J. Thurmond

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor of the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 1999. This important legislation makes needed reforms to Federal civil asset forfeiture while preserving Federal civil asset forfeiture and its important role in fighting crime. The government has had the authority to seize property connected to illegal activity since the founding days of the Republic. Forfeiture may involve seizing contraband, like drugs, or the tools of the trade that facilitate the crime. Further, forfeiture is critical to taking the profits out of the illegal activity. Profit is the motivation for many crimes like drug trafficking and racketeering, and it is from these enormous profits that the criminal activity thrives and sustains. The use of traditional criminal sanctions of fines and imprisonment are inadequate to fight the enormously profitable trade in illegal drugs, organized crime, and other such activity, because even if one offender is imprisoned the criminal activity continues. Asset forfeiture deters crime. It has been a major weapon in the war on drugs since the mid-1980s, when we expanded civil forfeiture to give it a more meaningful role. The Judiciary Subcommittee on Criminal Justice Oversight which I chair, held a hearing recently on this important issue. We heard from the Department of Justice, the Department of Treasury, the law enforcement community and others involved in this issue. The Departments and law enforcement expressed support for reform but concerns about going too far. As I stated at that time, many believe the government should have the burden of proving that it is more likely than not that the property was involved in the criminal activity, rather than the owner having to prove that the property was not involved. There is wide support for developing a more uniform innocent owner defense. Further, some are concerned that under current law the government is not liable when it negligently damages property in its possession, even when the property is later returned to its innocent owner. I believe we have addressed these concerns in this bill. We have raised the burden on the government to the preponderance of the evidence standard, which is the general burden of proof used in civil cases. We have developed a uniform innocent owner defense to protect an owner's interest in property when he did not have knowledge of the criminal activity or took reasonable steps to stop or prevent the illegal use of the property. The bill also protects the bonafide purchaser who purchased the property after the fact without knowledge of the criminal activity. As an additional reform provision, this legislation holds the government liable for the negligent damage to property as the result of unreasonable law enforcement actions while the property is in the government's possession. This bill requires the government to make seizures pursuant to a warrant, based on probable cause, and requires a timely notice to interested parties of the seizure. When a claim has been filed for the return of property, the government must conduct a judicial hearing within 90 days, and if the court enters a judgment for the claimant, the government must pay reasonable attorney fees to the claimant. This is a reasonable way to award attorney fees to the claimant after the court has determined that the claim was justified. This provision also protects the government from frivolous claims because it maintains the possibility of awarding cost to the government if the claim is determined to be frivolous. In this legislation, we encourage the government to use criminal forfeiture as an alternative to civil forfeiture. We also allow for the use of forfeited funds to pay restitution to crime victims by expanding the ability of the Attorney General to use property forfeited in a Federal civil case to pay restitution to victims of the underlying crime. This bill represents a compromise between the many interests involved in this issue. I would like to commend my colleagues Senators Sessions, Biden, Schumer, and Feinstein for their work on this complex issue. After the hearing in my Subcommittee, we worked hard to create comprehensive, bipartisan legislation, and I believe we have succeeded. This bill has been endorsed by law enforcement organizations including the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Association of Police Organizations, the National District Attorneys Association, the National Troopers Coalition, the National Sheriffs Association, and the International Association of Chiefs of Police. This is a balanced reform of Federal civil asset forfeiture laws. It does not tie the hands of law enforcement and does not give criminals the upper hand. It makes needed reforms of civil asset forfeiture while preserving civil asset forfeiture as an essential law enforcement tool. I hope our colleagues will join with us in supporting this important bipartisan legislation.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Maj. Gen. Bruce Scott, who will soon depart his position as Chief of Army Legislative Liaison to assume command of the United States Army Security Assistance Command in Alexandria, VA. I imagine that the impression most people have of someone who is a general is that of an officer who is in charge of troops, such as a person leading an Infantry division. Few realize that there are more generals who are administrators than troop leaders, and probably even fewer realize one of the most critical jobs any general in the United States Army could hold as far as preparing that service to protect the people, borders, and interests of the nation is the position which General Scott has held for the past two years. Though he might not have been wearing BDU's or eating MRE's for the past twenty-four months, General Scott has had the extremely important responsibility of serving as the head of liaison efforts between the Congress and the Army. In that role, he has led the efforts to make sure that our soldiers have the resources they require to accomplish their mission and dominate any battlefield, anytime, anywhere. General Scott is well qualified to represent the Army to the Legislative Branch. Every position he has held since beginning his Army career in 1968 as a Cadet at the United States Military Academy at West Point has given him a unique insight into what it is like to be a soldier at every level of the service. Thanks to his assignments to Infantry and Armored divisions, he understands what is involved in serving in a combat arms unit; as a result of his service as a Commanding General and Division Engineer, he understands what general officers require to do their jobs; a veteran of the White House Fellows program, he was exposed at an early stage to the relationship between the legislative and executive branches of government, as well as to the notion of civilian control of the military; and as a former Deputy Director of Strategy, Plans and Policy, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and plans, he has an appreciation of the strategic, or ``bigger'', picture. All in all, General Scott came to this job with the credentials and experience that was required of him During his command as the Chief of Army Legislative Liaison, General Scott put his rich background to work for him and the Army, working hard to represent the interests of the service to the Senate and House of Representatives, as well as working to make sure that the Army was responsive to our requests and interests. Over the past two-years, General Scott helped to shepherd through the Congress major initiatives on Army modernization and digitization. He has been a forceful and effective advocate for the Army's ``Force XXI'' and its ``Force After Next''; and, during my tenure as Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, we worked together to build even stronger ties between the Army and the Senate Armed Services Committee. I have always believed that hard work will be rewarded, and after what I am certain at times was an agonizing, if not occasionally exasperating, experience of working with Congress, General Scott will soon take the reins of the United States Army Security Assistance Command. This is an important assignment, especially in this day and age when building or re-reinforcing coalitions and friendships with other nations is as important to the security of the United States as maintaining a well equipped, well trained fighting force. In his new job, General Scott will in many ways be carrying out the duties of an ambassador, he will certainly be making an important contribution to the diplomatic efforts of the United States as he will be required to work with approximately 120 different nations and multinational organizations in promoting international security by assuring our allies have access to modern and effective equipment and systems. I have every confidence that he will discharge the duties of his new job with the same ability, dedication, and professionalism as he has done throughout his career, and especially as he did as Chief of Army Legislative Liaison. I am certain that my colleagues on the Senate Armed Services Committee and throughout the Senate join me in applauding the work of General Scott and in thanking him for his tireless efforts in working with us for the benefit of our Army and soldiers. I look forward to continuing to monitor the career of General Scott, and I predict that he will continue to achieve great things for many years to come.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Congratulations on your Bible study.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Thank you very much.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Conference Report on S. 1059, the National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2000. As the Chairman Emeritus of the Armed Services Committee, I know the challenges faced by Chairman Warner in reaching a consensus between the House and the Senate on the National Defense Authorization Bill. Therefore, I congratulate the Chairman on his leadership and his tenacity on behalf of our national security and the men and women who have dedicated themselves to protecting our Nation. This is a superb bill that provides for a strong national defense, and, more importantly, includes significant provisions to provide for the welfare of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines and their families. Mr. President, first and foremost, the Conference Report increases the President's budget request by more than $8.0 billion. This increase is based on last September's testimony by our most senior military leaders who identified a need for an additional $18.5 billion to resolve the most critical readiness issues. Although the increase provided for in the conference report is still short of the Chiefs' identified needs, it, coupled with other improvements in the report, will provide the necessary resources to resolve the most critical readiness issues. Following closely in importance to the readiness funding are the provisions that improve the quality of life and welfare of our military personnel. They include a 4.8 percent pay raise, reform of the military pay tables, and annual military pay raises one-half percent above the annual increases in the Employment Cost Index. Additionally, the conference report makes major changes to the retirement system and allows both active and reserve component personnel to participate in the same Thrift Savings Plan that is available to other federal employees. These provisions are important steps toward increasing retention and resolving the current recruiting crisis. Mr. President, the Nation owes its military personnel the best it can provide. In these times between crisis, the Nation tends to forget their sacrifices and contributions to the Nation's security. During the September 1998 hearing, General Shelton eloquently described the quality and service of our military personnel when he stated: It is the quality of the men and women who serve that sets the U.S. military apart from all potential adversaries. These talented people are the ones who won the Cold War and ensured our victory in Operation Desert Storm. These dedicated professionals make it possible for the United States to accomplish the many missions we are called on to perform around the world every single day. The conference report recognizes these contributions. Mr. President, I am confident that everyone in this Chamber will agree that the security issues in the Department of Energy identified by the various congressional committees, the Cox Committee and the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, chaired by our former colleague Senator Rudman, mandated measures to improve the management of the nuclear weapons complex. The Conference Report directs the establishment of the National Nuclear Security Administration, a semi-autonomous agency within the Department of Energy. This agency would be responsible for nuclear weapons programs and the security, counterintelligence, and intelligence as they relate to the weapons programs. Contrary to what some allege, the agency would be under the direct control of the Secretary of Energy and he would retain ultimate responsibility for what the Administration does or fails to do. Mr. President, this is a prudent step that is long overdue. It will streamline the bureaucracy and the process which ensures the reliability of our nuclear weapons. More importantly, it will provide the security oversight that will preclude any further loss of sensitive nuclear information. This is a sound provision that will assist the Secretary of the Energy in carrying out his critical national security role. Mr. President, this is a good Conference Report that reflects the dedication and leadership of Chairman Warner, Senator Levin, Chairman Spence, Representative Skelton and all the conferees. It provides for the critical national security needs of our Nation and especially for the needs of the men and women who proudly wear the uniforms of our Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines. I urge its adoption and strong support. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, I rise to express my strong opposition to the President's decision to commute the prison terms of 16 members of the FALN, a Puerto Rican terrorist group. I also strongly support S.J. Res. 33, which expresses the Senate's opposition to this misguided decision. There is no question that the President has the Constitutional power to do what he did. The President receives thousands of requests per year for a pardon or clemency, and the Department of Justice has a standard procedure under which the Pardon Attorney reviews these requests each year. However, all indications are that the procedures were not followed in these cases, and that these cases were anything but routine. News reports indicate that the Justice Department did not make a recommendation for or against clemency in these cases like it normally does. There is no excuse for the Department to stand neutral on very significant requests such as these. Also, the terrorists apparently did not personally take the proper steps to seek the relief, given that one of the conditions for clemency was that the prisoners had to sign statements requesting it. Although the White House says the members were not convicted of committing murder or physical injury, it is clear that these criminals were actively involved in the militant group. Making bombs and transporting firearms designed to carry out the reign of terror, or committing armed robbery to finance the deeds, is not fundamentally different from personally harming innocent victims. They were conspirators in the FALN, a terrorist group, and they received stiff prison terms for good reasons. News reports indicate that the law enforcement organizations that reviewed the issue, including the FBI and Federal Bureau of Prisons, recommended against it. Also, law enforcement organizations have expressed strong opposition. The opposition is based on good reasons. America has long had a firm policy of intolerance regarding terrorism. Granting clemency to members of the FALN sends the wrong message about America's commitment to fighting terrorism. In fact, it sends the wrong message about America's commitment to fighting crime at home. It is telling that the FALN terrorists did not immediately agree to the simple conditions that the President placed on his generous offer. It took them weeks to agree to renounce the use of violence and submit to standard conditions of parole. Indeed, some never did. Moreover, it does not appear that they have even expressed regret or remorse for their crimes. This is clear from one of the members' appearance on a Sunday news program, where he refused to express sorrow or regret for his crimes. An obvious question we must ask is whether the President will continue to grant clemency in a way contrary to American interests. I sincerely hope the President will not pardon or commute the sentence of convicted Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard. I sent the President a letter last week asking him to clearly affirm that he will not do this. I hope the Senate today will invoke cloture on the resolution and express our profound opposition and concern regarding this matter.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 3 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, nestled in the flat, hot tobacco country of South Carolina's Pee Dee region is an egg-shaped track that is one of the most revered spots in all of auto racing, the ``Darlington Raceway''. As anyone even remotely familiar with NASCAR can tell you, for 50 years this September, the Darlington Raceway has not only been home to the most exciting race in motor sports, the ``Southern 500'', it has also earned the ominous and accurate nickname as the track ``too tough to tame''. For five decades, people from around the world have traveled to this otherwise quiet city in order to be spectators in this contest of driving and mechanical skill. The atmosphere is festive, with the infield and stands packed to capacity with racing enthusiasts who are willing to brave the cruel heat, stifling humidity, and unforgiving sun in order to see which driver is able to prove that his mettle is equal to the asphalt and curves that make-up this 1.36 mile track. In 1950, the year of the first race, 25,000 people turned out as spectators, this year, there will be more than 100,000 race fans at Darlington, and millions more around the globe will follow the action on radio or television. That is a testament to both the popularity of NASCAR and the respect that the Darlington Raceway has among drivers and race fans. To those who have never made it to Darlington, it might be hard to understand the attraction of this sport, but for those of us who have witnessed this race up close, there is no question why people love to go to this track. There is something truly awe inspiring about standing close to one of the turns at Darlington and watching stock cars engineered and built to the ultimate standards roll past as they race to be the first to finish the 500 grueling miles that must be completed in order to win the ``Southern 500''. These cars rumble past at well over 100 miles-per-hour with only inches between bumpers, and as they go through one of the four turns of the track, the earth literally shakes under one's feet and the air is thick with the deafening roar of engines and the fumes of high performance fuel. It takes individuals of tremendous mechanical skill to put one of these vehicles on the track, and other men of incredible determination, skill, and grit to compete in these races. One cannot help but come away amazed at the abilities of these drivers and crews, or at the challenge the Darlington Raceway presents to these individuals. In 1950, I was serving in my final year as Governor of the State of South Carolina, and on September 1st of that year, I had the distinct honor and privilege of cutting the ribbon that opened the Darlington Motor Speedway. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to be able to celebrate the golden anniversary of the opening of the Speedway in person, but regrettably my schedule does not permit me to be in Darlington early next month. Instead, I have chosen to take to the Senate Floor to salute the vision of Harold Brasington, the man who built the Darlington Speedway. I also want to salute Jim Hunter, President of Darlington Raceway; Bill France, Jr., the President and CEO of International Speedway Corporation, as well as the President of NASCAR; and most importantly, to express my greetings and well wishes to all the drivers, crews, and fans who will descend there on September 5, 1999 to see who will tame this track.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill which will suspend the duties imposed on a certain copolymer resin used in the production of high technology products. Currently, this resin is imported for use in the United States because there is no domestic supplier or readily available substitute. Therefore, suspending the duties on this copolymer resin would not adversely affect domestic industries. This bill would temporarily suspend the duty on cyclic olefin copolymer resin, which is a resin used in the manufacturing of high technology products such as high precision optical lenses and laboratory micro liter plates. Mr. President, suspending the duty on this resin will benefit the consumer by stabilizing the costs of manufacturing the end-use products. Further, this suspension will allow domestic producers to maintain or improve their ability to compete internationally. There are no known domestic producers of this material. I hope the Senate will consider these measures expeditiously. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Congressional Record immediately following my remarks.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill which will suspend the duties imposed on a certain copolymer resin used in the production of high technology products. Currently, this resin is imported for use in the United States because there is no domestic supplier or readily available substitute. Therefore, suspending the duties on this copolymer resin would not adversely affect domestic industries. This bill would temporarily suspend the duty on cyclic olefin copolymer resin, which is a resin used in the manufacturing of high technology products such as high precision optical lenses and laboratory micro liter plates. Mr. President, suspending the duty on this resin will benefit the consumer by stabilizing the costs of manufacturing the end-use products. Further, this suspension will allow domestic producers to maintain or improve their ability to compete internationally. There are no known domestic producers of this material. I hope the Senate will consider these measures expeditiously. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Congressional Record immediately following my remarks.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to submit a Senate resolution which authorizes and requests the President to designate the week beginning September 19, 1999, as ``National Historically Black Colleges and Universities Week.'' It is my privilege to sponsor this legislation for the fourteenth time honoring the Historically Black Colleges of our country. Eight of the 105 Historically Black Colleges, namely Allen University, Benedict College, Claflin College, South Carolina State University, Morris College, Voorhees College, Denmark Technical College and Clinton Junior College, are located in my home State. These colleges are vital to the higher education system of South Carolina. They have provided thousands of young people with the opportunity to obtain a college education. Mr. President, these institutions have a long and distinguished history of providing the training necessary for participation in a rapidly changing society. Historically Black Colleges offer our citizens a variety of curricula and programs through which young people develop skills and talents, thereby expanding opportunities for a lifetime of achievement. Mr. President, through passage of this Senate Resolution, Congress can reaffirm its support for Historically Black Colleges, and appropriately recognize their important contributions to our Nation. I look forward to the speedy passage of this Resolution.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. THURMOND. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the mission of the Foreign Agricultural Service, in conjunction with the Commodity Credit Corporation, is to open, expand and maintain global market opportunities for agricultural commodities. One program in place to accomplish this mission is the Market Access Program. This program, funded at $90 million per year, is a cost-share program to help U.S. companies expand their sales in the international marketplace. I recognize that export promotion is a vital tool in our Nation's effort to expand trade. Since its inception in 1986, the Market Access Program has helped many companies, trade organizations, state and regional trade groups, and agriculture cooperatives to build new markets overseas. There is, however, one aspect of the market access program, which gives me great concern. In late June, Secretary Glickman announced the 1999 allocations of the $90 million authorized, to 65 U.S. trade organizations for export promotion activities. Included in that allocation is over $3.6 million for the promotion of alcoholic beverages. Even if one accepts the notion that alcoholic beverages are ``agricultural commodities,'' there is still difficulty in justifying the Federal Government's promotion of such products. I do not believe the United States Government should be funding the marketing of alcoholic beverages, within the United States or in export markets. Further support of this market promotion program cannot be justified by public policy reasons or on economic grounds. From a public policy viewpoint, the promotion of alcoholic beverages, including wine, by the Federal Government is unsupportable. The Federal Government spends millions of dollars each year researching and combating the ill effects of alcohol. The negative consequences of alcohol use and abuse are well documented--disease, cancer, traffic deaths and injuries, economic loss, and a variety of social costs. Last September, the National Institutes of Health published a study entitled, ``The Economic Costs of Alcohol and Drug Abuse in the United States, 1992.'' The economic costs for alcohol abuse alone were reported at over $148 billion. Remember, these statistics were for 1992. There's no doubt the costs are greater today. I ask unanimous consent that this table be printed in the Record following my statement.

Mr. THURMOND. It was for these reasons and others that I was proud to be a part of a National public health campaign that resulted in alcohol container warning labels. It is irresponsible and poor public policy for the federal government to continue to subsidize the marketing of alcohol beverage products. In addition, it is poor economics to continue to support the alcohol beverage industry's export program. Quite frankly, Mr. President, the Market Access Program has been a huge success for the wine industry. In the 13 years of the Program, the wine industry has received about $90 million in export program funds. The Wine Institute boasts that the California wine industry has been one of the largest recipients of USDA export promotion funding. This has resulted in record exports each year. During that time, export sales have risen from $35 million in 1986 to $537 million in 1998. This is a 448 percent increase from export sales of a decade ago. I do not begrudge this success. The wine industry is a legitimate industry, producing and marketing a legal product. It is made up of many small businesses, with thousands of employees. I recognize it contributes billions of dollars to or economy in sales, wages, and taxes. However, the success of the industry, particularly with its record breaking exports, leads me to conclude that federal government export subsidies are improper, and no longer required. The industry's export program has matured to the point where it can stand on its own. Critical market development funds can surely be used to assist less successful agricultural commodity export programs. Mr. President, the time has come to discontinue the subsidy of wine exports. It is poor public policy and wasteful spending. I would note than the Federal Government has imposed a similar restriction on export promotion for tobacco. The amendment I am offering would expand the restriction of Federal funding to alcoholic beverages, including wine. Exhibit No. 1

Mr. THURMOND. I understand the chairman will accept this amendment. I thank him for his cooperation. I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to commend Senator Cochran for the great job he has done in handling this matter. There were a lot of interesting matters that came up and a lot of amendments that he had to consider. He has handled all of them skillfully and ably. We are very proud of the manner in which he has handled it. I also wish to commend the able Senator Kohl for working with him so well and doing such a fine job. We are very fortunate to have these fine men to handle this matter in such a skillful manner.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in expressing grief over the passing of John F. Kennedy, Jr., his wife Carolyn Bessette Kennedy, and Lauren Bessette; as well as extending condolences to the Kennedy and Bessette families over their losses. It is difficult to express the sense of tragedy and loss that all of us feel over the passing of these three young, dynamic, and charismatic individuals. Clearly, John F. Kennedy, Jr. captured the hearts and imagination of millions of Americans, and his untimely and violent end has saddened all those who felt some sort of connection to this promising and handsome young man. Certainly the tremendous outpouring of sympathetic gestures we are witnessing in Massachusetts, New York, and here in Washington stand as testament to the high regard in which he was held. To be frank, I did not know John F. Kennedy, Jr. all that well, though I have certainly been well acquainted with his family through the years. Here in the United States Senate, I have had the distinct pleasure and honor of serving with his father and both his uncles; and in years past, I worked closely with Representative Joe Kennedy on an issue of great mutual concern. Clearly this is a family that values public service and has sought to make a contribution to the nation through policy, politics, and activism. The passion and intensity which the Kennedys--particularly John, Bobby, and Ted--brought to Washington and directed toward their policy goals are commendable and enviable. Few people have approached their careers in government with the same vigor and enthusiasm than have the members of the Kennedy family. Though John F. Kennedy, Jr. had not entered politics, he was someone who shared his family's desire to make a difference. He was involved in any number of philanthropic and charitable undertakings, and typical of a family that seeks to help others, he was personally involved in these endeavors. His reputation was of a sincere, kind, and high minded man. There is little doubt that had John F. Kennedy, Jr. decided to follow the path that his father, uncle, and cousins had taken and sought elected office, he would have had a bright political future and would have made an even greater mark on society and history. There is great sadness in the fact that this tragedy not only snuffed out the promising light of John F. Kennedy, Jr., but took the lives of his wife and sister-in-law as well. It is impossible to comprehend how fate could be so cruel to these families, for these young individuals deserved to enjoy long and rich lives. Certainly, this tragedy is only intensified for the Bessettes who lost two daughters suddenly and unexpectedly, and it is impossible for any of us to truly know the grief they are feeling. Hopefully with time, they will come to some sort of peace and understanding with this inexplicable event. Earlier today, the ashes of John F. Kennedy, Jr., his wife, and sister-in-law were committed to the sea and a sad chapter of American history is drawn to a close. To our friend and colleague, Senator Ted Kennedy, we extend our deepest condolences on the loss of your nephew and we commend you on your stoicism in exercising your responsibilities as the patriarch of your family. This was an unenviable task, yet one you carried out with dignity, strength, and reserve. Coming to terms with death is never an easy or pleasant task, but I have always found that it is best to remember a person for the things he or she did during their life, keep that person in your heart and mind, and to try and honor their memory in your actions. If people follow this course with John F. Kennedy, Jr., I think that they will remember a man who tried to make a difference with his life, and hopefully they will be inspired to emulate his commitment to public service.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I commend the able Senator from New Mexico on what he has said. Social Security money is for Social Security. It should not be used for anything else. Now is the time to nail this thing down so no question will arise in the future. There are demands now for everything, but this is a particular trust fund. It belongs to the Social Security fund, and we should keep it there and not let it get away. I again commend the able Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, will the Senator add me as a cosponsor?

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, 33 years ago this week, the Supreme Court issued possibly its most famous and far-reaching criminal law decision of the twentieth century: Miranda v. Arizona. In response, the Congress enacted a law, codified at 18 U.S.C. section 3501, to govern the admissibility of voluntary confessions in Federal court. The Criminal Justice Oversight Subcommittee, which I chair, recently held a hearing to discuss the Clinton Justice Department's refusal to use this Federal statute to help Federal prosecutors in their work to fight crime. Issued in 1966, the Miranda decision imposed a code-like set of interrogation rules on police officers. Essentially, the Court held that before a confession can be admitted against a defendant, regardless of whether the confession was voluntary, the police must read the defendant the now familiar Miranda warnings, and the defendant must affirmatively waive his rights. We will never know how many crimes have gone unsolved or unpunished because of Miranda. The Miranda decision acknowledged that the warnings were not themselves constitutionally protected rights but only procedural safeguards designed to protect the Fifth Amendment right against self- incrimination. Subsequent Supreme Court opinions have repeatedly reaffirmed this conclusion. Further, the Miranda court expressly invited Congress and the States to develop legislative solutions to the problem of involuntary confessions. In response to the Court's invitation, the Congress held extensive hearings on this issue as part of Federal criminal law reform. A bipartisan Congress with my participation and that of many others on both sides of the aisle in 1968 passed an omnibus crime bill that included a provision that eventually became law as section 3501. That statute, of which I was an original co-sponsor, provides that ``In any criminal prosecution brought by the United States . . . a confession . . . shall be admissible in evidence if it is voluntarily given.'' The statute goes on to list five nonexclusive factors that a judge may consider in determining whether a confession is voluntary and, hence, admissible. One of those factors is whether the Miranda warnings were given. Thus, the statute continues to provide police with an incentive to deliver the Miranda warnings. More than thirty years after the original hearings on Sec. 3501, the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Criminal Justice Oversight, under my leadership, conducted a hearing to examine the statute's enforcement. The history of the statute begins with the Johnson Administration. Although President Johnson signed Sec. 3501 into law, his administration viewed the statute unfavorably and refused to enforce it. Then, in 1969, the Nixon Justice Department issued an important memorandum setting forth the Department's official policy toward section 3501. According to that policy, ``Congress has reasonably directed that an inflexible exclusionary rule be applied only where the constitutional privilege itself has been violated.'' The memorandum also concluded that ``the determination of Congress that an inflexible exclusionary rule is unnecessary is within its constitutional power.'' In 1975, the Department succeeded in enforcing the statute when the 10th Circuit in United States v. Crocker affirmed a district court's decision to apply Sec. 3501 rather than Miranda and upheld the constitutionality of the statute. The next significant chapter in the history of Sec. 3501 occurred during the Reagan Administration. Judge Stephen Markman, who was then Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Policy, also testified before our Subcommittee. In response to an assignment from Attorney General Meese, Judge Markman's team issued a comprehensive report on the law of pre-trial interrogation that concluded that section 3501 represented a valid, constitutional response by the Congress to the Miranda decision. Later, as Judge Markman testified, the Reagan Justice Department continued the litigation effort to apply section 3501. Judge Markman also testified that while he was U.S. Attorney in the Bush Administration, he and other U.S. Attorneys attempted to apply the statute, although appellate cases did not develop. Certainly, the Bush Justice Department never sought to undermine the statute's enforcement. During the Clinton Administration, this Committee repeatedly has encouraged the Justice Department to enforce the statute. During an oversight hearing in 1997, Attorney General Reno indicated to the Committee that the Department would enforce it in an appropriate case, as did Deputy Attorney General Holder during his nomination hearing the same year. However, when such a case clearly arose in United States v. Dickerson, the Administration refused. In that case, Charles Dickerson was suspected of committing a series of armed bank robberies in Virginia and Maryland. During questioning, he voluntarily confessed his crimes to the authorities and implicated another armed bank robber, but the Miranda warnings were not read to him beforehand. The U.S. Attorney's office in Alexandria urged the trial court to admit the confession under section 3501, but the Justice Department refused to permit the U.S. Attorney to raise it on appeal. It was only the intervention of third parties in an amicus brief of Professor Cassell and the Washington Legal Foundation, that the issue was presented to the Fourth Circuit for its consideration. The Fourth Circuit ruled solidly in favor of Sec. 3501's constitutionality, holding that this statute, not the Miranda decision, governs the admissibility of confessions in Federal court. The court criticized the Justice Department for its failure to enforce the statute, saying that the Department's prohibition of the U.S. Attorney from arguing section 3501 was an elevation of politics over law. The administration's actions in the Dickerson case are part of a larger pattern by which the Clinton Justice Department has blocked opportunities for career prosecutors to raise section 3501. The Department has even gone so far as to order career Federal prosecutors to withdraw already filed briefs that contained arguments in favor of section 3501. The Supreme Court in Davis v. United States expressly made note of the Justice Department's decision not to rely on the statute in a 1994 case where it was clearly relevant. In a concurring opinion in that same case, Justice Scalia wrote that ``[t]he United States' repeated refusal to invoke Sec. 3501 . . . may have produced-- during an era of intense national concern about the problem of run-away crime--the acquittal and the non-prosecution of many dangerous felons. There is no excuse for this.'' The Executive Branch has a duty under Article II, Section 3, of the Constitution to ``take care that the laws be faithfully executed.'' Section 3501 is a law like any other. In Davis, Justice Scalia also questioned whether the refusal to invoke the statute abrogated this duty. Our hearing also demonstrated the strong level of support that exists for the Justice Department to enforce section 3501, especially in the law enforcement community. I have received supportive letters in this regard from the Fraternal Order of Police, whose National President testified at our hearing, as well as from the National Association of Police Organizations, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the Major Cities Chiefs of Police, and others. Former Attorney General Ed Meese also expressed his support for our efforts. If section 3501 is upheld by the Supreme Court, this will encourage the states to enact their own versions of the law in this area. Arizona already has a statute almost identical to Sec. 3501, and the Maricopa County Attorney in Phoenix, whose predecessor prosecuted Miranda, testified at our hearing that he and others could enforce their statute in Arizona if the Supreme Court upholds section 3501. The Justice Department will not say what position it will take if the Dickerson case is considered by the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, they refused my invitation to testify at the hearing on section 3501. I recognize the Department's reluctance to discuss specifics about pending cases, but this is no excuse for its failure to discuss in person its refusal to explain its general treatment of the law governing voluntary confessions. Even the dissenting judge in Dickerson recognized that the Congress could invoke its oversight authority and investigate why the law is being ignored. As he stated, the ``Congress . . . may legitimately investigate why the executive has ignored Sec. 3501 and what the consequences are.'' In my view, the Administration clearly has a duty to defend Sec. 3501 before the Supreme Court and should be enforcing it in the lower Federal courts. The Justice Department has a long-standing policy that it has a duty to defend a duly enacted Act of Congress whenever a reasonable argument can be made in support of its constitutionality. Thus far, all Federal courts that have directly considered Sec. 3501's constitutionality have upheld it. Accordingly, reasonable arguments in defense of the statute clearly exist and have been accepted by the courts--most recently by the Fourth Circuit in Dickerson. Indeed, before the Dickerson case, the Fourth Circuit in United States v. Leong expressly rejected the Justice Department's argument that it was not free to press Sec. 3501 in the lower Federal courts unless and until the Supreme Court overrules Miranda. In concluding that the Government was ``mistaken'' in this regard, the Leong court stated that ``[t]he question of whether Miranda establishes a rule of constitutional dimension, and thus whether Congress acted within its authority in enacting Sec. 3501, is easily within the compass of the authority of lower federal courts.'' Our subcommittee inquiry into section 3501 is ongoing. America does not need its Justice Department making arguments on behalf of criminals. On this the 33rd anniversary of Miranda v. Arizona, it is appropriate to note the Fourth Circuit's statement in Dickerson that ``no longer will criminals who have voluntarily confessed their crimes be released on mere technicalities.'' I hope the Clinton Justice Department will help make this promise a reality.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the service, sacrifices, and numerous contributions to the security of our nation that United States Army Chief of Staff, General Dennis J. Reimer has made throughout his career as a soldier and a leader. As have many of our nation's greatest warriors, General Reimer began his Army career as a Cadet at the United States Military Academy. Leaving his hometown of Medford, Oklahoma and arriving on the banks of the Hudson River on what must certainly have been a hot day in July of 1958, I suspect that the last thought that crossed the mind of a young Dennis Reimer was that he would one day hold the highest job a soldier in the United States Army can hold. Yet that is just what destiny had in store for this tall, unassuming, and plain speaking westerner. In 1962, when Dennis Reimer graduated from West Point and was commissioned a Second Lieutenant in the Field Artillery, we were well into the ``Cold War'', the French had lost their war in Indochina, and the United States had not yet established a large military presence in South Vietnam. As events unfolded and a policy to contain communism was established, it was not long before we did begin to commit troops to Southeast Asia. Among the hundreds of thousands of soldiers to eventually serve in Vietnam was Dennis Reimer, who spent two combat tours in Vietnam, one as an advisor to the Army of the Republic of Vietnam and the second as an executive officer for an artillery battalion in the 9th Infantry Division. The American military experience in Vietnam unquestionably influenced the professional and personal outlooks of anyone who served in that theater, and the lessons learned in Vietnam would serve Dennis Reimer, the Army, and that nation well in the following years. One can assess the career of a soldier very quickly by looking at his or her uniform, and General Reimer's ``Class A's'' reveal that he is a soldier's soldier, someone who never shied away from a challenge, and an officer who believed in leading by example. He wears the coveted ``Ranger'' tab on his left shoulder, a mark of a man who has proven himself to be a tough, resourceful, and diligent soldier. The 9th Infantry Division patch on his right shoulder tells people he went to war with this unit. The Combat Infantryman's Badge he wears on his left chest indicates that he participated in combat operations; the Purple Heart that he was wounded in action; and, the Bronze Star with ``V'' for Valor Device and the Distinguished Flying Cross both stand as testament to the fact that he is a hero. He has also earned some of the nation's most respected decorations including the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, the Distinguished Service Medal, two Legions of Merit, and five additional Bronze Stars. It has been a long road that Dennis Reimer has traveled from West Point's Trophy Point where he entered the Corps of Cadets, to the ``E'' Ring of the Pentagon where he now commands every single soldier in the United States Army. His journey has taken him to many different assignments in many different places, all of which helped to prepare him for his job as Chief of Staff of the Army. In the field, he served as a commander at the company, battalion, and division levels; and, he was the Chief of Staff, Combined Field Army and Assistant Chief of Staff for Operations and Training, Republic of Korea/United States Combined Forces Command. His assignments to the Pentagon were also invaluable as he benefitted from firsthand exposure to how the Department of the Army works as an institution. Clearly he has drawn on his experiences as the aide-de-camp to Chief of Staff of the Army General Creighton Abrams, and he no doubt learned many lessons at the side of this impressive soldier and mentor. In short, General Dennis Reimer was probably one of the best prepared individuals to have served as Chief of Staff of the Army and the legacy he leaves is one that is impressive and noteworthy. The past four-years have been busy ones for General Reimer as he discharged his duties as the Army's head soldier and worked to represent the interests of his people and service in the halls of Congress. During his watch, he has helped to define just what the post- Cold War Army will look like, what its missions will be, and how it will fight and win on the battlefields of the future. General Reimer has been a tireless advocate for the modernization of the Army by championing new weapons systems that will continue to give our troops the tactical and technological advantage they require to overwhelm any and all potential enemies. An expert in efficiencies, he has dedicated himself to finding ways to doing more with less, an important objective in an era when sadly there are fewer and fewer dollars for defense. He committed himself to effectively integrating Reserve and National Guard elements into the total force, and General Reamer's efforts have gone a long way toward creating what is truly a ``Total Army''. Finally, when his former superior, General Abrams said that ``The Army is not made up of people, the Army is people,'' General Reimer was listening. As Chief of Staff, he was always watching out for his soldiers, never forgetting that ``Soldiers are our credentials,'' and our nation's greatest asset. Without well trained, motivated, and intelligent soldiers, our tanks, guns, weapons, and aircraft are all worthless. On June 21, 1999, General Dennis J. Reimer will retire from the United States Army, having fulfilled the prediction of an anonymous editor of the Howitzer who said in 1962 that ``. . . we're sure Denny will make it to the top.'' He has certainly done that and more, proving beyond a doubt that he is truly a ``Can Do'' soldier, leader, and American. I have no doubt that General Reimer is far from finished in finding ways to serve and make a difference, and I am confident that his future will be as bright and successful as his past has been. General Reimer, I salute you for your service, your sacrifices, and your patriotism and I wish you and your wife health and happiness in the years to come.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, on June 1, 1989, the Department of the Army by General Order No. 22 established and placed the United States Army Reserve Civil Affairs Corps under the U.S. Army Regimental System, effective June 16, 1989, with its regimental home base at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. The Home Base Commander is currently Major General Kenneth R. Bowra, Commander and Commandant, U.S. Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School. The U.S. Army Regimental System was created by Army Regulation 600-82 ``to enhance combat effectiveness through a framework that provides the opportunity for affiliation, develops loyalty and commitment, fosters an extended sense of belonging, improves unit esprit, and institutionalizes the war fighting ethos to provide each soldier with a continuous identification with a single regiment.'' On June 16, 1989, an activation ceremony for the Corps was conducted during the Civil Affairs Association Annual Conference in Pensacola, Florida. At that time, the Corps distinctive standard was uncased and the Corps insignia adopted. The following designations were made: MG William R. Berkman as Honorary Chief of Civil Affairs; COL Eli E. Nobleman as Honorary Colonel; CSM Raymond A. Lash as Honorary Sergeant Major; COL Joseph P. Kirlin III as Adjutant; and COL Kalman A. Oravetz as Chairman of the Corps Committee. Since then, the membership in the Corps has spread through all Army Reserve Civil Affairs units and to other Army Reserve soldiers, active and retired, who are or have been in the Civil Affairs Branch. Currently, there are more than 2,200 soldiers who are members of the Corps. The Corps Committee operates under a charter to provide advice and assistance to the Honorary Chief of Civil Affairs and the Corps Home Base Commander with respect to Corps matters. The Corps Committee presently includes the Chairman, Adjutant, Honorary Colonel, Honorary Warrant Officer, Honorary Sergeant Major, Commanding Generals and Command Sergeant Majors of the five major Civil Affairs commands and other members designated by the Honorary Chief of Civil Affairs. The Home Base Commander and the Honorary Chief of Civil Affairs are ex- officio members. The Committee meets biannually at the times and sites of the meeting of the Civil Affairs Association Board of Directors. Support to the Corps is provided by the Civil Affairs Association. The Association has existed since its formation in 1947 with a principal purpose to maintain and enhance the Civil Affairs capabilities required by the Armed Forces of our Nation. Support of the Corps is included in the broad objectives of the Association. The Corps and the Association have worked together to implement their common objectives. The efforts of the Corps and Association to enhance Civil Affairs soldiers' esprit de corps have included: 1. Civil Affairs Symposium. Co-sponsorship in 1991 of a symposium at U.S. Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School at Fort Bragg on ``Civil Affairs in the Persian Gulf War'' and publication of the proceedings of that symposium. 2. Commemorative Stone. The 1994 dedication of a Civil Affairs commemorative stone and its emplacement in the Memorial Plaza of the Headquarters, U.S. Army Special Operations Command which recognizes the service of soldiers in Civil Affairs/Military Government assignments-- past, present, and future. 3. Shrivenham Plaque. The presentation and dedication in 1994 at the British Army Base at Shrivenham, England, of a commemorative plaque to memorialize the organization and marshaling of Civil Affairs and Military Government units in 1944 for World War II operations in Europe. 4. Civil Affairs Exhibits. The preparation and presentation at Civil Affairs conferences of exhibits of historic applications of Civil Affairs doctrine and operations in military operations conducted by the Armed Forces of our Nation. 5. Recognition of Civil Affairs in Military Museums. Currently, planning is underway to support and ensure that military museums have appropriate displays and information about the roles and contributions of Civil Affairs in military operations in our history. 6. Awards Programs--Individuals. Recognition of deserving soldiers and individuals as Distinguished and Honorary Members of the Corps. Award of the Corps Esprit de Corps Medallion has been presented to Corps members and notables. The first medallion was presented to Senator Strom Thurmond who served in combat in World War II as a G-5 staff officer and later, in the Army Reserve, commanded major Civil Affairs units and retired as a Major General. 7. Awards Programs--Units. Distinguished Unit Citations have been awarded to Civil Affairs units in recognition of their accomplishments and contributions in military operations in Grenada, Panama, Somalia, the Persian Gulf War and Haiti. Units currently participating in military operations in Bosnia and those relating to Kosovo will be recognized. Mr. President, the U.S. Army Reserve Civil Affairs Corps, with support of the Civil Affairs Association, is fulfilling the objectives and purposes of the Army Regimental System. I congratulate both the officers and soldiers of the Civil Affairs Corps for their service to our Nation and the Association for its support of the men and women who proudly wear the insignia of the Civil Affairs Corps.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration. Mr. President, my amendment is the text of S. 763 as introduced on April 12. It would increase the minimum Survivor Benefit Plan basic annuity for surviving spouses age 62 and older. I am pleased to have join me as cosponsors of the amendment: Senators Lott, Burns, Cochran, Cleland, Collins, Hutchinson of Arkansas, Mack, McCain and Snowe. Mr. President, as our Armed Forces are engaged in operations over Yugoslavia, it is appropriate for the Congress to correct a long- standing economic injustice to the widows of our military retirees. My amendment would immediately increase for survivors over the age 62 the minimum Survivor Benefit Plan annuity from 35 percent to 40 percent of the Survivor Benefit Plan-covered retired pay. The amendment would provide a further increase to 45 percent of covered retired pay as of October 1, 2004. Mr. President, I expect every member of the Senate has received mail from military spouses expressing dismay that they would not be receiving the 55 percent of their husband's retirement pay as advertised in the Survivor Benefit Plan literature provided by the military. The reason that they do not receive the 55 percent of retired pay is that current law mandates that at age 62 this amount be reduced either by the amount of the Survivors Social Security benefit or to 35 percent of the SBP. This law is especially irksome to those retirees who joined the plan when it was first offered in 1972. These service members were never informed of the age-62 reduction until they had made an irrevocable decision to participate. Many retirees and their spouses, as the constituent mail attests, believed their premium payments would guarantee 55 percent of retired pay for the life of the survivor. It is not hard to imagine the shock and financial disadvantage these men and women who so loyally served the Nation in troubled spots throughout the world undergo when they learn of the annuity reduction. Mr. President, when the Survivor Benefit Plan was enacted in 1972, the Congress intended that the government would pay 40 percent of the cost to parallel the government subsidy of the Federal civilian survivor benefit plan. That was short-lived. Over time, the government's cost sharing has declined to about 26 percent. In other words, the retiree's premiums now cover 74 percent of expected long- term program costs versus the intended 60 percent. Contrast this with the federal civilian SBP, which has a 42 percent subsidy for those personnel under the Federal Employees Retirement System and a 50 percent subsidy for those under the Civil Service Retirement System. Further, Federal civilian survivors receive 50 percent of retired pay with no offset at age 62. Although Federal civilian premiums are 10 percent retired pay compared to 6.5 percent for military retirees, the difference in the percent of contribution is offset by the fact that our service personnel retire at a much younger age than the civil servant and, therefore pay premiums much longer than the federal civilian retiree. Mr. President, 2 years ago, with the significant support from the Members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I was successful in gaining approval from the Congress in enacting the Survivor Benefit Plan benefits for the so-called Forgotten Widows. This is the second step toward correcting the Survivors Benefit Plan and providing the surviving spouses of our military personnel earned and paid for benefits. Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the amendment. Thank you, Mr. President. amendment no. 497 (Purpose: To authorize the award of the Navy Combat Action Ribbon based upon participation in ground or surface combat as a member of the Navy or Marine Corps during the period between December 7, 1941, and March 1, 1961) On page 134, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following: