I want it. Go ahead. Come down here and fight for it. How about $11 million for an Estuarine Habitats Research Laboratory in Lafayette, LA? How about this one: $1 million added in conference last year for construction of Mystic Seaport Maritime Education Center in Mystic, CT. Is that more important than Medicaid? Is that more important than Medicare? Is that more important than giving our troops who are defending us all over the world a 2-percent pay raise? If you think so, come down on the floor and fight for it. That is what the line-item veto does. That is why it is being fought over here, and that is why we are running up a debt of over $5 trillion. That is why we are going to keep on running it up, because they would not pass the balanced budget amendment, and now they are not going to pass this either, because not only do they not want to take the big numbers out, they will not even take the little numbers out, the little projects, because they are all so important to them. That is why we have this debt, and that is why our children and our grandchildren are going to pay for it and suffer for it. That is what is wrong with this place. That is what the American people voted for on November 8, to change it. But what do we do in the Senate? The ``McLaughlin Report'' calls the Senate the ``killing field''; we kill all the good legislation that passes the House. It comes over here and we kill it. Well, my colleagues and American people, take a look at who is doing the killing. Watch the votes. Watch the votes. Now, $750,000 for Hawaiian fisheries development; $15 million for the construction of a footbridge from New Jersey to Ellis Island. Do you know where that was? That was on an Interior appropriations bill. That thing comes rolling in here and everybody says, ``We can't cut the Interior appropriations bill. We have to pass it. It is an appropriations bill. We will shut down the Government. The Interior Department will not be able to function.'' That is exactly why the $15 million for the footbridge is in there, folks, because they know you are not going to cut it; you are not going to stop it. They know you are going to pass it, and they know the President is going to sign it. If you have the line-item veto, he can sign the bill and he can take that out, and that is why they are showing you the charts over here. This is why they are complicating the process. What is so complicated about that? The President takes a look at the bill, and he says $15 million for a footbridge? No. He takes the veto pen out. There is nothing complicated about that. If it is complicated, good. So be it. It is worth it. That is $15 million saved for the taxpayers and $15 million less for the debt. The national debt is growing at $7,500 per second--not minute, not hour, per second. Add it up, if you are listening to this debate, at the time I finish speaking from the time I started, and see how much the debt was added to, how much more we added to it. That is what is wrong with this place. That is why we voted for change. And the status quo is still over here fighting it every inch of the way. The line-item veto; $10,912,000 for foreign language assistance. I do not know what that is, foreign language assistance. I could see learning to speak it. What is foreign language assistance? You have to dig in here and find it out. The Senator who put it in here is going to have to come down on the floor and he is going to say, ``Boy, that $10,912,000 for foreign language assistance is critical for our country. The taxpayers have to spend this money, by golly. And if they do not spend it, I cannot imagine what will happen.'' And that, again, is what we are faced with. That was on the Labor, HHS, Education appropriations bill. If somebody says we want to cut the Department of Housing or HHS, they will say, ``My goodness, I will lose my $10,912,000 for foreign language assistance.'' How about $936,000 for the Palmer Chiropractic School? Lord knows what that is. I have nothing against chiropractors. I have used them. But do the taxpayers of America have to fund this? Last, but not least, from the ``Pig Book,'' the infamous ``Pig Book.'' I encourage my colleagues to take a copy of the ``Pig Book'' and read it. It is really insulting to pigs, frankly. They are very intelligent creatures, and I think it insults them to use the term ``pig'' and associate it with this. But there is $400,000--listen to this one--$400,000 for Maui algal bloom crisis. Not for Maui algal blooms; there is a crisis out there somewhere in Maui on this algae. So cut the Medicaid, cut the Medicare, cut defense, cut the environment, cut this--and fund that. You say, ``Come on, you are oversimplifying it, Senator.'' If I am oversimplifying it, why are we spending the money? There is nothing complicated about it. Contrary to the chart, there is nothing complicated about it. The fact is, if the President had the line-item veto, he could veto it. I thank my colleagues for listening and thank certainly my colleagues, Senator McCain and Senator Coats, for their strong leadership. I hope the Senate, finally, will conclude that at least second best is better than nothing at all and pass the line-item veto. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak This has been agreed to by the minority side.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I am today introducing legislation that I believe will solve the longstanding problem of the interstate disposal of solid waste, as well as address the more recent issue involving the use of flow control measures to control the disposal of these materials. For those of my colleagues who are not familiar with the issue, the controversy surrounding the interstate transportation of solid waste is one that the Senate has been considering since before 1990. Today, 47 States export approximately 14 to 15 million tons of solid waste per year for disposal in other States. While short distance waste exports have been occurring for market has been a more recent development. With tipping fees of $140 per ton in some large cities, compared with a national average of between $30 and $50, there is an incentive for municipalities to transport these wastes by truck and rail to distant States for permanent disposal. Those States that have recently been the recipients of large amounts of long-haul wastes have raised a concern that their limited capacity for solid waste disposal is being filled, and that they have become the dumping ground for someone else's waste problems. Over the last few years, 37 States have passed laws to prohibit, limit, or severely tax waste that enters their jurisdiction. However, almost all of these laws have been stuck down for violating the commerce clause of the Constitution. While there has been some recent easing of disposal capacity nationwide, there are still significant concerns about the future consequences of the long-haul system. To address these concerns Congress, as well as the Environment and Public Works Committee, in particular, have been attempting to strike a balance between importing and exporting States. Last year, the Committee on Environment and Public Works, of which I am a member, unanimously reported S. 2345 to address this problem. A number of Members, both on and off the committee, including Senators Coats, Specter, Lautenberg, Moynihan, and others, took a very active role in attempting to develop a compromise that importing and exporting States could live with. While the Senate easily passed this compromise by voice vote on September 30, 1994, time ran out before this issue could be finally resolved. Today I am offering legislation that is cosponsored by Senator Chafee, the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, that will address both interstate waste and flow control. Title I of our bill, which pertains to interstate waste, is essentially the same package that the Senate overwhelmingly supported last year. There was no opposition that I was aware of. It is our hope that we will have similar support for this legislation so that we can quickly lay this issue to rest. The issue of flow control is another trashrelated concern that has been brought before Congress as a result of Supreme Court action. In essence, flow control is a mechanism that has been utilized by a variety of towns and cities to mandate that solid waste be disposed of at facilities designated by that entity. In May 1994, the Supreme Court, in the decision of Carbone versus Clarkstown, struck down a New York flow control ordinance as a violation of the commerce clause. For better or worse--depending on your point of view--the Carbone decision essentially halted efforts nationwide to enact flow control measures. Cities and towns that utilized flow control authority prior to Carbone assert that it allowed them to create integrated waste control systems, including activities such as recycling, composting, and hazardous waste collection--that would not have been possible without this authority. Since 1980, over $20 billion in municipal bonds have been issued to pay for the construction of solid waste facilities utilizing flow control. In the wake of Carbone, there has been a strong concern raised that without prompt action by the Congress to authorize some flow control, many cities and towns that let these bonds are in danger of having these investments downgraded--some say even turned into junk bonds. This concern was underscored by a recent decision of Moody's Investors Service to downgrade the waste bond rating of five New Jersey counties to below investment grade status. In addition to bond-related concerns, the proponents also assert that the failure of Congress to provide flow control authority will leave State and local governments defenseless in their efforts to control the export of interstate waste. It must be noted, however, that flow control does not have universal support. It does not really have this Senator's support. A number of mayors and local officials, such as Bret Schundler, the mayor of Jersey City, NJ, have gone on record in strong opposition to the use of flow control. They argue essentially that flow control limits the ability of local government to find low-cost, environmentally sound disposal alternatives, and results in exorbitant and unnecessarily high tipping fees. In addition to these arguments, a recently released EPA report entitled ``Flow Controls and Municipal Solid Waste,'' concludes that not only is there ``no empirical data showing that flow control provides more or less protection'' to human health and environment. The report then goes on to say that there is no evidence that ``flow controls are essential either for the development of new solid waste capacity or for the long-term achievement of State and local goals for source reduction, reuse, and recycling.'' So, last week, the Environmental and Public Works Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Control and Risk Assessment, which I chair, of course, held an extensive hearing that focused on two issues: Both flow control and interstate waste. During that hearing, we heard testimony from New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman and others, including Congressman Chris Smith of New Jersey, who called for the enactment of very broad flow control authority for municipalities in States well into the future. Others, including the Natural Resources Defense Council and Competitive Enterprise Institute requested that the Senate enact no flow control whatever. My subcommittee also heard from the Public Securities Association which outlined the domino effect that might occur if Congress were to fail to authorize any flow control for those municipalities that have already let bonds under the presumption that they had the authority to flow control. They assert that not only would a failure to enact this authority affect the value of the existing flow control bonds, but it would also have a detrimental effect on the ability of the municipalities to let any bonds in the future. So, the language that Senator Chafee and I are today introducing will protect those municipalities that impose flow control pursuant to a law, ordinance, regulation, or any other legally binding provision prior to May 15, 1994, prior to the Carbone decision, and which implemented flow control by designating a flow control facility prior to that date. In addition, this bill will protect those municipalities that imposed flow control prior to May 15, 1994, but which were in the midst of constructing such a flow control facility. Thus, in other words, if the municipality had its permits to construct and had signed contracts to build the facilities, had let revenue bonds, or had received its operating permit prior to May 15, 1994, it would also be able to take advantage of the grandfather provision and the protection that we are providing in our bill. Our bill also provides sufficient flexibility so that the facilities that need to retrofit or modify their equipment to meet environmental or safety requirements, or if the facility needs to expand on the land that they own and that it is covered by their permit, they will be allowed to do so. But it does not stop there Mr. President. Our bill is intended to provide a sense of finality to this issue. Precisely 30 years after this legislation is adopted, no further flow control measures will be allowed. Zero, none. I want to be clear: I am opposed to flow control. I think the interstate commerce clause is exactly correct and the court's ruling was correct. I am not convinced that communities need to have broad flow control authority in order to ensure the proper disposal of their solid wastes. Nonetheless, I am aware of and I am sympathetic to and understand the position of those cities and towns that need this grandfathering so they can pay off the bonds that were let, based on the presumption that they had this authority. They thought they had the authority, they let the bonds, and they are kind of in the middle in a whipsaw, what to do. And nothing has been done since May 15, 1994, except the bonds have been going down in value. So, under our bill, those municipalities that took action on this presumption will be protected. It is a grandfather protection. It ends in 30 years. Why 30 years? Because that is as long as any bonds that we know of are out there. It is a compromise. believe that there ought to be flow control, but I do understand that things happen. Sometimes people believe they are doing the right thing, think they have the authority to do the right thing, and they get caught in the middle. I believe this legislation strikes a fair balance in accommodating those who are strong proponents of States' rights and those who are strong proponents of the free market system. Now, there are some who will probably try to amend this legislation, perhaps here on the floor or in committee, who will take the position that the States should have the total right to enact flow control any way they want to do that. But that is not the free market system. I am surprised, somewhat, by some of my colleagues who take that position who claim to be free marketeers. So, in essence, what I tried to do in order to help those people who immediately need the help, is to craft this compromise, to grandfather the situations where there is an urgency here, where there has been some money expended, through the processes that I indicated, letting the bonds, or permitting, or construction work, or contracts, allow that to be grandfathered, and then at the end of that period of time, we go back to no flow control, we go back to interstate commerce. Now, I am not convinced that the free market could not fully address this issue of disposing of our Nation's solid waste, but I am willing to make this accommodation. Now, again, let me repeat, so that there is no misunderstanding, I do not support systemwide flow control, and I am strongly opposed to any prospective flow control. I feel that our bill has struck the balance, and I do not feel we need to go any further. Grandfathering is there. It ends in 30 years from the date of the enactment of the legislation. Those municipalities that are in danger of having their bonds downgraded have requested that we move quickly to resolve this issue. That is exactly what I have been doing. It is the first piece of legislation that we worked on and marked up. There are many other pieces of legislation out there that are very critical, that are very high priority to me and to the Senate, including Superfund. We put this first in order to accommodate these communities, these municipalities, who have this problem. I would hope that those people who might have a stronger view that we ought to have total flow control would understand that I have done this in an effort to help those communities and not get this thing into an extended debate, an extended controversy, to try to go all the way over to systemwide flow control and allow what I believe to be a reasonable compromise to pass. I hope that my colleagues will support this legislation. It is very carefully thought out. Senator Chafee was immensely helpful and supportive. Senator Coats did a lot of work on interstate transfer of waste. He was very helpful, of course, and others. I hope that we will get support for this legislation, that it will pass quickly, as we do have kind of an emergency situation out there with these municipalities. But I would just say to my colleagues, if we wind up in a huge floor fight, either out here on the floor or perhaps a fight in committee which delays this, then I think we are making a serious mistake in not helping those communities who really need the help. Again, this is a big step for me because I believe that there should not be flow control, as I indicated. And had this situation not developed where we had these municipalities who had let these bonds, we would be out here with legislation that basically says there would be no flow control. So I am doing this as a compromise to help those communities and municipalities in need. Hopefully, people will understand that and this legislation will be promptly passed by the Senate, sent to the House and signed by the President and become law.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Smith and Mr. Chafee pertaining to the introduction of S. 534 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'') Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I am going to follow the Presiding Officer in the chair, and I will be very brief. Mr. President, I rise in very strong support of the amendment offered by the Senator from North Carolina. I am deeply troubled by some of the comments that I have seen in the press yesterday and today in that apparently President Clinton was considering easing the sanctions on the Castro regime. Either the President has been misled or has misread the will of the American people or he continues to get the wrong advice from advisers such as Morton Halperin because in either case this is a grave mistake. The attempts to oust Fidel Castro go back many, many years to the Eisenhower administration. It transcends party, for sure; a number of Presidents in both political parties have been steadfast in their attempts to at least bring this blemish on our hemisphere to an end. Now, when we are just about to cross the finish line, to do anything that would keep that from happening is just a serious mistake. It is not the time to relax our pressure on Fidel Castro. It is time to turn up the heat, not turn it down. The Castro regime as we all know it is morally and economically bankrupt. It has been for over 40 years. Decades of corruption and communism have left the Cuban people disillusioned, left them in poverty, left them yearning, almost begging, crying out for new leadership on that island nation. For those who are struggling for this freedom and democracy in Cuba, at this very time when we have the chance to win that for them, to move away from that is a serious, serious foreign policy mistake. Those people, the people who suffer at the hands of Fidel Castro, do not want us to coddle him. They do not want us to ease the pressure on this corrupt regime. They do not want us to give him the economic benefits of investment or tourism. They do not want it, and they are the people who are suffering at the hands of Fidel Castro. On the contrary, they would like us to do everything possible to hasten this Communist leader's demise, that is what they want, to accelerate his removal from power and to help bring about this transition to democracy. This is exactly what the amendment of the Senator from North Carolina does. It keeps the pressure on Cuba and it accelerates the planning for a transition to democracy in Cuba and the humanitarian and economic assistance programs that will ensue in a democratic Cuba, which we all are waiting for. So, I urge my colleagues to reject this effort on the part of the administration to coddle Fidel Castro, maybe not intentionally, but the result is to promote this Communist regime which is now on the ropes, finally. The Cuban people not only need our support, they deserve our support. They deserve it. They have suffered long enough. They need us to turn the pressure up. We are on the threshold, now, of removing Fidel Castro. Many people have said that on this floor and in Presidential offices for many, many years. ``One more year, a few more months, Castro will be gone.'' But we are on the verge right now. This amendment will hasten Fidel Castro's demise. More important, it keeps faith with the Cuban people. I congratulate the Senator from North Carolina for his amendment, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of it. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of it and to think very carefully about what this policy, the President's policy, will do to the Cuban people who live under this dictator, No. 1, and, No. 2, the people who await--not only here in the United States but in other nations around the world--who await the opportunity to go back to a democratic Cuba and build that island nation into the country it can and should be in the Western Hemisphere. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, I have only been around here 5 years. I am hardly considered a veteran. But I have never seen a more impressive display in my time in the Senate, indeed in all the years I have spent in the Congress, both the House and the Senate. This is a very personal appeal, talking about their children on behalf of the millions of other American children, and what this is going to do to them in the future. That kind of unanimity, speaking on behalf of the elections in November as you have, is something I hope my colleagues who are still on the fence will hear. This is much bigger than any one Senator or any one Senator's views. This is the American people at stake here. This is the economic future of America. All this talk we hear about how we are going to get it done, we do not need the amendment--we are not getting it done. This has been a crusade for me since the first day I ran for Congress and announced I was running in 1979. I am just proud to be with you, all of you, and appreciate what you have done. If this passes it will be because of you.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I recently learned that the New Hampshire State Senate and House of Representatives adopted a joint resolution in support of keeping the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in New Hampshire open at its full operating capacity. As we approach the release date of the Department of Defense's base closure list for the 1995 round, I would like to take this time to associate myself with the strong support expressed in the resolution passed by my State's legislature and signed by Gov. Stephen Merrill. Furthermore, I ask that the full text of that resolution be printed in the Record. The State resolution follows: Senate Joint Resolution 1--State of New Hampshire Whereas, the Department of the Navy has maintained the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard since June 12, 1800; and Whereas, the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard has performed in an exemplary manner throughout its almost 2 centuries of history; and Whereas, the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard is one of the most modern facilities available in the United States for the repair, overhauling, and refueling of naval vessels; and Whereas, the communities located near the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, in Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts offer an abundance of highly trained, skilled and experienced workers who have an outstanding work ethic; and Whereas, the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard is uniquely and strategically located for the continued defense of our country; and Whereas, the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard is known for its leadership in the environmental field and has worked hard to be a partner with the surrounding communities; and Whereas, the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard has an aggressive pollution prevention program which determines how to eliminate pollution at its source by preventing hazardous waste from entering the waste system; and Whereas, the previous closure of Pease Air Force Base has had an extremely negative economic impact on the seacoast region with recovery from that loss taking much longer than anticipated; and Whereas, the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard contributes approximately $594,700,000 in personal income and this loss would contribute to the further contraction of the economic base of the region; and Whereas, the closure of the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard would have a devastating impact on an area much larger than the seacoast with that impact being much greater than that caused by the closure of Pease Air Force Base; and Whereas, the state of New Hampshire is firmly committed to actively supporting the continuation of the United States Naval Shipyard at Portsmouth; now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened; That the general court of New Hampshire respectfully recommends and urges the Congress of the United States to continue to operate, develop, diversify, and make fullest use of the United States Naval Shipyard at Portsmouth, New Hampshire; That the general court further urges the Congress of the United States to take all necessary action to ensure that the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard remains an integral component in a post-cold war defense strategy; and That copies of this resolution signed by the governor, the president of the Senate and the Speaker of the House be forwarded by the Senate clerk to the President of the United States, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, President of the United States Senate, the Secretary of Defense, and to each member of the New Hampshire and Maine Congressional delegations.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to salute U.S. Army Second Lieutenant Curt Sansoucie, from Rochester, NH, who died February 15, 1995, during a training exercise at Eglin Air Force Base Ranger School in Florida. The accident that took the life of this fine young man was a terrible tragedy for his family and for the State of New Hampshire. Curt is the son of Gary and Theresa Sansoucie. He graduated from Somersworth High School where he was a member of the National Honor Society and a varsity football player. I had the privilege of nominating Curt to West Point in December 1989. Officer Basic School in Fort Benning, GA, where he completed a Master of Trainer's Fitness School. Curt then began Ranger School, where soldiers undergo the toughest training in the forest, mountains, desert, and swamps to prepare them for extreme war conditions. Curt died doing exactly what he wanted to do; serving his country in the U.S. Army. I extend my deepest sympathies to Curt's family and friends. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I am honored to have represented Second Lt. Sansoucie and his family in the U.S. Senate. Second Lt. Curt Sansoucie joins a distinguished list of New Hampshire patriots who have given their lives in service of their country.

Mr. SMITH

Mr. SMITH. I did not do the math. I will take the Senator's word for it.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for a response, there are a couple of points here. First of all, the Senator is assuming something he does not know to be the fact. In 1941 we did not have a three-fifths situation. In 1941, I would assume that the American people would have wanted us to support the President of the United States, which we did, to go to war when we were attacked.

Mr. SMITH. If I might just respond to the Senator, his point is well taken. However we have a situation where I think we are mixing apples and oranges. The Senator is assuming--we did not have an amendment at the time, we did not have a $5 trillion national debt in 1941. We did not have a situation where the Members who were debating knew that they would need a certain number of votes to get over the top to be able to declare war. It is an entirely different situation. You cannot compare 1941 with 1995--you can, but I do not believe it is a fair comparison. I think things were different then. The situation was different. The debate was different. The issues were different. I think in this particular case if the emergency was such, under the amendment--if the emergency were such that we needed to do something in the area of national security, it could be done either by a three-fifths vote of both parties to deficit spend to take care of it--which is one option. If they do not want to do that, then they have other options. But I think to say 1941 when Roosevelt declared war is the same as it is today is simply wrong. The issue is, we can deficit spend. That is the first option. Or we can cut spending somewhere else. And that is exactly what most responsible people would do in the future, who are here on the floor of the Senate or in the House, wherever the debate takes place--in both places. They would make the responsible decision, surely, to protect the national security of the United States. They would cut something if they did not agree to go the three-fifths route to deficit spend to do it. I think that is very well protected under the Constitution. It makes complete sense. It is common sense. We are the representatives of the American people. If we decide we cannot muster three-fifths votes then I assume the American people do not feel it is a national security problem for us. If we still believe that they are wrong, we can then cut spending somewhere else with a simple majority. I do not see what the Senator's problem is.

Mr. SMITH. It goes right back to the issue of priorities, which is why we are dealing with a balanced budget amendment to begin with, I say to the Senator from Maryland. Priorities are, if you are at war or need to go to war to defend the national interest of the United States of America, and you need a three-fifths vote to do it and you cannot get it, you will cut spending somewhere else; you will take out some pork or some wasteful spending that we never can get out of this budget, which is the reason we are in this mess. You set priorities. What is more important, the national security of the United States or funding the Education Department or funding the Commerce Department or HUD? You make decisions, just like everybody else has to do in America. That is the problem. The Senator has gone right to the heart of it. That is exactly why we are here today, because of this mess, because of the point the Senator makes. Nobody wants to set priorities anymore. You set priorities. If I am a Senator and this happens, and the President of the United States, whoever he or she may be, needs money, needs forces, needs to protect the national security of the United States or the troops in the field, I am going to cut somewhere; you bet I am going to cut somewhere, and I am going to do it quickly if I cannot get the three-fifths. I say to the Senator, I think we would get the three-fifths because the Senate and the House of Representatives, speaking on behalf of the American people, with our Armed Forces in jeopardy, are certainly not going to deny them the protection they need and the materials they need to protect themselves in the field or the national security interests of the United States. It is a weak argument, and the Senator knows it. It is just a way to obfuscate this issue, to deny those who are out here saying we need this amendment. We do need it, and that is exactly why we do need it, because nobody wants to set priorities. No priorities can be set here-- only in the household budgets, only in business, only in the cities of America, only in the States but not in the Congress of the United States. Oh, no; we have to spend more than we take in, year after year after year after year, $18,500 per American. That is the share of the national debt. It goes up, up, up, up. The Senator talked about the guts to support the President's budget. The President's budget did not resolve it. If it resolved it, why are we looking at $200 billion more in annual deficits? How are you going to defend America when we get $20 trillion in debt? Where do you draw the line? Where do you draw the line? The Senators talked about taxes. We can raise the tax rate, the Senator from West Virginia said--36 percent, 50 percent, 70 percent, 100 percent? That is what is going on in Washington, DC, right now. The taxes are so high they cannot pay them anymore. They are asking the Federal Government to come in and take over the city.