J. Thurmond

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, today I introduce, along with Senator Hollings, a bill which will suspend the duty imposed on certain textured rolled glass sheets. Currently, this glass is not manufactured in the United States nor is a substitute readily available. Therefore, suspending the duty on this item would not adversely affect domestic industries. I hope the Senate will consider this measure expeditiously. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I have another engagement at this time, but sometime during the day I expect to make a statement on the death of Officer Chestnut and Officer Gibson, heroes of the Senate.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in expressing their shock, dismay, and most significantly, sorrow at the tragic events that unfolded not far from this chamber last Friday. The killing of a police officer is always a disturbing event as a mortal attack on a law enforcement officer is also an attack on society at large. After all, it is those men and women who are sworn law enforcement officers who stand between the law abiding citizens of the United States and those elements within our society that seek to do harm. Being any sort of law enforcement officer is a thankless job fraught with danger, two facts that it is sometimes easy to forget. The deaths of Capitol Police Officers Jacob Chestnut, known as J.J., and John Gibson not only remind us of just how dangerous a profession law enforcement is, but also of the admiration we have for those who protect us. What makes their deaths all the more disturbing is that they were attacked in the United States Capitol, a place that is more than an office building; it is a symbol of our Nation. What makes their deaths all the more saddening is that being of close interaction each of us has with Capitol Police Officers, we have come to think of these men and women as much more than simply protectors, we have come to view them as friends. Since its founding in 1828, the United States Capitol Police and its officers have worked, largely in anonymity, to protect Members of Congress, their staffs, the Capitol, and all those who visit this magnificent building. They are a force that carries out its responsibilities professionally and effectively, and they manage to bring credible security and protection to one of the most publicly accessible places in the world. Last Friday, fate forced Officers Gibson and Chestnut to shed their anonymity in the most tragic and brutal of manners, but the manner in which they put duty and aiding others above personal safety is a credit to not only each of them, but to all the members of the United States Capitol Police. The members of the South Carolina Congressional Delegation feel a special sense of grief as ``J.J.'' Chestnut was both a native of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina and a 20-year veteran of the United States Air Force who retired as a Master Sergeant Many have likened Capitol Hill to a small town, as this is a place where people know each other, stop to talk, and where there is true sense of congeniality and hospitality. That spirit is certainly evident in the outpouring of grief, support, and sympathy we are seeing for these two slain officers. Sadly, no amount of expressed condolences or high praise will bring these two brave men back to their families and loved ones. I thin, however, that each of us hopes that these expressions will convey the high regard we hold for these two men, and our inexpressible gratitude that Officers Chestnut and Gibson were on duty. Their actions truly saved the day and they will no doubt forever be remembered as ``heroes.''

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today in support of cloture on S.2271, the Property Rights Implementation Act. Put simply, this bill is a modest effort to help property owners get their day in court. Currently, it is very difficult for many landowners to get into court. When a landowner wishes to develop property, he must seek approval from local land use authorities, who should quickly evaluate the request and make a decision. However, local bureaucracies may take years to make a decision or may require the landowner to make countless reapplications. There is nothing the landowner can do because the courts will wait on a final administrative determination before taking any action. Under this bill, the courts eventually must act if the bureaucracy refuses to make a final decision. The fundamental role of local authorities in property development decisions does not change. A reasonable administrative determination of a claim is still required before the owner can go to court. In other words, the locality will still have the upper hand, but it will not hold all the cards. After a negative administrative decision, the bill allows a landowner to choose to go to Federal court rather than state court, but only under certain limited circumstances. If a landowner brings any claims under state law, even if the state claims are secondary to the Federal claims, the case must proceed in state court. It is only if the landowner brings solely a Federal claim for a Constitutional taking that the landowner must be permitted to proceed in Federal court if he wishes. Moreover, once in Federal court, if an unsettled question of state law arises in the case, the question must be certified to the state court where possible. Some opponents to this legislation have said that it will result in a great shift in public power to regulate land. They say that property owners will be put at a great advantage over state and local authorities who are charged with controlling development, causing property owners to win many more claims. This argument will not prove to be correct. It cannot because the bill does not change the standard for determining a property rights claim. The legislation does not provide property owners any more rights than they have today, even though the rights they now have are limited and uncertain under case law. It is very difficult for a property owner to show that property has been taken for purposes of the Fifth Amendment, and that will not change under this bill. The legislation only makes it easier to get to Federal court for a takings claim. It simply gives landowners a fair opportunity to get a decision. It does not make it any easier for them to win. A limited option of Federal court access should exist when someone is trying to adjudicate their property rights secured by the Constitution. When other Constitutional rights are violated, such as the right to free speech, the person can go immediately to Federal court for relief. Why should the right to just compensation for a taking be any different? Indeed, for free speech issues involving obscenity, the court must look to the standards in the local community, but the claimant can still go immediately to Federal court. As Chief Justice William Rehnquist has written for the Court, ``We see no reason why the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, as much a part of the Bill of Rights as the First Amendment and Fourth Amendment, should be relegated to the status of a poor relation.'' I agree with the Supreme Court. This bill would solve that major problem. Yet, it makes only modest changes in the current system. I hope my colleagues will support this small but important step for fairness in property rights.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, while the Senate was recessed last week, South Carolina lost one of its most prominent citizens, Ellison ``Bubby'' McKissick, Jr., who was best known as a leader in the textile industry both in the Palmetto State and throughout the United States. Bubby McKissick passed away, after a long illness, at the rather young age of 69. Though his passing came too soon, he distinguished himself in many ways throughout his life. Not the least of these achievements was serving as the Chairman of Alice Manufacturing, the McKissick family mill and one of the largest textile companies in the Southeast. Additionally, he was a past president of the American Textile Manufacturers Institute, and a forceful advocate for measures that would make the textile industry more competitive, including promoting education. While his career ultimately took him to the boardroom, Bubby McKissick learned the textile business from the ground floor of one of his family's facilities, working in some of the most demanding jobs in any mill operation. Additionally, Bubby McKissick served in the United States Marine Corps during the Korean War, earning the rank of Sergeant, and having the unenviable distinction of being wounded in combat. This was a man who truly did not have anything handed to him on a silver platter, and who knew well the valuable lessons that one can only learn from experience and hard work. Bubby McKissick's passing is all the more saddening because he was a loyal supporter, and more importantly, a valued friend. I had known Bubby almost literally from the day he was born as his family was well known to me. I was pleased to watch the successes and achievements of this man, both professional and personal, and I take consolation in the fact that he lived a full and rewarding life. Mr. President, Bubby McKissick's passing leaves a tremendous void not only in our state's corporate community, but in the lives of the many men and women who called him friend. Bubby McKissick will not soon be forgotten, and I am certain that all those who knew him would join me in sending condolences to his family.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to address an undue burden that has arisen out of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The purpose of the ADA to give disabled Americans the opportunity to fully participate in society and contribute to it. This was a worthy goal. But even legislation with the best of intentions often has unintended consequences. I submit that one of those is the application of the ADA to state and local prisons throughout America. Last month, the Supreme Court ruled in Pennsylvania Department of Corrections versus Yeskey that the ADA applies to every state prison and local jail in this country. The circuit courts were split on the issue. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, my home circuit, forcefully concluded that the ADA, as well as its predecessor and companion law, the Rehabilitation Act, did not apply to state prisoners, focusing on federalism concerns and the fact that the Congress did not make clear that it intended to involve itself to this degree in an activity traditionally reserved to the states. However, the Supreme Court did not agree, holding that the language of the Act is broad enough to clearly cover state prisons. It is not an issue on the Federal level because the Federal Bureau of Prisons voluntarily complies with the Act. The Supreme Court did not say whether applying the ADA to state prisons exceeded the Congress' powers under the Commerce Clause or the Fourteenth Amendment, but we should not wait on the outcome of this argument to act. Although it was rational for the Supreme Court to read the broad language of the ADA the way it did, it is far from clear that we in the Congress considered the application of this sweeping new social legislation in the prison environment. The Seventh Circuit recognized that the ``failure to exclude prisoners may well have been an oversight.'' The findings and purpose of the law seem to support this. The introductory language of the ADA states, ``The Nation's proper goals regarding individuals with disabilities are to assure quality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency'' to allow ``people with disabilities * * * to compete on an equal basis and to pursue those opportunities for which our free society is justifiably famous.'' Of course, a prison is not a free society, as the findings and purpose of the Act envisioned. Indeed, it is quite the opposite. In short, as the Ninth Circuit explained, ``The Act was not designed to deal specifically with the prison environment; it was intended for general societal application.'' In any event, now that the Supreme Court has spoken, it is time for the Congress to confront this issue. The Congress should act now to exempt state and local prisons from the ADA. If we do not, this law will have broad adverse implications for the management of these institutions. Prisoners will file an endless number of lawsuits demanding special privileges, which will involve Federal judges in the intricate details of running our state and local prisons. Mr. President, we should continuously remind ourselves that the Constitution created a Federal government of limited, enumerated powers. Those powers not delegated to the Federal government were reserved to the states or the people. As James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 45, ``the powers delegated to the Federal government are few and definite. * * * [The powers] which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.'' The Federal government should avoid intrusion into matters traditionally reserved for the states. We must respect this delicate balance of power. Unfortunately, federalism is more often spoken about than respected. Although the entire ADA raises federalism concerns, the problem is especially acute in the prison context. There are few powers more traditionally reserved for the states than crime. The crime laws have always been the province of the states, and the vast majority of prisoners have always been housed in state prisons. The First Congress enacted a law asking the states to house Federal prisoners in their jails for fifty cents per month. The first Federal prison was not built until over 100 years later, and only three existed before 1925. Even today, as the size and scope of Federal government has grown immensely, only about 6% of prisoners are housed in Federal institutions. Managing that other 94% is a core state function. As the Supreme Court has stated, Maintenance of penal institutions is an essential part of one of government's primary functions--the preservation of societal order through enforcement of the criminal law. It is difficult to imagine an activity in which a State has a stronger interest, or one that is more intricately bound up with state laws, regulations, and procedures. The primary function of prisons is to house criminals. Safety and security are the overriding concerns of prison administration. The rules and regulations, the daily schedules, the living and working arrangements--these all revolve around protecting prison employees, inmates, and the public. But the goal of the ADA is to take away any barrier to anyone with any disability. It requires the authorities to provide ``reasonable accommodation'' for essentially any disability unless doing so would impose an ``undue burden'' or ``a direct threat to the health or safety of others,'' as broadly defined by the courts. Accommodating inmates will interfere with the ability of prison administrators to keep safety and security their overriding concern. The practical effect of the ADA will be that prison officials will have to grant special privileges to certain inmates and to excuse others from complying with generally-applicable prison rules. The ADA presents a perfect opportunity for prisoners to try to beat the system, and use the courts to do it. There are over 1.6 million inmates in state prisons and local jails, and the numbers are rising every year. Indeed, the total prison population has grown about 6.5% per year since 1990. Prisons have a substantially greater percentage of persons with disabilities that are covered by the ADA than the general population, including AIDS, mental retardation, psychological disorders, learning disabilities, drug addiction, and alcoholism. Further, administrators control every aspect of prisoners' lives, such as assigning educational and vocational training, recreation, and jobs in prison industries. Combine these facts, and the opportunities for lawsuits are endless. For example, in most state prison systems, inmates are classified and assigned based in part on their disabilities. This helps administrators meet the disabled inmates' needs in a cost-effective manner. However, under the ADA, prisoners probably will be able to claim that they must be assigned to a prison without regard to their disability. Were it not for their disability, they may have been assigned to the prison closest to their home, and in that case, every prison would have to be able to accommodate every disability. That could mean every prison having, for example, mental health treatment centers, services for hearing-impaired inmates, and dialysis treatment. The cost is potentially enormous. Adequate funding is hard for prisons to achieve, especially in state and local communities where all government funds are scarce. The public is angry about how much money they have to spend to house prisoners. Even with prison populations rising, they do not want more of their money spent on prisoners. Often, there is simply not enough money to make the changes in challenged programs to accommodate the disabled. If prison administrators do not have the money to change a program, they will probably have to eliminate it. Thus, accommodation could mean the elimination of worthwhile educational, recreational, and rehabilitative programs, making all inmates worse off. Apart from money, accommodation may mean modifying the program in such a way as to take away its beneficial purpose. A good example is the Supreme Court's Yeskey case itself. Yeskey was declared medically ineligible to participate in a boot camp program because he had high blood pressure. So, he sued under the ADA. The boot camp required rigorous physical activity, such as work projects. If the program has to be changed to accommodate his physical abilities, it may not meet its basic goals, and the authorities may eliminate it. Thus, the result could be that everyone loses the benefit of an otherwise effective correctional tool. Another impact of the ADA may be to make an already volatile prison environment even more difficult to control. Many inmates are very sensitive to the privileges and benefits that others get in a world where privileges are relatively few. Some have irrational suspicions and phobias. An inmate who is not disabled may be angry if he believes a disabled prisoner is getting special treatment, without rationally accepting that the law requires it, and could take out his anger on others around him, including the disabled prisoner. We must keep in mind that it is judges who will be making these policy decisions. To determine what vague phrases like ``reasonable accommodation'' and ``undue burden'' mean, judges must get involved in intricate, fact-intensive issues, Essentially, the ADA requires judges to micromanage prisons. Judges are not qualified to second-guess prison administrators and make these complex, difficult decisions. Prisons cannot be run by judicial decree. The Supreme Court in recent years has recognized this. In apply Constitutional rights to prisoners, the Court has tried to get away from micromanagement and has viewed prisoner claims deferentially in favor of the expertise of prison officials. It has stated that we will not ``substitute our judgment on difficult and sensitive matters of institutional administration for the determinations of those charged with the formidable task of running a prison. This approach ensures the ability of corrections officials to anticipate security problems and to adopt innovative solutions to the intractable problems of prison administration, and avoid unnecessary intrusion of the judiciary into problems particularly ill suited to resolution by decree.'' Take for example a case from the Fourth Circuit, my home circuit, from 1995. The Court explained that a morbidly obese inmate presented corrections officials ``with a lengthy and ever-increasing list of modifications which he insisted were necessary to accommodate his obese condition. Thus, he demanded a larger cell, a cell closer to support facilities, handrails to assist him in using the toilet, wider entrances to his cell and the showers, non-skid matting in the lobby area, and alternative outdoor recreational activities to accommodate his inability to stand or walk for long periods.'' It is not workable for judges to resolve all of these questions. It is noteworthy that a primary purpose of the Prison Litigation Reform Act was to stop judges from micromanaging prisons and to reduce the burdens of prison litigation. As the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court recently recognized, the PLRA is having some success. However, this most recent Supreme Court decision will hamper that progress. Moreover, the ADA delegated to Federal agencies the authority to create regulations to implement the law. State and local correction authorities must fall in line behind these regulations. In yet another way, we will have the Justice Department exercising regulatory oversight over our state and local communities. Prisons are fundamentally different from other places in society. Prisoners are not entitled to all of the rights and privileges of law- abiding citizens, but they often get them. They have cable television. They have access to better gyms and libraries than most Americans. The public is tired of special privileges for prisoners. Applying the ADA to prisons is a giant step in the wrong direction. Prisoners will abuse the ADA to get privileges they were previously denied, and the reason will be the overreaching hand of the Federal government. We should not let this happen. Mr. President, the National Government has gone full circle. We have gone from asking the states to house Federal prisoners to dictating to the states how they must house their own prisoners. There must be some end to the powers of the Federal government, and to the privileges it grants the inmates of this Nation. I propose that we start by passing this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. I yield the floor, Mr. President. Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for twelve minutes as in the morning hour.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to address an undue burden that has arisen out of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The purpose of the ADA to give disabled Americans the opportunity to fully participate in society and contribute to it. This was a worthy goal. But even legislation with the best of intentions often has unintended consequences. I submit that one of those is the application of the ADA to state and local prisons throughout America. Last month, the Supreme Court ruled in Pennsylvania Department of Corrections versus Yeskey that the ADA applies to every state prison and local jail in this country. The circuit courts were split on the issue. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, my home circuit, forcefully concluded that the ADA, as well as its predecessor and companion law, the Rehabilitation Act, did not apply to state prisoners, focusing on federalism concerns and the fact that the Congress did not make clear that it intended to involve itself to this degree in an activity traditionally reserved to the states. However, the Supreme Court did not agree, holding that the language of the Act is broad enough to clearly cover state prisons. It is not an issue on the Federal level because the Federal Bureau of Prisons voluntarily complies with the Act. The Supreme Court did not say whether applying the ADA to state prisons exceeded the Congress' powers under the Commerce Clause or the Fourteenth Amendment, but we should not wait on the outcome of this argument to act. Although it was rational for the Supreme Court to read the broad language of the ADA the way it did, it is far from clear that we in the Congress considered the application of this sweeping new social legislation in the prison environment. The Seventh Circuit recognized that the ``failure to exclude prisoners may well have been an oversight.'' The findings and purpose of the law seem to support this. The introductory language of the ADA states, ``The Nation's proper goals regarding individuals with disabilities are to assure quality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency'' to allow ``people with disabilities * * * to compete on an equal basis and to pursue those opportunities for which our free society is justifiably famous.'' Of course, a prison is not a free society, as the findings and purpose of the Act envisioned. Indeed, it is quite the opposite. In short, as the Ninth Circuit explained, ``The Act was not designed to deal specifically with the prison environment; it was intended for general societal application.'' In any event, now that the Supreme Court has spoken, it is time for the Congress to confront this issue. The Congress should act now to exempt state and local prisons from the ADA. If we do not, this law will have broad adverse implications for the management of these institutions. Prisoners will file an endless number of lawsuits demanding special privileges, which will involve Federal judges in the intricate details of running our state and local prisons. Mr. President, we should continuously remind ourselves that the Constitution created a Federal government of limited, enumerated powers. Those powers not delegated to the Federal government were reserved to the states or the people. As James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 45, ``the powers delegated to the Federal government are few and definite. * * * [The powers] which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.'' The Federal government should avoid intrusion into matters traditionally reserved for the states. We must respect this delicate balance of power. Unfortunately, federalism is more often spoken about than respected. Although the entire ADA raises federalism concerns, the problem is especially acute in the prison context. There are few powers more traditionally reserved for the states than crime. The crime laws have always been the province of the states, and the vast majority of prisoners have always been housed in state prisons. The First Congress enacted a law asking the states to house Federal prisoners in their jails for fifty cents per month. The first Federal prison was not built until over 100 years later, and only three existed before 1925. Even today, as the size and scope of Federal government has grown immensely, only about 6% of prisoners are housed in Federal institutions. Managing that other 94% is a core state function. As the Supreme Court has stated, Maintenance of penal institutions is an essential part of one of government's primary functions--the preservation of societal order through enforcement of the criminal law. It is difficult to imagine an activity in which a State has a stronger interest, or one that is more intricately bound up with state laws, regulations, and procedures. The primary function of prisons is to house criminals. Safety and security are the overriding concerns of prison administration. The rules and regulations, the daily schedules, the living and working arrangements--these all revolve around protecting prison employees, inmates, and the public. But the goal of the ADA is to take away any barrier to anyone with any disability. It requires the authorities to provide ``reasonable accommodation'' for essentially any disability unless doing so would impose an ``undue burden'' or ``a direct threat to the health or safety of others,'' as broadly defined by the courts. Accommodating inmates will interfere with the ability of prison administrators to keep safety and security their overriding concern. The practical effect of the ADA will be that prison officials will have to grant special privileges to certain inmates and to excuse others from complying with generally-applicable prison rules. The ADA presents a perfect opportunity for prisoners to try to beat the system, and use the courts to do it. There are over 1.6 million inmates in state prisons and local jails, and the numbers are rising every year. Indeed, the total prison population has grown about 6.5% per year since 1990. Prisons have a substantially greater percentage of persons with disabilities that are covered by the ADA than the general population, including AIDS, mental retardation, psychological disorders, learning disabilities, drug addiction, and alcoholism. Further, administrators control every aspect of prisoners' lives, such as assigning educational and vocational training, recreation, and jobs in prison industries. Combine these facts, and the opportunities for lawsuits are endless. For example, in most state prison systems, inmates are classified and assigned based in part on their disabilities. This helps administrators meet the disabled inmates' needs in a cost-effective manner. However, under the ADA, prisoners probably will be able to claim that they must be assigned to a prison without regard to their disability. Were it not for their disability, they may have been assigned to the prison closest to their home, and in that case, every prison would have to be able to accommodate every disability. That could mean every prison having, for example, mental health treatment centers, services for hearing-impaired inmates, and dialysis treatment. The cost is potentially enormous. Adequate funding is hard for prisons to achieve, especially in state and local communities where all government funds are scarce. The public is angry about how much money they have to spend to house prisoners. Even with prison populations rising, they do not want more of their money spent on prisoners. Often, there is simply not enough money to make the changes in challenged programs to accommodate the disabled. If prison administrators do not have the money to change a program, they will probably have to eliminate it. Thus, accommodation could mean the elimination of worthwhile educational, recreational, and rehabilitative programs, making all inmates worse off. Apart from money, accommodation may mean modifying the program in such a way as to take away its beneficial purpose. A good example is the Supreme Court's Yeskey case itself. Yeskey was declared medically ineligible to participate in a boot camp program because he had high blood pressure. So, he sued under the ADA. The boot camp required rigorous physical activity, such as work projects. If the program has to be changed to accommodate his physical abilities, it may not meet its basic goals, and the authorities may eliminate it. Thus, the result could be that everyone loses the benefit of an otherwise effective correctional tool. Another impact of the ADA may be to make an already volatile prison environment even more difficult to control. Many inmates are very sensitive to the privileges and benefits that others get in a world where privileges are relatively few. Some have irrational suspicions and phobias. An inmate who is not disabled may be angry if he believes a disabled prisoner is getting special treatment, without rationally accepting that the law requires it, and could take out his anger on others around him, including the disabled prisoner. We must keep in mind that it is judges who will be making these policy decisions. To determine what vague phrases like ``reasonable accommodation'' and ``undue burden'' mean, judges must get involved in intricate, fact-intensive issues, Essentially, the ADA requires judges to micromanage prisons. Judges are not qualified to second-guess prison administrators and make these complex, difficult decisions. Prisons cannot be run by judicial decree. The Supreme Court in recent years has recognized this. In apply Constitutional rights to prisoners, the Court has tried to get away from micromanagement and has viewed prisoner claims deferentially in favor of the expertise of prison officials. It has stated that we will not ``substitute our judgment on difficult and sensitive matters of institutional administration for the determinations of those charged with the formidable task of running a prison. This approach ensures the ability of corrections officials to anticipate security problems and to adopt innovative solutions to the intractable problems of prison administration, and avoid unnecessary intrusion of the judiciary into problems particularly ill suited to resolution by decree.'' Take for example a case from the Fourth Circuit, my home circuit, from 1995. The Court explained that a morbidly obese inmate presented corrections officials ``with a lengthy and ever-increasing list of modifications which he insisted were necessary to accommodate his obese condition. Thus, he demanded a larger cell, a cell closer to support facilities, handrails to assist him in using the toilet, wider entrances to his cell and the showers, non-skid matting in the lobby area, and alternative outdoor recreational activities to accommodate his inability to stand or walk for long periods.'' It is not workable for judges to resolve all of these questions. It is noteworthy that a primary purpose of the Prison Litigation Reform Act was to stop judges from micromanaging prisons and to reduce the burdens of prison litigation. As the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court recently recognized, the PLRA is having some success. However, this most recent Supreme Court decision will hamper that progress. Moreover, the ADA delegated to Federal agencies the authority to create regulations to implement the law. State and local correction authorities must fall in line behind these regulations. In yet another way, we will have the Justice Department exercising regulatory oversight over our state and local communities. Prisons are fundamentally different from other places in society. Prisoners are not entitled to all of the rights and privileges of law- abiding citizens, but they often get them. They have cable television. They have access to better gyms and libraries than most Americans. The public is tired of special privileges for prisoners. Applying the ADA to prisons is a giant step in the wrong direction. Prisoners will abuse the ADA to get privileges they were previously denied, and the reason will be the overreaching hand of the Federal government. We should not let this happen. Mr. President, the National Government has gone full circle. We have gone from asking the states to house Federal prisoners to dictating to the states how they must house their own prisoners. There must be some end to the powers of the Federal government, and to the privileges it grants the inmates of this Nation. I propose that we start by passing this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay it on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was rejected.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield time to the distinguished Senator from Michigan.

Mr. THURMOND. I oppose this amendment offered by Senator Harkin, and I will make my statement short. We have had the debate on defense spending, and I do not need to repeat those arguments. The level of defense spending was set with the Administration in the budget agreement. This agreement was widely supported by this body and should not be disregarded. Some of my colleagues have argued that the money for defense is unnecessary and they have always found other uses for this money. Thankfully, Mr. President, this body has not agreed with these arguments and has provided the resources necessary to meet our national security needs. Mr. President, the budget agreement does not fully fund defense. The budget agreement represents what funds are available. The fact is, Mr. President, our Armed Forces have been reduced. Since the end of the cold war, the active military end strength has been reduced from 2.2 million men and women to a little over 1.4 million. Annual defense spending continues to decline from the build up of $400 billion to about the $260 billion, in equivalent, inflation adjusted dollars. Mr. President, I am not opposed to increasing the funding for veterans' health care, but not at the cost of our national security. We have been warned of funding problems in defense. We must not further reduce defense spending, but instead, reverse the downward trend we have experienced over the last decade in defense spending. I sincerely hope we will heed the hard lessons we have already learned, and not have to learn the same painful lesson over and over? Mr. President, I strongly urge all of my colleagues to oppose this amendment and not further aggravate a serious underfunding of our defense. I thank the Chair, and yield the floor.

Mr. THURMOND. I yield back my time.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield 8 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Idaho.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. THURMOND. How much time is left on our side?

Mr. THURMOND. I urge the adoption of the amendment. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.

Mr. THURMOND. It has been cleared by both sides.

Mr. THURMOND. That is correct.

Mr. THURMOND. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I commend the able Senator from Washington for offering this amendment and being willing to compromise on this important situation. And I urge adoption of the amendment, if it is in order.

Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.