J. Thurmond

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner, concerning his amendment, No. 439, on radio frequency spectrums.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, it is important and I support the Chairman's efforts to protect critical DOD systems from harmful interference. Some concerns have been raised whether the amendment is intended to have an adverse impact on cellular, PCS, and other wireless systems that millions of Americans rely upon. I ask the Chairman whether I am correct in my understanding that that is not his intended effort.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I look forward to working with the distinguished Chairman during Conference with the House to ensure the successful use of radio frequency spectrum by the military, appropriate government agencies, and the private sector.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Amendment No. 461

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I am in opposition to the amendment offered by the Senator from Virginia. I understand his desire to settle claims resulting from the accident involving a Marine Corps aircraft, which resulted in the unfortunate deaths of civilians in Italy. I note, Mr. President, that this case is covered by the Status of Forces Agreement or SOFA, which provides a mechanism for the settlement of claims. The Robb amendment would provide additional compensation, above and beyond that which might be provided by a SOFA settlement. While, I have sympathy for the families of the victims of that tragedy, I must bring to the attention of my colleagues another tragic occurrence which took the lives of nine American servicemen. I spoke in some detail on this matter last month, when I introduced Senate Resolution 83. Let me summarize the facts of this accident. On September 13, 1997, a German Luftwaffe Tupelov TU-154M collided with a U.S. Air Force C-141 Starlifter off the coast of Namibia, Africa. As a result of that mid-air collision nine United States Air Force Servicemen were killed. Accident investigations conducted by the United States and Germany both assigned responsibility for the collision and deaths to the German crew, who not only filed an inaccurate flight plan, but were flying at the wrong altitude. The families of the nine victims, having endured tremendous suffering and significant financial losses, are seeking compensation from the German government. Sadly, the German government has not been fully cooperative. Because these claims do not fall under the Status of Forces Agreement, the families were instructed to file their claims with Germany and wait for German adjudication. The German government has an obligation to these American families who lost loved ones because of negligence and fault of the German Air Force. This is a simple matter of fairness. To address this matter, I introduced a Sense of the Senate Resolution calling upon the German government to make quick and generous compensation to the families of the U.S. Servicemen. In addition, it prohibits payment to the families of any German national killed in the gondola accident caused by the United States Marine Corps aircraft until the German government has made comparable restitution to the families of the U.S. air crew killed in September 1997. My Resolution will not block payment to the families of any victim who is not a German national. Mr. President, I addressed my concerns on this matter to the Secretary of Defense. I requested that he give this matter his attention and raise this issue with the German Ministry of Defense. In addition, I have invited the German Ambassador to meet with me and family members of those killed in the air collision. To date, the Ambassador has not accepted my invitation. Mr. President, the Robb amendment is unnecessary at this time. The claims of family members of those killed in the ski gondola accident should first go through the SOFA process. In the meantime, the German government should quickly and fairly settle the claims of Americans killed as a result of the negligence of the German Air crew. I reiterate that the American claims do not fall under SOFA. My amendment expresses the Sense of the Senate that the Government of Germany should promptly settle with the families of members of the United States Air Force killed in a collision between a United States C-141 Starlifter aircraft and a German Luftwaffe Tupelov TU-154M aircraft off the coast of Namibia on September 12, 1997. My amendment also states the Sense of the Senate that the United States should not make any payment to citizens of Germany as settlement of such citizens claims for deaths arising from the accident involving the United States Marine Corps EA-6B aircraft on February 3, 1998, near Cavalese, Italy, until a comparable settlement is reached between the German Government and the American service members' families.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I am in strong support of the amendment to strike Section 806 of S. 1059, the Defense Authorization Act. Many of us, including Senator Gramm, Senator Hatch, and Senator Byrd, discussed the importance of Federal Prison Industries on the floor yesterday when this amendment was first considered. I would like to speak for a moment on a few issues that have been raised in this debate. Some have argued that the taxpayers would save money if Federal agencies were not required to use FPI because FPI prices are not competitive. However, studies from the General Accounting Office and the Department of Defense Inspector General show that FPI prices are generally within the market range. Indeed, the DoD IG report found that FPI prices were generally lower than the private sector for the products reviewed. Moreover, it is important to note that Prison Industries is a self- sufficient corporation. As we discussed at my Judiciary hearing on this issue, if Prison Industries did not exist, it would cost taxpayers millions of dollars per year to fund inmate programs that would provide similar security to prison facilities and similar benefits to prisoners. FPI is the most successful inmate program. We should support it strongly and not pass legislation that could undermine it. The April 1999 study between DoD and BoP discusses the relations between the two agencies in great detail. The study concludes that no legislative changes are warranted in Defense purchases from FPI. It made some recommendations for improvements that are currently being implemented. We should give the study time to work. This joint study shows that Defense customers are generally satisfied with FPI. Although some concerns remain such as timeliness of delivery, these issues are being addressed. It is best to allow the joint study to speak for itself. The Executive Summary states: ``In response to questions regarding the price, quality, delivery, and service of specific products purchased in the last 12 months, FPI generally rated in the good to excellent or average ranges in all categories. On the whole, respondents seem to be very satisfied with quality and service, mostly satisfied with price, and least satisfied with delivery. * * * Most respondents rated FPI either good or average, as an overall supplier, in efficiency, timeliness, and best value. FPI was rated highest as an overall supplier in the area of quality.'' The survey generally shows a positive, productive relationship. It is clear that drastic changes are not warranted in the relations between DoD and BoP. Indeed, the Administration strongly opposes Section 806. The Statement of Administration Policy on S. 1059 explains that this provision ``would essentially eliminate the Federal Prison Industries mandatory source with the Defense Department. Such action could harm the FPI program which is fundamental to the security in Federal prisons.'' FPI is a correctional program that is essential to the safe and efficient operation of our increasingly overcrowded Federal prisons. While we are putting more and more criminals in prison, we must maintain the program that keeps them occupied and working. defense production act

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the amendment which recommends the Congressional Medal of Honor be awarded to Mr. Alfred P. Rascon. I would like to take just a moment and introduce you to Mr. Rascon. Alfred Rascon was born in Chihuahua, Mexico, and emigrated to the United States with his parents in the 1950's. He served two tours in Vietnam, one as a medic. When Rascon volunteered for the service, he was not yet a citizen but was a lawful permanent resident, and he was only 17 years of age but convinced his mother to sign his papers so he could enlist. On March 16, 1966, then Specialist Alfred Rascon, while serving in Vietnam, performed a series of heroic acts that words simply cannot describe. For Rascon and the seven soldiers he aided while under direct gunfire, that day will long be remembered. Rascon's platoon found itself in a desperate situation under heavy fire by a powerful North Vietnamese force. When an American machine gunner went down and a medic was called for, Rascon, 20 at the time, ignored his orders to remain under cover and rushed down the trail amid an onslaught of enemy gunfire and grenades. To better protect the wounded soldier, Rascon placed his body between the enemy machine gun fire and this soldier. Rascon jolted as he was shot in the hip. Although wounded, he managed to drag this soldier off the trail. Rascon soon discovered the man he was dragging was dead. Specialist 4th Class Larry Gibson crawled forward looking for ammunition. The other machine gunner lay dead, and Gibson had no ammunition with which to defend the platoon. Rascon grabbed the dead soldier's ammunition and gave it to Gibson. Then, amid relentless enemy fire and grenades, Rascon hobbled back up the trail and snared the dead soldier's machine gun and, most important, 400 rounds of additional ammunition. Eyewitnesses state that this act alone saved the entire platoon from annihilation. The pace quickened and grenades continued to fall. One ripped open Rascon's face, but this did not stop him. He saw another grenade drop five feet from a wounded Neil Haffy. He tackled Haffy and absorbed the grenade blast himself, saving Haffy's life. Though severely wounded, Rascon crawled back among the other wounded and provided aid. A few minutes later, Rascon witnessed Sergeant Ray Compton being hit by gunfire. As Rascon moved toward him, another grenade dropped. Instead of seeking cover, Rascon dove on top of the wounded sergeant and again absorbed the blow. This time the explosion smashed through Rascon's helmet and ripped into his scalp. Compton's life was spared. When the firefight ended, Rascon refused aid for himself until the other wounded were evacuated. So bloodied by the conflict was Rascon that when soldiers placed him on the evacuation helicopter, a chaplain saw his condition and gave him last rites. But Alfred Rascon survived. He was so severely wounded that it was necessary to medically discharge him from the Army. The soldiers who witnessed Rascon's deeds that day recommended him in writing for the Medal of Honor. Years later, these soldiers were shocked to discover that he had not received it. It appears their recommendations did not go up the chain of command beyond the platoon leader who did not personally witness the events. Rascon was instead awarded the Silver Star. Rascon's Silver Star citation details only a portion of his heroic actions on March 16, 1966. Perhaps the best description of Alfred Rascon's actions came 30 years later from fellow platoon member Larry Gibson: I was a 19-year-old gunner with a recon section. We were under intense and accurate enemy fire that had pinned down the point squad, making it almost impossible to move without being killed. Unhesitatingly, Doc [as Rascon was called] went forward to aid the wounded and dying. I was one of the wounded. Doc took the brunt of several enemy grenades, shielding the wounded with his body. In these few words, I cannot fully describe the events of that day. The acts of unselfish heroism Doc performed while saving the many wounded, though severely wounded himself, speak for themselves. This country needs genuine heroes. Doc Rascon is one of those. Rascon was once asked why he acted with such courage on the battle field even though he was an immigrant and not yet a citizen. Rascon replied, ``I was always an American in my heart.'' Mr. President, these actions speak for themselves. I first met Mr. Rascon in 1995. He came to see me as the Inspector General of the Selective Service System, where he continues to serve his nation today. In the course of our conversation I learned of his amazing story, and as the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee at that time, I realized I had to act. I contacted a number of officials at the Department of Defense and learned that his case could not even be examined because the law said time to consider those awards had expired. So, in the 1996 Defense Authorization Bill, we changed the law. Four years have passed since then; however, the Secretary of the Army and the Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff now agree and have recommended that Alfred Rascon be awarded the Medal of Honor, the Nation's highest award for valor. You have heard this story. The legislation authorizes the President to award the Medal of Honor to Alfred Rascon. If ever there was a case to recognize heroism and bravery far above and beyond the call of duty, this is it.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I thank the able Senator from Texas, Mr. Gramm, for the magnificent remarks he made on this important subject and also thank him for the kind remarks he made about me. I rise in strong support of the amendment to strike section 806 of S. 1059, the Defense Authorization Act, which was added in Committee by Senator Levin. This provision could endanger Federal Prison Industries or UNICOR, which is the most important inmate program in the Federal Bureau of Prisons. To protect our citizens, America is placing more and more dangerous and violent criminals in prison. Indeed, one of the main reasons crime rates in America are going down is because the number of criminals we are putting behind bars is increasing. The Bureau of Prisons has an extremely important and complex task in housing and, to the extent possible, rehabilitating these inmates. FPI is critical to this task. Prisoners must work. Idleness and boredom in prison leads to mischief and violence. FPI keeps inmates productively occupied, which helps maintain the safety and security for staff, other inmates, and the law- abiding public outside. Moreover, prisoners who work in FPI develop job skills and learn a work ethic. As a result, they adjust better in prison and are better prepared to become productive members of society when they leave. Mr. President, the program works. Studies show that inmates who worked in Prison Industries are 24 percent more likely to find and hold jobs and remain crime-free after they are released. Inmates in FPI are more likely to become responsible, productive citizens. I am very concerned that section 806, the Levin provision, could threaten this essential program. FPI may sell its products only to Federal agencies, and the Department of Defense represents almost 60 percent of its sales. Yet, the Levin provision would make it much easier for Defense purchasers not to use FPI based on a very vague and nuclear standard. Further, this provision would eliminate entirely the mandatory source preference for any Defense order under $2,500. Purchases under this amount account for 78 percent of FPI orders. Also, the amendment would exempt Defense purchases in a wide range of telecommunications or information systems under the broad name of national security. This could be very harmful to FPI's production of electronic products. Drastic changes of this nature are not warranted, as even the Department of Defense recognizes. The DoD and BoP have just completed a joint study that we ordered in a previous Defense Authorization Bill. In a survey taken as part of the study, DoD customers generally rated FPI in the good to excellent or average ranges in all categories, including price, quality, delivery, and service. As the report states, the working relationship between FPI and DoD remains strong and vital. The study concludes that no legislative changes are warranted in Defense purchases from FPI. It made some recommendations for improvements that are currently being implemented. We should give the study time to work. Indeed, the Administration strongly opposes the Levin provision. The Statement of Administration Policy on S. 1059 explains that this provision ``would essentially eliminate the Federal Prison Industries mandatory source with the Defense Department. Such action could harm the FPI program which is fundamental to the security in Federal prisons.'' FPI does not have an advantage over the private sector. Although inmates make less money than other workers, FPI must deal with many hidden costs and constraints that do not apply to the private sector. Working inmates must be closely supervised, adding to labor costs, and extensive time-consuming security procedures must be followed. For example, when inmates go to work, they must pass through a metal detector and check their tools in and out, even if they just leave for lunch. While the private sector often specializes in certain products, FPI by law must diversity its product lines to lessen its impact on any one industry. Also, the private sector tries to keep labor costs low, while FPI intentionally keeps its factories as labor-intensive as possible. Moreover, inmate workers generally have little education and training and often have never held a steady job. Indeed, the productivity rate of an employee with the background of an average inmate has been estimated at one-fourth that of a civilian worker. FPI is not used for every Federal purchase. In fact, it only constitutes a small minority. If a customer does not feel that FPI can meet its delivery, price, or technical requirements, then the customer can request a waiver of the mandatory source. Last year, 90 percent of waiver requests were approved, generally within four days. Moreover, some private businesses depend on FPI for their existence. FPI purchased over $418 million in raw materials and component parts from private industry in 1998. Contracts for such purchases are awarded in nearly every state, and more than half go to small businesses. Further, Prison Industries helps crime victims recover the money they are due. The program requires that 50 percent of all inmate wages be used for victim restitution, fines, child support, or other court- ordered payments. Last year, FPI collected nearly $2 million for this purpose. The Levin provision falls within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee and should be evaluated there. Indeed, my Judiciary Subcommittee on Criminal Justice Oversight held a hearing yesterday on Prison Industries. We discussed in detail the importance of the program and how damaging the changes we are considering in this bill could be. FPI is a correctional program that is essential to the safe and efficient operation of our increasingly overcrowded Federal prisons. While we are putting more and more criminals in prison, we must maintain the program that keeps them occupied and working. Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.

Mr. THURMOND. Will the Senator from Pennsylvania add me as a cosponsor?

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Certainly.

Mr. THURMOND. Senator Warner and Senator Levin and my colleagues, as the Senate begins consideration of the national defense authorization bill for fiscal year 2000, I join my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee in congratulating Chairman Warner and the ranking member, Senator Levin, on their leadership in preparing a strong, bipartisan defense bill. As the former chairman of the Armed Services Committee, I am well aware of the challenges and demands they faced in the preparation of the bill and believe they acheived all the objectives the committee established at the start of the year. At the Armed Services Committee hearing on September 29, 1999, General Shelton, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 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 national defense authorization bill for fiscal year 2000 ensures that our Armed Forces can continue to carry out their global responsibilities by focusing on readiness, future national security threats, and quality of life. I am especially pleased with the focus on the quality of life issues. Our military personnel and their families are expected to make great sacrifices and they deserve adequate compensation. Therefore, I strongly support the 4.8 percent pay raise, the changes in the retirement system, and the authority for military personnel to participate in the Thrift Savings Plan. These are critical provisions, which when coupled with the additional family housing and barracks construction, will result in a well-earned improvement in the standard of living for all of our military personnel. During the past several years many Senators have raised the specter of the declining readiness of our Armed Forces. The administration had continually denied this assertion until last fall, when each of the Service Chiefs--I repeat, each of the Service Chiefs--acknowledged that readiness was in fact a serious problem within our Armed Forces. General Reimer, the Army Chief of Staff stated: ``Your Army is underfunded today to adequately meet all the competing demands.'' The Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Johnson, stated: ``I am deeply concerned that we are at the beginning of a free-fall in terms of readiness.'' And General Krulak, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, put it in these words: ``We are ready today, but in order to maintain readiness and the current budgetary shortfall and those of previous years, we are effectively mortgaging the readiness of tomorrow's Marine Corps.'' The defense bill before us is a significant step toward correcting the readiness issues identified by our Service Chiefs. It increases primary readiness accounts by more than $1.2 billion; it increases the procurement budget by more that $855 million and increases research and development by more than $200 million. Despite these significant funding increases, I must emphasize that they are but a first step toward reversing the readiness trends. We cannot be satisfied with these increases and ensure continued robust funding increases for these programs in future bills. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall our Nation has faced ever changing threats. Among these are the spread of nuclear and weapons of mass destruction, international terrorism, and the ever increasing sophistication of weapons in the hands of countries throughout the world. The bill provides the funding for the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy to ensure that the Nation's military forces, both active and reserve, are prepared to counter these threats as we enter the new millennium. As with all legislation, there are provisions in this bill that I did not support during the markup that I hope will be amended. Specifically, I am opposed to the provision that would limit the ability of the Federal Prison Industries to sell products to the Department of Defense and the provision in Title C of the bill regarding Tritium production. In my judgement, the Armed Services Committee is overstepping its jurisdiction by legislating on the Federal Prison Industries, which is under the purview of the Judiciary Committee. Regarding Tritium production, I am concerned that the provision has been weakened to the point where the reliability and viability of our Nation's nuclear weapon's stockpile may be at risk. Unless we have strong language to support the Secretary of Energy's decision to complete design for the Advanced Tritium Production source there is a strong possibility that those who oppose a reliable and effective nuclear stockpile will delay tritium production beyond the time we need tritium. I have previously congratulated the chairman and ranking member for their work on this bill. Before closing, I want to congratulate each of the subcommittee chairmen: Senator Smith, Senator Inhofe, Senator Snowe, Senator Santorum, Senator Roberts, and Senator Allard, and the ranking members for their contribution to this bill. Their leadership and work provided the foundation for this legislation. Finally, I believe it is important that we recognize Les Brownlee and David Lyles for their leadership of a very professional and bipartisan staff. I desire to thank Col. George Lauffer for his fine work. This national defense authorization bill is a strong and sound bill. I intend to support it and urge my colleagues to join me in showing our strong support for the bill and our men and women in uniform. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. THURMOND. What was the question?

Mr. THURMOND. I finished college in 1923 and became 21 years of age in December of that year.

Mr. THURMOND. Thank you very much.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment sponsored by my friends from Delaware--Senators Roth and Biden. Admiral Husband E. Kimmel and General Walter C. Short were both unfairly maligned for their roles during the invasion of Pearl Harbor. They were blamed for not anticipating nor being prepared for the attack. Admiral Kimmel was commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific, and General Short was commander of U.S. Army forces. The overwhelming consensus of the academic community and retired flag officers, most notably naval officers, concur that history must be set straight in this matter. Admiral Kimmel and General Short are, in my opinion, the two final victims of Pearl Harbor. Both officers were relieved of their commands, their careers and reputations destroyed after being blamed for negligence and dereliction of duty. These men were doing their duty to the best of their ability, and without full cooperation from superiors in their chain-of-command. Despite the fact that the charge of dereliction of duty was never proved, that charge still exists in the minds of many people. Surprisingly, almost everyone above these two officers escaped censure. Yet, we know now that civilian and military officials in Washington withheld vital intelligence information which could have more fully alerted the field commanders to their imminent peril. In judging Admiral Kimmel and General Short, the following facts have been repeatedly substantiated, but wrongfully and continually ignored: The intelligence made available to the Pearl Harbor commanders was not sufficient to justify a higher level of vigilance than was maintained prior to the attack. Neither officer knew of the decoded intelligence in Washington indicating the Japanese had identified the United States as an enemy. Both commanders were assured by their superiors they were getting the best intelligence available at the time. There were no prudent defensive options available for the officers that would have significantly affected the outcome of the attack. Military, governmental and congressional investigations have provided clear evidence that these two commanders were singled out for blame that should have been widely shared. In 1995, I held an in-depth meeting to review this matter which included the officers' families, historians, experts and retired high- ranking military officers, who all testified in favor of the two commanders. In response to this review, Under Defense Secretary Edwin Dorn's subsequent report disclosed officially--for the first time--that blame should be ``broadly shared.'' The Dorn Report stated members of the high command in Washington were privy to intercepted Japanese messages that in their totality ``. . . pointed strongly toward an attack on Pearl Harbor on the 7th of December, 1941 . . .'' and that this intelligence was never sent to the Hawaiian commanders. The Dorn Report went so far as to characterize the handling of critically important decoded Japanese messages in Washington as revealing ``ineptitude . . . unwarranted assumptions and misestimates, limited coordination, ambiguous language, and lack of clarification and follow-up at higher levels.'' They are eligible for this advancement in rank by token of the Officer Personnel Act of 1947, which authorizes retirement at highest wartime rank. All eligible officers have benefitted. All except for two: Admiral Kimmel and General Short. This advancement in rank would officially vindicate them. No retroactive pay would be involved. The posthumous promotion of Admiral Kimmel and General Short will be a small step in restoring honor to these men. It is time for Congress and the Administration to step forward and do the right thing. I urge adoption of the amendment and yield the floor.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask to speak in morning business for about 10 minutes

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, it is not an exaggeration to say that Washington, DC possesses one of the highest concentrations of museums, art galleries, research institutions, monuments, and memorials to be found anywhere in the world. This is a city where we chronicle our history, honor our heroes, and introduce people from around the world to the ``American experience''. Each year millions of people travel to Washington to visit the many attractions that are located within the capital city. Some of the most popular destinations for visitors are the many excellent museums and galleries, located where individuals are able to gain a knowledge and perspective about the United States that they may not have possessed before their trip to Washington. Sadly, one aspect of American history which is not told very well is that of the United States Army. While many of the museums in the Capital area address military history in general terms, the region lacks a museum dedicated solely to the purpose of telling the story of our Army. This absence is a discredit to those interested in American history as the story of our Army is the story of our Nation, and quite obviously the reverse is true. It is also a discredit to the millions who have served as soldiers, theirs is a story well worth telling to others. The United States is a Nation born of battle, as a matter of fact, the Army is older than our country. The Army was formed in 1775, while the United States was formed in 1776. At every critical juncture of the history of the United States, we find the brave soldiers of the Army. Whether it was earning our freedom from a colonial power; the mapping expedition of Lewis & Clark; the westward expansion of the nation; the Civil War, where the Army fought to maintain the unity of the young nation; the World Wars where we battled to preserve global peace; the Cold War where the Army stood vigilant against the expansionist desires of communist countries; in the Persian Gulf chasing a petty dictator and bully out of Kuwait; spearheading humanitarian relief efforts in any number of countries; or enforcing a fragile peace in Bosnia, the soldiers of our Army were there, doing their duty. Certainly this is a story worthy of chronicling through a museum, and the time has come to build such a facility. What I propose is not new. Over the past two decades, many sites have been suggested and most are unsatisfactory because they have unrealistic development requirements, because their locations are unsuitable for such an esteemed building, or they lacked an appropriate Army setting. Since 1983, the process of choosing a site for the Army Museum has been a long and cumbersome undertaking. A site selection committee was organized and it developed a list of seventeen criteria which any candidate site is required to possess before it was to be selected as home to the Army Museum. Among other requirements, these criteria required such things as: an area permitting movement of large vehicles for exhibits and tractor trailer trucks for shipments; commanding an aesthetically pleasing vista; positive impact on the environment; closeness to public transportation; closeness to a Washington Tourmobile route; convenience to Fort Myer for support by the 3d Infantry--The Old Guard; accessibility by private automobile; adequate parking for 150 staff and official visitors; adequate parking for a portion of the 1,000,000 visitors-a-year that will not use public transportation; food service for staff and visitors; an area that is low in crime and is safe for staff and visitors; suitable space--at least 300,000 square feet--for construction; a low water table; good drainage; no history of flooding; and, suitability for subterranean construction. Since 1984, more than 60 sites have been studied, yet only a handful have been worthy of any serious consideration. The most prominent recent site suggestions have included Carlisle, Pennsylvania, the Washington Navy Yard, the ``Marriott property'' in northern-Virginia, and Fort Belvoir, Virginia. Three of these sites clearly have characteristics which are directly contrary to the established criteria for site selection. The extraordinary distance of Carlisle from Washington speaks for itself. The ``Marriott property'' was carefully studied numerous times, and though it was the Army's first choice, it was always determined that the site was too small and that the cost of the property too high. The suggestion that the Army locate its museum in Washington's Navy Yard is also directly contrary to prerequisites for site selection. The Washington Navy Yard is situated in a difficult to get to part of the District, on the Anacostia River, as well as on a precarious 50-year flood plain. Because this area floods so often, a ``Washington Navy Yard Army Museum''--I will repeat this awkward location--a ``Washington Navy Yard Army Museum'', might well suffer the embarrassment of being closed due to flooding. Furthermore, the Navy Yard is simply too small to allow the construction of a facility that can chronicle the more than 225-year history of the Army. From even before the first blueprint is drawn, architects and historians trying to create a museum that will be recognized as a world-class facility for the study of the American Army and military history will be limited by the lack of space available at the Navy Yard. Secondly, the Navy Yard is situated in a part of the District of Columbia well off the circuit that visitors travel when they come to Washington. The Navy Yard abuts a residential district with narrow streets which means it will be confusing for people to drive there, streets will be congested with traffic, and there will be a lack of parking for cars and tour buses. Additionally, the Navy Yard has become less military in character and more of a patchwork home to various government offices. To locate the Army Museum in an old Navy yard, which sometimes may be under water, would send a clear signal to visitors that choosing a home to their history was nothing more than an afterthought. Finally, it is simply not appropriate to have a museum chronicling the history of the Army at a Navy facility. The Army museum belongs on an Army installation. As an interesting footnote, the April 27, 1999 issue of the Washington Post carried an article about the search for a new location to house the headquarters for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms and reported that a site on New York Avenue seemed to be the first choice. It mentioned that another site in the District had previously been considered as the new home of the BATF, that of the Southeast Federal Center, ``. . . a huge development envisioned for the Anacostia River waterfront south of Capitol Hill, next to the Washington Navy Yard.'' Not surprisingly, the article also reported that BATF had resisted that option because it was considered--and I quote--``. . .too remote''. If the Navy Yard is too remote a site for the BATF, how is it any more convenient for the Army Museum or those hundreds of thousands of people who will visit it every year? In 1991, the Deputy Secretary of Defense directed that the site searches include the Mount Vernon Corridor as a possible location for the Army Museum. Fort Belvoir quickly became a very attractive location. Fort Belvoir offers a 48-acre site; it is only five minutes from Interstate 95, which is traveled by more than 300 million vehicles each year; it is only three minutes from the Fairfax County Parkway; it is served by Metro Bus; and Richmond Highway is next to the main gate of Fort Belvoir. Beyond its ideal location, Fort Belvoir is also a winner historically. It is on a portion of General George Washington's properties when he was Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army. It is located on the historical heritage trail of the Mount Vernon Estate, Woodlawn Plantation, Pohick Church, and Gunston Hall. Situating the Army Museum at Fort Belvoir is a natural tie to a long established military and historic installation that has already been approved by the National Capital Planning Commission to be used for community activities, which includes museums, as a part of the Fort Belvoir Master Plan. The Fort Belvoir site meets all 17 criteria originally established by the Army. With the Marine Corps planning to build its heritage center at nearby Quantico, these two facilities would most certainly complement each other. Indeed, the planned Marine Corps museum is an excellent example of a carefully contemplated facility that not only will capture the rich history of that service, but make the complex an attractive tourist destination. The Marines' heritage complex will be 460,000 square feet and will include a museum, a welcome center, an IMAX theater, a conference center, and a hotel. Clearly, the Marine Corps has come-up with a winning equation for a facility that will tell the story of that service and the Army should be allowed to do the same. Placing the Army Museum at the Navy Yard will not only inhibit efforts to present the history of the Army, but it will also force the establishment of a museum that is inferior and not all that it can be. Finally, co- locating the Army and Marine museums in the same geographic area would create a military history ``zone'', so to speak, and greatly increase the number of visitors that will take time to stop at both museums to learn more about our armed services and the valuable contributions they have made to the nation. Mr. President, we have been trying to find a suitable site for the Army Museum since 1983. While I find it hard to believe that it should take 16-years to identify a suitable site, I am willing to concede that we should spare no effort in making certain that we find the perfect place to locate the Army Museum. I fear that citizens would hesitate visiting the Navy Yard if designated as the home for the Army Museum. Simply put, Fort Belvoir enjoys every advantage over the Navy Yard, the Marriott property, Carlisle Barracks, or any other site, as a place to build the Army Museum. The bill I am introducing today names Fort Belvoir as the site for the Army Museum. Fort Belvoir is the best location in the Washington area to host the Army Museum. Army veterans want to remember and show their contribution to history in an Army setting and culture in which they themselves once served. Fort Belvoir is the perfect place to do this and it qualifies on every criterion established in 1983 by the Army's Site Selection Committee. Fort Belvoir is Army and should host Army history. Therefore, I ask that my colleagues support this bill and bring the 16-year search for a home for the Army Museum to a close by selecting a worthy home for one of this nation's greatest institutions. Mr. President, Thomas Jefferson wrote to John Adams in 1817, ``A morsel of genuine history is a thing so rare as to be always valuable.'' I am pleased to see that the National U.S. Army Museum is a task for this Congress at the beginning of a new century, at a time when all Americans are proud of their nation's accomplishments and those who made it all possible. I am absolutely concerned that all our veterans are honored and honored appropriately. Every year, Army veterans bring their families to Washington and are disappointed that no museum exists as a tribute to their service and sacrifice. Time is running out for many Army veterans, especially those of World War II. I urge my colleagues to review this important piece of legislation and support its passage. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, it is not an exaggeration to say that Washington, DC possesses one of the highest concentrations of museums, art galleries, research institutions, monuments, and memorials to be found anywhere in the world. This is a city where we chronicle our history, honor our heroes, and introduce people from around the world to the ``American experience''. Each year millions of people travel to Washington to visit the many attractions that are located within the capital city. Some of the most popular destinations for visitors are the many excellent museums and galleries, located where individuals are able to gain a knowledge and perspective about the United States that they may not have possessed before their trip to Washington. Sadly, one aspect of American history which is not told very well is that of the United States Army. While many of the museums in the Capital area address military history in general terms, the region lacks a museum dedicated solely to the purpose of telling the story of our Army. This absence is a discredit to those interested in American history as the story of our Army is the story of our Nation, and quite obviously the reverse is true. It is also a discredit to the millions who have served as soldiers, theirs is a story well worth telling to others. The United States is a Nation born of battle, as a matter of fact, the Army is older than our country. The Army was formed in 1775, while the United States was formed in 1776. At every critical juncture of the history of the United States, we find the brave soldiers of the Army. Whether it was earning our freedom from a colonial power; the mapping expedition of Lewis & Clark; the westward expansion of the nation; the Civil War, where the Army fought to maintain the unity of the young nation; the World Wars where we battled to preserve global peace; the Cold War where the Army stood vigilant against the expansionist desires of communist countries; in the Persian Gulf chasing a petty dictator and bully out of Kuwait; spearheading humanitarian relief efforts in any number of countries; or enforcing a fragile peace in Bosnia, the soldiers of our Army were there, doing their duty. Certainly this is a story worthy of chronicling through a museum, and the time has come to build such a facility. What I propose is not new. Over the past two decades, many sites have been suggested and most are unsatisfactory because they have unrealistic development requirements, because their locations are unsuitable for such an esteemed building, or they lacked an appropriate Army setting. Since 1983, the process of choosing a site for the Army Museum has been a long and cumbersome undertaking. A site selection committee was organized and it developed a list of seventeen criteria which any candidate site is required to possess before it was to be selected as home to the Army Museum. Among other requirements, these criteria required such things as: an area permitting movement of large vehicles for exhibits and tractor trailer trucks for shipments; commanding an aesthetically pleasing vista; positive impact on the environment; closeness to public transportation; closeness to a Washington Tourmobile route; convenience to Fort Myer for support by the 3d Infantry--The Old Guard; accessibility by private automobile; adequate parking for 150 staff and official visitors; adequate parking for a portion of the 1,000,000 visitors-a-year that will not use public transportation; food service for staff and visitors; an area that is low in crime and is safe for staff and visitors; suitable space--at least 300,000 square feet--for construction; a low water table; good drainage; no history of flooding; and, suitability for subterranean construction. Since 1984, more than 60 sites have been studied, yet only a handful have been worthy of any serious consideration. The most prominent recent site suggestions have included Carlisle, Pennsylvania, the Washington Navy Yard, the ``Marriott property'' in northern-Virginia, and Fort Belvoir, Virginia. Three of these sites clearly have characteristics which are directly contrary to the established criteria for site selection. The extraordinary distance of Carlisle from Washington speaks for itself. The ``Marriott property'' was carefully studied numerous times, and though it was the Army's first choice, it was always determined that the site was too small and that the cost of the property too high. The suggestion that the Army locate its museum in Washington's Navy Yard is also directly contrary to prerequisites for site selection. The Washington Navy Yard is situated in a difficult to get to part of the District, on the Anacostia River, as well as on a precarious 50-year flood plain. Because this area floods so often, a ``Washington Navy Yard Army Museum''--I will repeat this awkward location--a ``Washington Navy Yard Army Museum'', might well suffer the embarrassment of being closed due to flooding. Furthermore, the Navy Yard is simply too small to allow the construction of a facility that can chronicle the more than 225-year history of the Army. From even before the first blueprint is drawn, architects and historians trying to create a museum that will be recognized as a world-class facility for the study of the American Army and military history will be limited by the lack of space available at the Navy Yard. Secondly, the Navy Yard is situated in a part of the District of Columbia well off the circuit that visitors travel when they come to Washington. The Navy Yard abuts a residential district with narrow streets which means it will be confusing for people to drive there, streets will be congested with traffic, and there will be a lack of parking for cars and tour buses. Additionally, the Navy Yard has become less military in character and more of a patchwork home to various government offices. To locate the Army Museum in an old Navy yard, which sometimes may be under water, would send a clear signal to visitors that choosing a home to their history was nothing more than an afterthought. Finally, it is simply not appropriate to have a museum chronicling the history of the Army at a Navy facility. The Army museum belongs on an Army installation. As an interesting footnote, the April 27, 1999 issue of the Washington Post carried an article about the search for a new location to house the headquarters for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms and reported that a site on New York Avenue seemed to be the first choice. It mentioned that another site in the District had previously been considered as the new home of the BATF, that of the Southeast Federal Center, ``. . . a huge development envisioned for the Anacostia River waterfront south of Capitol Hill, next to the Washington Navy Yard.'' Not surprisingly, the article also reported that BATF had resisted that option because it was considered--and I quote--``. . .too remote''. If the Navy Yard is too remote a site for the BATF, how is it any more convenient for the Army Museum or those hundreds of thousands of people who will visit it every year? In 1991, the Deputy Secretary of Defense directed that the site searches include the Mount Vernon Corridor as a possible location for the Army Museum. Fort Belvoir quickly became a very attractive location. Fort Belvoir offers a 48-acre site; it is only five minutes from Interstate 95, which is traveled by more than 300 million vehicles each year; it is only three minutes from the Fairfax County Parkway; it is served by Metro Bus; and Richmond Highway is next to the main gate of Fort Belvoir. Beyond its ideal location, Fort Belvoir is also a winner historically. It is on a portion of General George Washington's properties when he was Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army. It is located on the historical heritage trail of the Mount Vernon Estate, Woodlawn Plantation, Pohick Church, and Gunston Hall. Situating the Army Museum at Fort Belvoir is a natural tie to a long established military and historic installation that has already been approved by the National Capital Planning Commission to be used for community activities, which includes museums, as a part of the Fort Belvoir Master Plan. The Fort Belvoir site meets all 17 criteria originally established by the Army. With the Marine Corps planning to build its heritage center at nearby Quantico, these two facilities would most certainly complement each other. Indeed, the planned Marine Corps museum is an excellent example of a carefully contemplated facility that not only will capture the rich history of that service, but make the complex an attractive tourist destination. The Marines' heritage complex will be 460,000 square feet and will include a museum, a welcome center, an IMAX theater, a conference center, and a hotel. Clearly, the Marine Corps has come-up with a winning equation for a facility that will tell the story of that service and the Army should be allowed to do the same. Placing the Army Museum at the Navy Yard will not only inhibit efforts to present the history of the Army, but it will also force the establishment of a museum that is inferior and not all that it can be. Finally, co- locating the Army and Marine museums in the same geographic area would create a military history ``zone'', so to speak, and greatly increase the number of visitors that will take time to stop at both museums to learn more about our armed services and the valuable contributions they have made to the nation. Mr. President, we have been trying to find a suitable site for the Army Museum since 1983. While I find it hard to believe that it should take 16-years to identify a suitable site, I am willing to concede that we should spare no effort in making certain that we find the perfect place to locate the Army Museum. I fear that citizens would hesitate visiting the Navy Yard if designated as the home for the Army Museum. Simply put, Fort Belvoir enjoys every advantage over the Navy Yard, the Marriott property, Carlisle Barracks, or any other site, as a place to build the Army Museum. The bill I am introducing today names Fort Belvoir as the site for the Army Museum. Fort Belvoir is the best location in the Washington area to host the Army Museum. Army veterans want to remember and show their contribution to history in an Army setting and culture in which they themselves once served. Fort Belvoir is the perfect place to do this and it qualifies on every criterion established in 1983 by the Army's Site Selection Committee. Fort Belvoir is Army and should host Army history. Therefore, I ask that my colleagues support this bill and bring the 16-year search for a home for the Army Museum to a close by selecting a worthy home for one of this nation's greatest institutions. Mr. President, Thomas Jefferson wrote to John Adams in 1817, ``A morsel of genuine history is a thing so rare as to be always valuable.'' I am pleased to see that the National U.S. Army Museum is a task for this Congress at the beginning of a new century, at a time when all Americans are proud of their nation's accomplishments and those who made it all possible. I am absolutely concerned that all our veterans are honored and honored appropriately. Every year, Army veterans bring their families to Washington and are disappointed that no museum exists as a tribute to their service and sacrifice. Time is running out for many Army veterans, especially those of World War II. I urge my colleagues to review this important piece of legislation and support its passage. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, Admiral Bud Nance, the Staff Director of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, passed away earlier this week and I rise to pay tribute to him and the service he rendered the nation. Few others amassed the impressive record of public service that Bud did. He served the United States during times of war and during times of peace, and none can challenge that he was a man who loved the nation and who worked to protect her interests, security, and most importantly, citizens. Born 77-years-ago in the ``Tarheel State'', Bud Nance became involved in public service at an early age, attending and graduating from the United States Naval Academy. It was 1944 when Bud Nance became an ensign, and World War II was still a year away from ending, so the young officer was posted to the Battleship North Carolina where he began what was to be a long and illustrious career. Though many would point to his achieving the rank of Rear Admiral as a demonstration of his abilities as an officer, I would counter that it was his command of the aircraft carrier USS Forrestal that serves as the best illustration of his professionalism and abilities as a sailor and leader. Simply put, there are few more coveted or more selectively assigned duties than that of captain of a carrier. I am sure that when Bud stowed his seabag at the end of his final tour and retired from the Navy, he thought his days of hard work, low pay, and government service were behind him. Nothing could be further from the truth. As is common with all those who enter public service, even more so with the World War II generation, devotion to duty and a desire to make a difference was at the core of what made Bud Nance ``tick''. I doubt that he hesitated for a moment when Senator Helms called him in 1991 and asked him to become the ``skipper'' of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. For the past eight-years, Bud Nance has worked tirelessly to promote American foreign policy and he made many important and significant contributions to international relations during his tenure as the staff director of the Foreign Relations Committee. Bud, more than most, understood that the policy and directives that emanate from Congress can have a powerful impact on the world beyond the Beltway. He knew from firsthand experience that there is a tremendous difference in how the world looks from the Senate Chamber and a foxhole in some remote part of the world. The advice and guidance that Bud gave Senator Helms and other members of the Foreign Relations Committee was based on a lifetime of experience and a world view that was unique and insightful. Bud leaves behind many who cared for and admired this man, not the least of whom is his widow, Mary. I know that each of us sends our deepest condolences to her, as well as the children and grandchildren of the Nances, for their loss. Mr. President, with the passing of Admiral Bud Nance, the Senate has lost a dedicated and selfless staffer, the nation has lost a true patriot, and many of us--especially Jesse Helms--have lost a good friend. I join my friend from North Carolina in mourning this man, and I wish Admiral James ``Bud'' Nance fair winds and following seas on his final voyage.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, South Carolina recently lost one of its most prominent citizens, Holly Self Drummond, who was known and admired by many throughout the Palmetto State. ``Miss Holly'' passed away at the age of 77, and though she led a full life, her death still came too soon. Each of us who knew Holly Drummond remember her as a vibrant, outgoing, and gracious lady who was a pillar of her community and an individual who embodied all that is good about the South. This was a woman who distinguished herself in many ways throughout her life. She was active in any number of organizations that made her community and our State better places to live. She served as a member of the South Carolina Palmetto Cabinet; the Greenwood Woman's Club; the Sasanqua Garden Club of Ninety Six; and, on the Board of Visitors of Winthrop University and Piedmont Technical College. She was also active in her local church, and of course, was a fixture at the State House where her able husband has served for many years. Her contributions truly benefited others and served as an example of civic mindedness that others strove to emulate. Holly Drummond's passing is saddening for many reasons. My grief is deepened for this woman was a loyal supporter, and more importantly, a valued friend. I had known Holly for more years than I can remember, and her family was well known to me. Mr. President, Holly Self Drummond's passing leaves a tremendous void not only in the town of Greenwood and the State House of South Carolina, but in the lives of the many men and women who called her ``friend.'' Holly Drummond will not soon be forgotten, and I am certain that all those who knew her would join me in sending condolences to her family.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I thank my able colleague for yielding me this time. I am very pleased that we are considering S. 254, Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender Accountability and Rehabilitation Act. This legislation is badly needed to help states effectively confront youth crime and violence. The recent murders in Littleton, Colorado were random and senseless acts of violence. There are no Federal laws, including the bill we are considering here, that would have prevented this terrible tragedy. However, the events there highlight the importance of having an effective policy to deter and combat youth crime and violence. Children aged 15 to 19 committed over 20 percent of all crime in 1997, including 20 percent of all violent crime. America must have safe schools where students can learn, and this bill is part of this Congress' efforts to help families and communities provide this security. The states have responsibility over almost all juvenile offenders, and this legislation provides hundreds of millions of dollars to assist states in their efforts. In part, it contains flexible block grants to help states hold violent juveniles accountable for their actions. The money can be used for a wide variety of initiatives according to the needs of the states, including drug testing, boot camps, and detention facilities. It also encourages states to implement graduated sanctions for young offenders. This early intervention with appropriate penalties at the first signs of trouble is essential to deterring more serious crime down the road. Further, the bill provides almost an equal amount of money, over $400 million, that can be used for prevention programs. Indeed, the key feature of S. 254 is that it provides a balance between prevention and accountability. While prevention is important, it is not alone the solution to violent criminal activity. During the consideration of this bill, there will probably be more discussion about gun laws. This legislation takes a responsible, reasoned approach in this regard, prohibiting someone who commits a violent felony as a juvenile from possessing firearms. Gun control is not the solution to America's crime problem. Before we take a reactive approach to putting more Federal gun laws on the books, we should consider whether the laws we already have are being adequately enforced. My Subcommittee on Criminal Justice Oversight in the Judiciary Committee recently held a joint hearing with the Youth Violence Subcommittee on gun prosecutions in the Justice Department. We discovered that gun prosecutions during the Clinton administration have declined considerably from the Bush administration. Unfortunately, the Clinton administration is just beginning to take notice of programs, modeled after Bush administration successes, which aggressively prosecute the gun laws already on the books. In Richmond, Virginia, a concerted effort to enforce gun laws has reduced violent crime almost 40 percent. The Congress is working to expand successes such as this into other cities. Mr. President, it is time for the Congress to address violent crime committed by young people, and S. 254 represents the most comprehensive Federal effort to address this problem in American history. I hope we can work together to enact this critical legislation.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I wish to pay Senator Biden a tribute. He is an outstanding Senator and an outstanding man. When anyone reflects on their life, they do so by thinking about significant personal and professional benchmarks and milestones. Today, one of our colleagues--and my good friend--Joe Biden is marking just one such accomplishment, his 10,000th career vote in the Senate. Casting your 10,000th vote is a momentous occasion for many reasons. Beyond being an indication that a Senator has served in this body for a substantial period of time, casting 10,000 votes is a testament to an individual's commitment to public service. Furthermore, it is proof that a Senator is doing a good job, for his or her constituents have seen fit to keep an official in office long enough to achieve this accomplishment. Then again, given the type of person Joe Biden is, it should come as no surprise to us that the people of Delaware have repeatedly sent him to the Senate since 1972. He is a man who is motivated by a desire to help others and is dedicated to serving the people of his state and our nation. Joe Biden clearly entered his life in public service for the proper reasons and with the best of motives, and he is an individual who represents all that is positive about those who seek elected office. I have had the good fortune of knowing Joe Biden from the beginning of his Senate career and it is hard to believe that almost thirty years could have elapsed so quickly. During the course of his tenure, I have watched Joe establish an impressive and respected record of work. He has distinguished himself in the fields of the judiciary and foreign affairs, and he is considered a forceful, passionate, and articulate advocate on both these issues. Though he is often sought for analysis and insight regarding international developments, making our streets safe, or any number of other issues before the Senate, Joe Biden first and foremost works tirelessly to serve the people of Delaware. The people of his state are indeed fortunate to be represented by such a capable individual. As most of you already may know, Joe and I have worked closely together for years as members of the Judiciary Committee. We have both served as each other's chairmen and ranking members of this very important committee and I have the highest regard for Joe's intellect, leadership, and ability. Ironically, we not only sat next to each other on the committee for years, but we have been neighbors in the Russell Building for many years as well, our offices being literally right next to one another. You would be hard pressed to find a finer, more dedicated, or more friendly group of people than those who work for Joe Biden and I hope that he stays my neighbor for as long as he is in the Senate. Beyond being a congenial colleague and a good neighbor, Joe Biden is my friend. He is someone whose word can be trusted, who wants to do what is right, who is devoted to his family, and whose heart is good. These are rare qualities in any individual, but they can be especially scarce in this town. That Joe has not changed over the years is testament to the man he is and the son his parents raised. I am proud to call Joe Biden my friend as I know each of my colleagues is as well. I do not think I am going out on a limb when I predict that Joe Biden is going to be in the United States Senate for a long time to come, and that as long as he is a Member of this body he will continue to make valuable contributions to public policy and the nation. Joe, I thank you for your service, I thank you for all your assistance, and most of all I thank you for your many years as a loyal and kind friend. Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I am pleased to submit today a Senate resolution proclaiming August 16, 1999 as ``National Airborne Day.'' On June 25, 1940, the War Department authorized the Parachusete Test Platoon to experiment with the potential use of airborne troops. The Parachute Test Platoon, which was composed of 48 volunteers, performed the first official army parachute jump on August 16, 1940. The success of the Platoon led to the formation of a large and successful airborne contingent that has served from World War Two unto the present. The 82d Airborne Division was the first airborne division to be organized. In a two-year period during World War Two, the regiments of the 82d served in Italy at Anzio, in France at Normandy, where I landed with them, and at the Battle of the Bulge. Other units were subsequently organized, including the 101st Airborne, and since their formation airborne forces have defended American interests all over the world. They have seen action in the Caribbean, Asia, Panama, and in the Persian Gulf. Airborne units have earned over 65 Congressional Medals of Honor, our Nation's highest military honor. These brave soldiers have served our Nation for over sixty years with distinction. This resolution recognize the airborne's past and present commitment to our country. It is only fitting that we honor them. I urge you to join with me in sponsoring ``National Airborne Day'' to express our support for the members of the airborne community and also our gratitude for their tireless commitment to our Nation's defense and ideals.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senate Resolution 33, which designates May 1999 as ``National Military Appreciation Month.'' I congratulate Senator McCain for introducing this important legislation, and I am proud to be a cosponsor. In Congress, we spend many hours discussing this Nation's national security and how our Armed Forces will be used to secure America's defenses. We spend far too little time discussing what is central in making our national security possible--the individual service member. Great warplanes, warships, tanks and ground weapon systems are only as good as the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines who man the front lines. American military service members are unique in their mission, their special culture and have a special place in our society. The American military lives by fundamental values: duty, honor, country. We are unique in the world in this respect. Our service personnel put their lives on the line not for danger or the thrill of combat, but for a higher cause. To do their job effectively, those in the military must have faith in the society they serve. In turn, our society must support and honor its Armed Forces. General Matthew Ridgway strongly believed that those in uniform must be forthright with the American citizen they serve. He said, ``The professional soldier should never pull his punches, should never let himself for one moment be dissuaded from stating honest opinions based on his own military experience and judgment which tells him what will be needed to do the job required of him.'' No factor of political motivation should excuse, and no reason of political expediency should interfere with the supreme duties our military undertake. General Ridgway went on to note that ``Since George Washington's time, no top soldier has forgotten that he is a citizen first and a soldier second, and that the troops under his command are an instrument of the people's will.'' This is why the American people have always had a special relationship with its military. This is what makes the American military men and women unique. If you have been there, you know exactly what I mean. For those who have not had the opportunity to serve, you should speak with our military men and women. Learn more about their accomplishments, challenges, and sacrifices. In combat, in conflict and violence, bonds of trust and love are forged. This is a very powerful experience which contributes to how the words duty, honor, country have a sacred meaning to our military. As the military, we learn that every decision we make calls upon us to act on our own personal integrity and our own willingness to sacrifice. No commitment is more powerful. The military instills a sense of purpose, a sense of belonging, a sense that the military matters to the citizens they serve. After all, this is a profession where people are called upon to make the ultimate and most personal sacrifice. The military is not a mere interest group. In the turmoil following Vietnam, General Fred Weyand wrote, ``The American Army is really a people's Army in the sense that it belongs to the American people who take a jealous proprietary interest in its involvement . . . The American Army is not so much an arm of the Federal Government as it is an arm of the American people.'' We Americans should keep this in mind before we make the serious decisions which may put our best youngsters into harm's way. The American military is a national treasure, for which we all are accountable. The military professional is set apart from those who have followed other walks of life. It is a family. This is true throughout the services and down to the level of small units, whose cohesiveness was clearly illustrated during the Gulf War. When a television correspondent interviewed a young African American soldier in a tank platoon on the eve of Desert Storm and repeatedly asked him to speak to his fear of the impending battle, the young soldier just as persistently repeated his answer: ``This is my family and we'll take care of each other.'' The values and beliefs that form the substance of military professionalism determine in no small measure the role of the military in our great Nation. We Americans should at the very least show appreciation to our military service members. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for morning business, with Senators to speak for up to 10 minutes each. I further ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be recognized to speak: Senator McConnell, Senator Dorgan, and Senator Conrad.