J. Thurmond

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, today, the Senate confirmed Judge Henry Hudson to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. I am very pleased to see this fine man take his place on the Federal bench, and I know that he will serve our Nation with distinction. Judge Hudson is very deserving of this high honor, and I commend President Bush for nominating such a well-qualified and honorable man. Throughout Judge Hudson's distinguished career, he has held several positions of public trust, and he has always performed his duties with the utmost integrity. Judge Hudson has also demonstrated a profound respect for the rule of law, and he will no doubt be an asset to the Eastern District of Virginia. Judge Hudson has an illustrious legal background. Upon graduation from the American University School of Law, he worked as an Assistant Commonwealth Attorney in Arlington County, Virginia. There, he learned the basics of trial work, and after 5 years, he became an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. As a Federal prosecutor, Judge Hudson handled many important and oftentimes complex criminal cases, including drug conspiracies, racketeering, and political corruption cases. After his service as an Assistant U.S. Attorney, Judge Hudson served as the Commonwealth Attorney in Arlington County, Virginia. As Commonwealth Attorney, he was responsible for prosecuting crimes such as homicides and violent sexual assaults. Judge Hudson's vast knowledge of the law and his skills as a trial attorney did not go unnoticed. In 1986, he was nominated and confirmed as the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. As the U.S. Attorney, Judge Hudson not only gained additional experience as a Federal prosecutor, but also demonstrated an ability to supervise others. He was responsible for an office staffed by 70 Assistant U.S. Attorneys and 25 Special Assistant U.S. Attorneys. During his tenure, he supervised ``Operation Ill Wind,'' a Federal investigation of unlawful defense contract bidding that resulted in the conviction of 54 people. Judge Hudson was again honored in 1992 when he was selected as Director of the U.S. Marshals Service, our Nation's oldest law enforcement organization. This appointment serves as a testament to the widespread admiration and respect enjoyed by Judge Hudson. In 1998, Henry Hudson became Circuit Court Judge for the Fairfax County Circuit Court in the Commonwealth of Virginia. In this role, he has performed admirably, demonstrating an outstanding legal mind and a good judicial temperament. He has served the people of Fairfax County well and will no doubt serve the Eastern District of Virginia with equal competence and integrity. Judge Henry Hudson will make an outstanding Federal judge. A substantial majority of the American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary rated Judge Hudson as Well Qualified. Not only does he have considerable legal expertise, but he is a fine man. I am proud to see my friend, Henry Hudson, confirmed as a Federal District Court Judge. nomination of timothy savage

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I introduced a bill establishing the Fort Sumter and Fort Moultrie National Historical Park. These sites are presently managed by the National Park Service as the Fort Sumter National Monument. The bill clarifies the boundaries of the park and will more accurately reflect the resources that are recognized, protected, and interpreted at these sites. Both of these forts were pivotal sites in the history of South Carolina and the Nation. Fort Moultrie was the centerpiece of the Battle of Sullivan's Island on June 28, 1776, just six days prior to the signing of the Declaration of Independence. The valiant defense of the fort by South Carolina militia units resulted in the first decisive victory over British forces in the Revolutionary War. The fort is named after the commander of those units, Colonel William Moultrie. Colonel Moultrie's forces constructed the first fort out of Palmetto trees and sand. The Palmettos were used because of the lack of proper building materials. Though initially thought to be inadequate for protection, the Palmettos repelled salvo after salvo from the British naval forces. Such excellent fortifications allowed Colonel Moultrie's militia to return fire with devastating results. Fort Moultrie also played a part in the events leading up to the Civil War. It was the site of the batteries that bombarded Fort Sumter. After the war, the fort was to remain an integral part of America's coastal defenses until World War II, when it was used to guard the port of Charleston against German U-boats. Indeed, it is the only site in the National Park System that preserves the history of the Nation's coastal defense system from 1776 to 1947. Although its days of conflict are over, the fort stands as a reminder that the cost of freedom is constant vigilance and stalwart resolve, even in the face of overwhelming odds. Fort Sumter is also an important part of American history. The bombardment of the fort on April 12, 1861 was the opening engagement of the Civil War. The evacuation of the fort by its commanding officer, Major Robert Anderson, left the fort in Confederate hands until the fall of Charleston in February of 1865. Fort Sumter was also an integral part of the Nation's coastal defense system until the end of World War II. Fort Sumter is a fine example of the historical significance of National Park Service work. The passage of this bill will allow for the more efficient administration of the two forts. The present arrangement does not adequately reflect the boundaries or management authority for the site. For example, Fort Moultrie was acquired by the Secretary of the Interior from the State of South Carolina in 1960, but no boundaries were established for the property, nor were any directives given to the National Park Service for administering the site. This bill will establish the boundaries of the site and provide long-overdue management authority for the National Park Service. Hopefully, this bill will facilitate more efficient management of the forts and allow many more Americans to learn from these living monuments to America's history. The Department of Interior supports this bill and has urged its enactment. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of affordable prescription drugs. As a life-long health advocate, I recognize that prescription drugs are an important part of improving the health and quality of life for millions of Americans. These drugs allow Americans of every age to live a more productive and more enjoyable life. Our success in this area is due in large measure to our competitive system that allows for many different approaches to meet the many different needs of Americans. The central features of any prescription drug bill should be increased competition, innovation in the marketplace and increased access to more affordable drugs. However, the current bill does not accomplish these objectives. Instead, it seeks to bypass the excellent consumer protection provided by the FDA, decreases the return on the development of newer and better drugs, and may actually increase the cost of prescription drugs in the long run. This bill has been hastily assembled and rashly brought to the floor before committee consideration. This bill contains provisions that have not been analyzed for their impact upon our fine health care system. I fear these provisions will threaten the excellent healthcare system we currently enjoy. Indeed, the FTC released, just yesterday, a report entitled ``Generic Drug Entry Prior to Patent Expiration'' that showed that our system was working and that under the current Hatch-Waxman law innovative new drugs were being brought to market even as a thriving generic market was lowering overall drug costs. While the report does show that some minor changes may be in order, the place to make such important and complex changes is not the floor of the Senate after only a few hours study, it is in the appropriate committee with the requisite expertise. The bill contains a provision allowing for large scale re-importation of prescription drugs. This presents a serious safety concern of a variety of public health officials and has been rejected in the past. I am concerned that the opinions of many relevant agencies on this matter have been disregarded. Agencies which oppose this provision include the Department of Health and Human Services, the Food and Drug Administration, the Customs Service, and the Center ;for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Another provision which I strongly oppose which is in the bill relates to Medicaid recipients access to medicine. While it is presented as a price control, it will effectively make drugs unavailable to low-income Medicaid patients by imposing restrictive ``prior authorization'' requirements on physicians. This policy is opposed by many patient groups and should not be part of this legislation. Finally, I am deeply concerned that this bill does not contain a Medicare drug benefit plan. This is a very important issue that remains unresolved by this body. Therefore, I do not support cloture on this bill, nor do I support final passage of the measure. It is my hope that we will revisit this issue soon and craft a bill which will improve the availability of affordable prescription drugs and ensure advances continue in this industry.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, I rise to submit a resolution recognizing the week of September 15-21, 2002 as National Historically Black Colleges and Universities Week. This resolution is an appropriate tribute to the countless academic contributions these institutions of higher education have made throughout this fine Nation and the State of South Carolina. I am proud to have eight of the 105 Historically Black Colleges located in my home State. They have long provided a quality education that has greatly contributed to our economic and social well-being, and I commend them for a job well done. In addition, these colleges and universities will help lead our country into the future, with programs that prepare their students for our increasingly sophisticated economy. The alumni of these institutions have made many contributions to our Nation and I hope this resolution serves to recognize their achievements as well. The passage of this resolution reaffirms our support for these institutions. The Resolution requests the President of the United States to issue an appropriate proclamation and calls on the people of the United States to observe the week with ceremonies, activities and programs to demonstrate support for Historically Black Colleges and Universities throughout this Nation.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the late David O. Cooke, Defense Department Director of Administration and Management. I would like to offer my condolences to Mr. Cooke's three children, Michele, Lot and Davis, along with his other family members, friends, and coworkers. Mr. Cooke has truly imprinted an everlasting legacy on the American defense system and our great Nation. Although our Nation mourns for this tragic loss, we must remain strong in honoring such an outstanding individual. For six decades, David O. Cooke served the federal government distinguishing himself as one of the most exceptional and honorable civil servicemen of our time. He was truly a visionary, epitomizing the core values of exemplary public service. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article from the Washington Post.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to draw attention to the plight of the people of Colombia. For decades they have been plagued by the scourges of drugs, war, and terrorism. Today, thousands, if not millions of Colombians live under constant threat of attack by leftist guerrillas and right-wing paramilitary groups. However, in the recent elections the Colombian people overwhelmingly voted to bring the forces of terror and violence to their knees. In support of their fight against terror, I believe it is the responsibility of our great Nation to offer its unwavering moral support to the people of Colombia and their democratically elected leaders. Since President Monroe first offered a vision for our Nation's involvement in the Western Hemisphere, the United States has been the guarantor of peace and democracy for all the peoples of the Americas. This is a tradition we must continue. Consequently, it is time for us as a Nation to explore further extending our support, both moral and physical to the cause of developing the institutes of justice and governance in Colombia. In doing so, we help the Colombians achieve a better way of life and further our own fight against the forces of global terror. In closing, we should not forego this opportunity to help a neighbor and an ally. I offer my firmest support to the people of Colombia and their fight to eradicate terrorists and criminals in their own country. Mr. John Norton Moore is a distinguished professor of law and is the Director of the Center for National Security Law at the University of Virginia. He has written thoughtfully on this matter. I found his remarks to be highly valuable and wish to share them with the Senate. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that an article written by Professor Moore be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, on March 29, 2002, Douglas John Wreath was promoted to the grade of Colonel in the United States Air Force Reserve. Major General Mike Hamel, USAF, administered the military oath of office to Colonel Wreath on that date in a ceremony that was held in the Reserve Officers Association of the United States Building, in Washington. It is my pleasure to join those who are congratulating Colonel Wreath on this achievement. Since 1997, Colonel Wreath has been an active duty Reservist, assigned to the United States Air Force Office of Congressional Affairs. During part of this time, Colonel Wreath served as the Acting Director of the United States Liaison Office in the Senate, where he became known to many Senators and members of their staffs. Colonel Wreath is currently assigned to the United States Air Force Headquarters, at The Pentagon, where he is implementing the recommendations of The Commission to Assess United States National Security Space Management and Organization, as well as serving as the Air Staff Legislative Liaison for Space Integration issues. Colonel Wreath is a graduate of the United States Air Force Academy. He has also earned the degree of Master of Science in Systems Management from the University of Colorado. Doug Wreath began his career in the United States Air Force as a Space Shuttle Navigation Analyst in 1984, leavings, as a Space Operations Officer in 1992, when he transferred into the Reserve. While on active duty, Doug Wreath performed a variety of command and support activities at three duty stations, and as the Personal Assistant to the Commander of the Air Force Space Command, he assisted in establishing the operational plans and policies of the Air Force National Space Program. Colonel Wreath is an outstanding American who has developed an impressive record of achievement through his service to our Nation. I am pleased to commend Colonel Wreath on his promotion and I extend my best wishes to him for much continued success.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to express my outrage at the decision reached by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Newdow v. U.S. Congress, in which a three-judge panel held that schoolchildren's recitation of the phrase ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance violates the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. This case is the result of yet another attempt by the radical left to wipe away public references to God, and is an unconscionable act of judicial activism. I hope that the Ninth Circuit's decision will ultimately be reversed on appeal, allowing reason and common sense to prevail. Simply put, there is no support in the law for this ruling, even in the Ninth Circuit's own jurisprudence. The phrase ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance is very similar to the use of ``In God We Trust'' on currency and as the national motto, which has been repeatedly upheld by the courts. In Aronow v. United States, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the phrase does not violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. The court said, ``Its use is of a patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise.'' It also said that ``it is quite obvious'' that the phrase ``has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion.'' While the Ninth Circuit is the most relevant here because of Wednesday's ruling, other circuit courts have reached the same conclusion. The Tenth Circuit explained in Gaylor v. United States that the national motto ``through historical usage and ubiquity cannot be reasonably understood to convey government approval of religious belief.'' In cases such as Lynch v. Donnelly, the Supreme Court has indicated its approval of these rulings. Even Justice William Brennan, one of the most liberal Supreme Court justices of the modern era and one of the most strident advocates for the separation of church and state, indicated his support for this view, saying that Americans have ``simply interwoven the motto so deeply into the fabric of our civil polity'' as to eliminate constitutional problems. The same reasoning applies to the phrase ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance. The use of this phrase simply indicates the important role that religion plays in America, but it does not establish a religion or endorse a religious belief. It is also significant that even when the Supreme Court ruled in Engel v. Vitale that organized prayer is unconstitutional in public schools, the Court made it clear that the case did not apply to patriotic slogans or ceremonial anthems that refer to God. While I have always viewed this case as misguided, and have for years introduced a constitutional amendment to reverse it, even this case supports the use of phrases, such as ``under God'' and ``God Bless America,'' as part of our civic vocabulary. The fact is that religion is central to our culture and our patriotic identity as a nation. As the Supreme Court said in Lynch v. Donnelly, there is ``an unbroken history of official acknowledgment by all three branches of government of the role of religion in American life.'' I am pleased my colleagues have denounced this ruling. Throughout the history of this great Nation, we have invoked the blessings of God without establishing religion. From prayers before legislative assembly meetings and invocations before college football games to the national motto on our currency, our Constitution has allowed references to God. I would also like to say a few words about the Ninth Circuit. Several years ago, it was suggested that the Ninth Circuit be broken up. I think that it is time to reconsider that proposal. The Supreme Court reverses the Ninth Circuit at a much higher rate than other circuits, indicating the activist propensities of this circuit. Simply put, the Ninth Circuit is out of the mainstream, and the decision in Newdow underscores that fact. It is unhealthy for our democracy when one circuit routinely refuses to follow the law. During the last six years, the Supreme Court has reversed 80-90% of Ninth Circuit cases reviewed. While the Supreme Court corrects the Ninth Circuit often, it cannot do so on every questionable ruling, and this allows the establishment of dangerous precedents. I am particularly concerned about Wednesday's ruling because one of the judges who joined in the majority opinion was Judge Stephen Reinhardt, whose own confirmation process was marked by controversy in 1980. I served as Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee at the time, and I expressed serious concern over Judge Reinhardt's fitness to serve as a Federal judge. He was extremely active in politics and known for his very liberal views. Judge Reinhardt's major area of practice was labor law, and there was a question as to whether he had sufficient experience. His record, in my view, called into question his ability to serve as an impartial judge. During his tenure of the Ninth Circuit, Judge Reinhardt has been reversed an alarming number of times. He was reversed 11 times during the 1996-97 term, and he holds the record for unanimous reversals in one term. I mention the matter of Judge Reinhardt's controversial past only to address his fitness as a Federal judge. This question is legitimate because circuit judges make important decisions that affect a lot of people. In the Ninth Circuit case, Judge Reinhardt helped create law that is dangerous in its precedent and unsound in its reasoning. Mr. President, once again I want to state unequivocally that the Ninth Circuit made a poor decision in the Newdo case. I hope that this decision will alert all Americans to the dangerous judicial activism that plagues the Ninth Circuit. Furthermore, I hope that this case is reversed on appeal, so that many more generations of schoolchildren will proudly learn the Pledge of Allegiance.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, today, I am again offering an amendment that would correct the long-standing injustice to the widows or widowers of our military retirees. The proposed legislation, which reflects the language of S. 145 which I introduced on January 23, 2001, would immediately increase for surviving spouses over the age 62 the minimum Survivor Benefit Plan, SBP, annuity from 35 percent to 40 percent of the SBP covered retired pay. The bill would provide a further increase to 45 percent of covered retired pay as of October 1, 2006. As I outlined in my many statements in support of this important legislation, the Survivor Benefit Plan advertises that if the service member elects to join the plan, his survivor will receive 55 percent of the member's retirement pay. Unfortunately, that is not so. The reason that they do not receive the 55 percent of retired pay is that current law mandates that at age 62 this amount be reduced either by the amount of the Survivors Social Security benefit or to 35 percent of the SBP. This law is especially irksome to those retirees who joined the plan when it was first offered in 1972. These service members were never informed of the age-62 reduction until they had made an irrevocable decision to participate. Many retirees and their spouses, as our constituent mail attests, believed their premium payments would guarantee 55 percent of retired pay for the life of the survivor. It is not hard to imagine the shock and financial disadvantage these men and women who so loyally served the Nation for many years experience when they learn of the annuity reduction. Uniformed services retirees pay too much for the available SBP benefit both, compared to what we promised and what we offer other Federal retirees. When the Survivor Benefit Plan was enacted in 1972, the Congress intended that the Government would pay 40 percent of the cost to parallel the Government subsidy of the Federal civilian survivor benefit plan. That was short-lived. Over time, the Government's cost sharing has declined to about 26 percent. In other words, the retiree's premiums now cover 74 percent of expected long- term program costs versus the intended 60 percent. Contrast this with the Federal civilian SBP, which has a 42 percent subsidy for those personnel under the Federal Employees Retirement System and a 50 percent subsidy for those under the Civil Service Retirement System. Further, Federal civilian survivors receive 50 percent of retired pay with no offset at age 62. Although Federal civilian premiums are 10 percent retired pay compared to 6.5 percent for military retirees, the difference in the percent of contribution is offset by the fact that our service personnel retire at a much younger age than the civil servant and, therefore pay premiums much longer than the federal civilian retiree. Although the House conferees thwarted my previous efforts to enact this legislation into law, I am ever optimistic that this year we will prevail. I base my optimism on the fact that the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2001 included a Sense of the Congress on increasing Survivor Benefit Plan annuities for surviving spouses age 62 or older. The Sense of the Congress reflects the concern addressed by the legislation I am introducing again today. Since I introduced S.145, 37 of my colleagues joined as cosponsors to the bill. I hope they will join me in speaking in support of this important legislation and the Senate will adopt this amendment.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, one of my most important responsibilities throughout my almost 48 years in the Senate has been to vote on the annual national defense authorization bill. This bill not only provides for our Nation's security but, more importantly, it provides for the Nation's most valuable asset, the men and women who so proudly wear the uniform and their family members who are an integral part of our military. Today, I rise, ever mindful of my responsibilities, to offer my views on the last national defense authorization bill that I will vote on before I leave the Senate. Before discussing the bill, I want to congratulate Chairman Levin, and the ranking member, Senator Warner, for their leadership of the Senate Armed Services Committee. The challenges they face in pulling together this annual bill are immense, yet, year after year they prepare a bill that reflects a bipartisan approach to national security. There may be differences on individual programs, but their leadership and the participation of every member of the committee crafted a bill that enhances the security of the country and improves the quality of life for our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines and their families. The national defense authorization bill for fiscal year 2003, supports the President's budget request of $379 million, the largest increase to the defense budget in twenty years. It provides significant increases in military pay, readiness funding, and military construction. The bill includes a provision that would address long- standing inequities in the compensation of military retirees by authorizing the concurrent receipt of retired pay and veterans disability compensation. This is an issue which I have supported for some time and I am pleased to see it resolved this year. Like all bills there are provisions that cause me concern. The most egregious in this bill is the reduction to the President's request for missile defense. By reallocating more than $800 million requested for missile defense to other programs, the bill fundamentally alters the President's priorities and leaves open the possibility that we will not adequately defend our Nation against a missile attack. I urge the Senate to reverse this flawed provision. Mr. President, in closing I remind my colleagues that this bill also provides vital funding to support our forces currently engaged in the war against terrorism. This war is unlike any faced by my generation. It will not be won by large armies, but by dedicated, highly trained soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. I am extremely proud of what our military personnel have accomplished and I have no doubt that their professionalism and dedication will bring an end to the terrorist threat. We owe these men and women the best our Nation can provide and we must show them our support by voting for this bill. I thank the Chair.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, I rise today to commemorate the 227th Birthday of the United States Army. On June 14, 1775, as our Republic was struggling to emerge, the Second Continental Congress enacted legislation creating the American Continental Army. The founding fathers knew if the citizens of this Nation were to be secure in their liberty, the Nation would require the ability to defend and protect itself. Fortunately, this Congress also selected George Washington to command this new force. His sense of purpose, integrity, and leadership were an inspiration to the troops he led to secure the independence of the Nation. His vision of the citizen soldier defending his home, family, and country were critical to founding of the Republic. From humble beginnings, at Lexington and in the forge of battles such as Charleston, Cowpens, and Kings Mountain and from the winter encampment at Valley Forge, the Army secured victory at Yorktown. From Chippewa, New Orleans, Palo Alto, Buena Vista, to the numerous skirmishes on the frontier known as the Indian Wars, the Army proudly defended this Nation. The entry of the United States into World War I with the Army leading the way, sealed the allied victory. During World War II, the Army fought worldwide with troops in the Americas, Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Pacific. The defense of our freedoms continued with the Korean War, the Viet Nam War, and Desert Storm. Today our soldiers are found throughout the world, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and elsewhere, courageously defending our Nation and the ideals it represents. Our Army reflects the values of our Nation's citizens. Our citizen soldiers serve to protect our freedoms today just as they did to gain our freedoms over 200 years ago. I am proud of our soldiers and appreciate their selfless service. I was proud to wear the uniform of the United States Army. Happy Birthday to the United States Army.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, two hundred and twenty-five years ago today, the United States was engaged in its War for Independence. I note that the American Continental Army, now the United States Army, was established by the Continental Congress, just 2 years earlier on June 14, 1775. I express my congratulations to the United States Army on its 227th birthday. At the start of that War, American colonists fought under a variety of local flags. The Continental Colors, or Grand Union Flag, was the unofficial national flag from 1775-1777. This flag had thirteen alternating red and white stripes, with the English flag in the upper left corner. Following the publication of the Declaration of Independence, it was no longer appropriate to fly a banner containing the British flag. Accordingly, on June 14, 1777, the Continental Congress passed a resolution that ``the Flag of the United States be 13 stripes alternate red and white, and the Union be 13 stars white in a blue field representing a new constellation.'' No record exists as to why the Continental Congress adopted the now- familiar red, white and blue. A later action by the Congress, convened under the Articles of Confederation, may provide an appropriate interpretation on the use of these colors. Five years after adopting the flag resolution, in 1782, a resolution regarding the Great Seal of the United States contained a statement on the meanings of the colors: Red: For hardiness and courage; White: For purity and innocence; and Blue: For vigilance, perseverance, and justice. The stripes, symbolic of the 13 original colonies, were similar to the five red and four white stripes on the flag of the Sons of Liberty, an early colonial flag. The stars of the first national flag after 1777 were arranged in a variety of patterns. The most popular design placed the stars in alternating rows of three or two stars. Another flag placed twelve stars in a circle with the thirteenth star in the center. A now popular image of a flag of that day, although it was rarely used at the time, placed the thirteen stars in a circle. As our country has grown, the Stars and Stripes have undergone necessary modifications. Alterations include the addition, then deletion, of stripes; and the addition and rearrangement of the field of stars. While our Star-Spangled Banner has seen changes, the message it represents is constant. That message is one of patriotism and respect, wherever the flag is found flying. Henry Ward Beecher, a prominent 19th century clergyman and lecturer stated: A thoughtful mind, when it sees a nation's flag, sees not the flag only, but the nation itself; and whatever may be its symbols, its insignia, he reads chiefly in the flag the Government, the principles, the truths, and the history which belong to the nation that sets it forth. Old Glory represents the land, the people, the government and the ideals of the United States, no matter when or where it is displayed throughout the world. The flag has proudly represented our Republic beyond the Earth and into the heavens. The stirring images of Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin saluting the flag on the moon, on July 20, 1969 moved the Nation to new heights of patriotism and national pride. Today we pause to commemorate our Nation's most clear symbol, our flag. President Woodrow Wilson signed a Presidential Proclamation designating June 14, 1916 as Flag Day. On a prior occasion President Wilson noted: Things that the flag stands for were created by the experiences of a great people. Everything that it stands for was written by their lives. The flag is the embodiment, not of sentiment, but of history. It represents the experiences made by men and women, the experiences of those who do and live under the flag. Flag day was officially designated a National observance by a Joint Resolution approved by Congress and the President in 1949, and first celebrated the following year. This year, then, marks the 52nd anniversary of a Congressionally designated Flag Day. It is appropriate that we pause today, on this Flag Day, to render our respect and honor to the symbol of our Nation, and to review our commitment to the underlying principles it represents. Today, let us reflect on the deeds and sacrifices of those who have gone before and the legacy they left to us. Let us ponder our own endeavors and the inheritance we will leave to future generations. Since the tragic events of last September 11, the display of the flag has taken on a renewed emphasis. It is a visual representation of our commitment to freedom, peace and liberty. Today, the flag is a banner which proudly proclaims, ``United We Stand.'' Finally, as we commemorate the heritage our flag represents, may we as a nation pledge not only our allegiance, but also our efforts to furthering the standards represented by its colors, courage, virtue, perseverance, and justice. Through these universal concepts, We the People can ensure better lives for ourselves and our children, for these are the characteristics of greatness. In doing so, we can move closer to the goal so well stated by Daniel Webster at the laying of the cornerstone of the Bunker Hill Monument on June 17, 1825. On that occasion he said: Let our object be our country, our whole country, and nothing but our country. And, by the blessing of God, may that country itself become a vast and splendid monument, not of oppression and terror, but of Wisdom, of Peace, and of Liberty, upon which the world may gaze with admiration forever. I have long supported legislation which imposes penalties on anyone who knowingly mutilates, defaces, burns, tramples upon, or physically defiles any U.S. flag. I have also supported a constitutional amendment to grant Congress and the States the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the U.S. flag. I regret that the Senate has yet to adopt a Resolution for a flag protection Constitutional amendment. I am pleased that each day the Senate is in session, a designated Senator leads the Senate in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States. This has added greatly to the opening of the Senate each day. Today I encourage my colleagues and all Americans to take note of the history and meaning of this 14th day of June. We celebrate our Flag, observing its 225th birthday, and the 227-year-old Army which has so proudly and valiantly defended it and our great Nation.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, this week in the United States we are commemorating Men's Health Week. The National Men's Health Week Act was passed by Congress and signed into law in 1994. Since then Men's Health Week has been celebrated each year as the week leading up to and including Father's Day. I was proud to be a cosponsor of that Act. Today, I rise to introduce the Men's Health Act of 2002, to establish an Office of Men's Health within the Department of Health and Human Services to promote men's health in America. In this Nation, there is an ongoing, increasing, and predominantly silent crisis in the health and well-being of men. Due to a lack of awareness, poor health education, and culturally-induced behavior patterns, the state of men's health and well-being is deteriorating steadily. Heart disease, stroke, and various cancers, including prostate and testicular cancer, continue to be major areas of concern. We must address these issues with diligent educational efforts, prevention and treatment as we seek to enhance the quality and duration of men's lives. Improved distribution of information concerning the health challenges men face and the utilization of the appropriate preventive measures are imperative to addressing this need. As a lifelong advocate of regular medical exams, daily exercise, and a balanced diet, I feel strongly that an Office of Men's Health should be established to help improve the overall health of America's male population. The bill I am introducing is similar to a bill introduced in the House of Representatives. I invite my colleagues to join me in supporting this important measure. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, this week in the United States we are commemorating Men's Health Week. The National Men's Health Week Act was passed by Congress and signed into law in 1994. Since then Men's Health Week has been celebrated each year as the week leading up to and including Father's Day. I was proud to be a cosponsor of that Act. Today, I rise to introduce the Men's Health Act of 2002, to establish an Office of Men's Health within the Department of Health and Human Services to promote men's health in America. In this Nation, there is an ongoing, increasing, and predominantly silent crisis in the health and well-being of men. Due to a lack of awareness, poor health education, and culturally-induced behavior patterns, the state of men's health and well-being is deteriorating steadily. Heart disease, stroke, and various cancers, including prostate and testicular cancer, continue to be major areas of concern. We must address these issues with diligent educational efforts, prevention and treatment as we seek to enhance the quality and duration of men's lives. Improved distribution of information concerning the health challenges men face and the utilization of the appropriate preventive measures are imperative to addressing this need. As a lifelong advocate of regular medical exams, daily exercise, and a balanced diet, I feel strongly that an Office of Men's Health should be established to help improve the overall health of America's male population. The bill I am introducing is similar to a bill introduced in the House of Representatives. I invite my colleagues to join me in supporting this important measure. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize an American who has honorably served our Nation for 34 years--Major General Harold L. Timboe, United States Army Medical Corps, Commanding General, North Atlantic Regional Medical Command and Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, D.C. A native of Long Beach, CA, General Timboe attended the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York, where he earned a Bachelor of Science Degree in 1968. He started his Army career as an Air Defense Artillery officer with assignments in Saudi Arabia and Vietnam. Following graduation from the University of Texas Medical School in 1978 and his residency, Major General Timboe served with distinction in a variety of leadership and executive positions including the following: Corps Surgeon, XVIII Airborne Corps, Operation Desert Storm; Commanding General, 44th Medical Brigade, Fort Bragg, NC; Commanding General, Great Plains Regional Medical Command, Fort Sam Houston, TX; culminating as the Lead Agent, TRICARE Northeast, Region 1, headquartered at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. In his most recent position Major General Timboe directed the integration of the National Capital Area Composite Health Care System across the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard services, which includes 77 work centers between National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, Malcom Grow Medical Center, Walter Reed Army Medical Center and their 41 Satellite facilities. Through his distinctive accomplishments, Major General Timboe reflected great credit upon himself, the United States Army, and the Department of Defense. General Timboe's accomplishments and service have been recognized in numerous military awards. He has been awarded the Legion of Merit with four Oak Leaf Clusters, Bronze Star with one Oak Leaf Cluster, Meritorious Service Medal with three Oak Leaf Clusters, Air Medal, Joint Service Commendation Medal, Army Commendation Medal, Army Achievement Medal, Vietnam Service Medal, Humanitarian Service Medal, Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, Southwest Asia Service Medal, Expert Field Medical Badge, Flight Surgeon Badge, U.S., British, and German Parachutist Badges, and the Army Staff Identification Badge. Major General Timboe and his wife Donna are to be commended for their dedication and contribution to our Nation. Major General Timboe's service to his country has been exemplary and in the finest traditions of the United States Army. I extend my appreciation to General Timboe, and congratulate him as he retires from his distinguished military career. I wish him and his family well in their future endeavors as they enter a new phase of their lives in Texas.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate an event that took place 58 years ago today. Of course, I am speaking about the invasion of Normandy on D-Day, June 6, 1944. The magnitude of the event, its scope and complexity, even now, instills a sense of awe in all of us. It remains the largest air, land, and sea invasion ever undertaken. The invasion force of over 150,000 soldiers was supported by over 5,000 ships and 10,000 airplanes. These troops were from the United States, Britain, and Canada and included Free French and Polish forces under the overall command of General Dwight David Eisenhower. The invasion sites, from west to east, were designated as Utah, Omaha, Sword, Juno, and Gold. The British Second Army was responsible for Sword, Juno, and Gold, while the U.S. First Army was responsible for Utah and Omaha. The U.S. 1st and 29th Infantry Divisions landed at Omaha Beach, the U.S. 4th Infantry Division came ashore on Utah. The 82nd and 101st Airborne Division were dropped behind the beaches. I might add that some of the Airborne troops arrived by glider, an operation in which I was a participant. Although the invasion was ultimately successful, it was a very hard fought battle with many challenges. However, the individual initiative and courage of common soldiers saved the day. Many were teenagers or just in their twenties; most were frightened and on foreign soil under fire for the first time. Actions of courage and bravery were everywhere. Now it seems so long ago, but I vividly remember this event. I remember these gallant men and their heroic actions. I remember those that paid the ultimate price for our freedom. During this military operation I landed at Normandy with the Glider Infantry of the 82nd Airborne Division, First U.S. Army. I am proud to have been a part of that endeavor and bear witness to the heroism and gallantry demonstrated that day. One of the most challenging and rewarding experiences of my life has been to serve my Nation as an Officer in the U.S. Army. Although it has been many years since I last wore an Army uniform, my love for the service and pride in its heritage remain as strong today as it was when I was commissioned a Second Lieutenant. As I think about the sacrifice being made today by a new generation, I continue to remember the great effort and sacrifice made by so many young lives at Normandy. They paid the ultimate price for the freedoms we continue to enjoy today. With each passing year, the number of Normandy Invasion veterans grows smaller. This is the final opportunity that I will have, as a Member of the Senate, to mark the anniversary of this occasion. I call upon my Senate colleagues and all Americans to never forget what happened on those French beaches 58 years ago. I encourage all Americans to remember the courageous men who fought and those who died to defend our liberties.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Judge Eugene R. Sullivan of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. Since his graduation from West Point, Judge Sullivan has worked diligently to ensure the betterment of our National being. He first proved himself as an Airborne Ranger in Vietnam. His gallantry earned him the Bronze Star and the Air Medal, to name just a few of his decorations. Upon leaving the Army, Judge Sullivan has led a most amazing life. He first graduated from the Georgetown University Law Center. Following his time at Georgetown, Judge Sullivan went on to work for the law firm of Patton-Boggs. During his tenure there, he had the privilege of serving on the Defense Team for President Richard Nixon. In the years following, Judge Sullivan returned to public service as an attorney for the Justice Department and as the General Counsel for the United States Air Force. In addition to his duties as General Counsel, the Judge also served as the Chief Legal Advisor to the National Reconnaissance Office and eventually as the Governor of Wake Island. His service was most exemplary. Since 1986, Judge Sullivan has served as a member of the Federal bench. Many of us had the privilege of presiding over his appointment and his subsequent confirmation as the chief judge of the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. In closing, I want to publicly thank Judge Eugene Sullivan for his service and dedication to our Nation. Moreover, I thank him for being my friend and wish him all the best in his future endeavors.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to H.R. 3009, the Andean Trade Preference Act and the Baucus-Grassley amendment granting the President trade promotion authority and renewing the trade adjustment assistance. While I do not support this particular bill, I am not opposed to trade and recognize the great economic benefit it has brought to my State. In South Carolina, many foreign firms have made substantial investments in manufacturing facilities. These plants, and the workers they employ, produce goods for domestic consumption and for export. Also, numerous American firms export their products. The volume of goods moving through the port of Charleston is an indication of the importance of trade to South Carolina. Charleston is one of the busiest seaports in America. History has taught us that in order for countries to buy from us, we must buy from them. Indeed, our continuing trade deficit shows just how much of this we as Americans do. The problem is that too many of our trading partners refuse to trade with us fairly. They want to export to the American market, but they do not want to let our products into their domestic markets. I would note that the United States Trade Representative has published his 2002 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers. In this annual report, numbering 455 pages, he catalogs the barriers ``affecting U.S. exports of goods and services, foreign direct investment by U.S. persons, and protection of intellectual property rights.'' Clearly, this report indicates our trade negotiators have much to do to get our trading partners to open their markets to U.S. exports. The United States has long been the leader in promoting trade. In 1994, the United States entered into the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, and 1 year later became a charter member of the World Trade Organization, WTO. NAFTA established a free trade area between the United States, Canada, and Mexico. The WTO was an endeavor to establish an international organization and procedures to reduce and hopefully eliminate capricious and arbitrary barriers to trade. NAFTA opened the doors to imports of textiles and apparel from Mexico. While the potential for cheap textile and apparel imports was greater under the WTO, the WTO contains an Agreement on Textiles and Clothing, ATC, which would eliminate all quotas on textile and apparel products beginning on January 1, 2005. The ATC provides the U.S. textile and apparel industries with a ten-year transition period to prepare for this elimination. However, this ATC adjustment phase has been repeatedly breached by legislative actions such as the African Growth and Opportunity Act, the Caribbean Basin Initiative, as well as Executive Branch decisions permitting additional import quotas for nations such as Pakistan and Turkey. Additionally, American textile and apparel industries have been seriously harmed by substantial transshipments of apparel. As a result, U.S. textile and apparel industries are being subjected to more and more unfair international competition without the full benefit of the transition period permitted under the ATC. Because of these unfortunate and short-sighted policies, almost 700,000 U.S. textile and apparel workers have lost their jobs. Nearly 55,000 jobs were lost in South Carolina with a devastating effect on my State's economy. This is compounded by the thousands of jobs that have been lost in Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia as well as other States. These numbers do not include the lost jobs in the steel, furniture, and other manufacturing industries. In addition there are the job losses in secondary industries such as equipment makers, service firms, and transportation enterprises. Finally, there are the community job losses in the local businesses, including department and grocery stores, pharmacies, and automobile dealerships, to just name a few. The cost to local communities is staggering. While the toll on all those who lose their jobs and their families is horrendous, it is even worse on older workers who have little chance of finding meaningful employment. The underlying bill, H.R. 3009, the Andean Trade Preference Act, ATPA, seeks to renew a program that provided preferential, mostly duty- free, treatment of selected U.S. imports from Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru that expired on December 4, 2001. The purpose of the ATPA is to encourage growth of a more diversified Andean export base, thereby promoting development and providing an incentive for Andean farmers and other workers to pursue economic alternatives to the drug trade. While this is a laudable goal, my objection is to those provisions of this legislation that would give Andean textile and apparel products the same preferences given to those from Mexico and the Caribbean Basin. This action will further erode the quota protection provisions guaranteed to the U.S. textile and apparel industries under the ATC. These increases in textile and apparel imports into the United States will further destabilize the American textile and apparel industries during the critical ten-year transition period and result in the loss of more American jobs. This bill also reauthorizes Trade Promotion Authority. Trade promotion authority allows the President to negotiate trade agreements and submit them to the Congress for approval or defeat. No amendments are allowed, therefore no improvements can be made to such agreements. My concerns are that future trade negotiators will be more interested in getting an agreement, any agreement, no matter what the cost to American manufacturing, rather than protect the best interests of the United States. The emphasis of American representatives in previous trade talks has clearly been for free trade at the expense of fair trade. The current state of U.S. manufacturing is evidence of this sad fact. So granting the President TPA will result in the Congress being presented with no alternative other than to vote for or against the total agreement. I do not believe this is consistent with the Constitutional responsibilities of the United States Congress. Particularly troubling about this grant of TPA is that our trade negotiators have, and continue to place in negotiation, U.S. trade remedy laws. What we need, Mr. President, are not weaker trade remedy laws but stronger ones. In addition, to the responsibility of protecting U.S. workers and their employers, we have a strategic defense interest in promoting and strengthening American manufacturing as opposed to letting it wither away. Again, what I am advocating is fair trade not free trade. Finally, included in the legislation is the renewal of Trade Adjustment Assistance, TAA. I support TAA without reservation, and I have in the past attempted to strengthen TAA by making the certification process easier. I regret that this TAA renewal provision is part of this legislation and was not considered separately. In closing, I wish to state that I am for trade, fair trade. The sad experience of our Nation with so-called ``free trade'' is that it results in the loss of American manufacturing jobs. Unfortunately, this legislation will pass the Senate and will undoubtedly be signed into law by the President. I call upon the President and administration officials to negotiate for fair trade. I hope in the future negotiations are conducted which result in rules that do not discriminate against American industry and agriculture, and which require our trading partners to open their domestic markets to U.S. products. Because of the thousands of jobs that have been lost, not only in my State of South Carolina but in the Nation as a whole, and because of the jobs which will be lost in the future, I will vote against this legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to express my disappointment in the decision announced yesterday by the Department of Transportation against allowing airline pilots to carry firearms during the performance of their duties. Today I am introducing legislation which would overturn that decision and require the Transportation Security Administration to establish a program to permit pilots to defend their aircraft against acts of criminal violence or air piracy. This legislation will provide a critical last line of defense to secure commercial aircraft. This bill I am introducing today is identical to a bill in the House of Representatives, H.R. 4635, introduced by Mr. Young of Alaska and Mr. Mica of Florida. The legislation requires the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security to establish a program not later than 90 days after the date of enactment to deputize qualified volunteer pilots as Federal law enforcement officers to defend the cockpits of commercial aircraft in flight against acts of criminal violence or air piracy. Pilots who are deputized will be known as ``Federal Flight Deck Officers'' and will be authorized to carry a firearm and use force, including deadly force, against an individual in defense of an aircraft. Under the bill, a qualified pilot is a pilot that is employed by an air carrier, has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Under Secretary fitness to be a Federal Flight Deck Officer, and has been the subject of an employment investigation, including a criminal history record check. Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment, the Under Secretary shall deputize 500 qualified pilots who are former military or law enforcement personnel. Not later than 24 months after the date of enactment, the Under Secretary shall deputize any qualified pilot. The Federal Government will provide training, supervision and equipment at no expense to the pilot or air carrier. Pilots participating in this program will not be eligible to receive compensation for services. The legislation protects volunteer pilots and their employers against liability from damages resulting from participation in the program. The Department of Transportation has taken important steps to improve the security of our airports and protect the flying public. However, September 11 demonstrated our enemies will stop at nothing to inflict harm on Americans and destroy our way of life. Our response must be equally as determined and resolute. We must not take half measures or engage in wishful thinking. We must not refrain from utilizing every tool we possess. We must enable those who pilot commercial passenger aircraft to defend against any threat and protect the safety of their aircraft and passengers. And finally, we must do so without further delay. I hope the Senate responds quickly to this important matter. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to express my disappointment in the decision announced yesterday by the Department of Transportation against allowing airline pilots to carry firearms during the performance of their duties. Today I am introducing legislation which would overturn that decision and require the Transportation Security Administration to establish a program to permit pilots to defend their aircraft against acts of criminal violence or air piracy. This legislation will provide a critical last line of defense to secure commercial aircraft. This bill I am introducing today is identical to a bill in the House of Representatives, H.R. 4635, introduced by Mr. Young of Alaska and Mr. Mica of Florida. The legislation requires the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security to establish a program not later than 90 days after the date of enactment to deputize qualified volunteer pilots as Federal law enforcement officers to defend the cockpits of commercial aircraft in flight against acts of criminal violence or air piracy. Pilots who are deputized will be known as ``Federal Flight Deck Officers'' and will be authorized to carry a firearm and use force, including deadly force, against an individual in defense of an aircraft. Under the bill, a qualified pilot is a pilot that is employed by an air carrier, has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Under Secretary fitness to be a Federal Flight Deck Officer, and has been the subject of an employment investigation, including a criminal history record check. Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment, the Under Secretary shall deputize 500 qualified pilots who are former military or law enforcement personnel. Not later than 24 months after the date of enactment, the Under Secretary shall deputize any qualified pilot. The Federal Government will provide training, supervision and equipment at no expense to the pilot or air carrier. Pilots participating in this program will not be eligible to receive compensation for services. The legislation protects volunteer pilots and their employers against liability from damages resulting from participation in the program. The Department of Transportation has taken important steps to improve the security of our airports and protect the flying public. However, September 11 demonstrated our enemies will stop at nothing to inflict harm on Americans and destroy our way of life. Our response must be equally as determined and resolute. We must not take half measures or engage in wishful thinking. We must not refrain from utilizing every tool we possess. We must enable those who pilot commercial passenger aircraft to defend against any threat and protect the safety of their aircraft and passengers. And finally, we must do so without further delay. I hope the Senate responds quickly to this important matter. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the conference report for H.R. 2646, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, FSRIA Act. This is the eleventh farm bill since the Congress enacted the Agricultural Act of 1949, the last permanent farm legislation, and the first farm bill of the 21st century. The previous farm bill, the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, the FAIR Act, contained at least three favorable objectives--to instill market discipline upon U.S. agriculture, to foster agriculture exports, and to eliminate Government-mandated planting requirements. That legislation represented the most radical change in farm policy since the inception of Federal farm programs in the 1930s, and in my view was a step in the right direction. I would have preferred a farm bill which would assist family farmers in becoming more efficient and more productive, thereby becoming more competitive. Instead of strengthening market oriented agricultural sector, I am concerned this bill will make farmers more dependent upon government subsidies. Our farm policy should promote the strength and ability of American agriculture to produce more and safer food and fiber with fewer chemical inputs. The United States has a competitive advantage in the production of many crops and most kinds of livestock. However, American farmers and ranchers are plagued by low prices. While this bill attempts to deal with low farm gate prices, it does not address the fact that U.S. agricultural producers sell in a world market where low prices are the norm. A U.S. agricultural policy that results in American food and fiber products being produced at higher than world prices does no good for American farm families. I am very concerned about the regional bias in this bill. Southern cotton, rice, and peanut farmers, particularly large family farms State will be adversely affected by the payment limitations. These large farms are some how construed to be corporate farms when, in fact, most are family farms. Also, I am not satisfied that our peanut farmers are being treated fairly. This bill ends the peanut quota program, the last of the old style farm quota programs, and enacts a peanut marketing loan program, affecting both farmers and rural communities. We should have a farm bill that treats all farmers equally, that allows them to be competitive, and that continues to provide the American consumer with wholesome, good quality food and fiber. I note that this bill authorizes considerable spending for conservation. There is nothing more important to agriculture than conservation. In South Carolina, it is said that if you do not take care of your land it will not take care of you. It is encouraging that successful programs such as the Environmental Quality Incentive Program are strengthened in this bill. However, I question the addition of programs, which in my State could lead to land being taken out of agricultural production. Once taken out of agriculture, the land rarely returns to the farm and that increases the demand for land thereby raising the price of land or the land rental. I am disappointed the FSRIA Act does not do enough to strengthen our agricultural research assets including our land-grant university system and the Agricultural Research Service. The research done by these institutions and agency have materially added to the competitiveness and productivity of American agriculture. They should be cultivated and given the funding they need to continue their outstanding research. Emphasis should be directed at ensuring these results are translated into practical measures that can be used by the food and fiber sector of our economy. More could also have been done to help beginning farmers. However, no piece of legislation is perfect. I thank the conferees for retaining my amendment regarding farm reconstitutions in the conference report. As I said in prior statements I made earlier this year, the Department of Agriculture could have handled the problem itself without legislation. Flue-cured tobacco producers and quota owners in the Carolinas and Virginia will be better off with this amendment. This amendment will allow flue-cured tobacco allotments and quotas to continue to be transferred through the process of farm reconstitutions. Despite my concerns regarding the shortcomings of this bill, I will vote in favor of the conference report. Throughout my long career in public service, I have fought for the farmers of my State. This bill will provide farmers with financial resources to improve their efficiency and productivity.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, I am proud to have co-sponsor with Senator Byrd a resolution which the Senate adopted on April 30 commending Ms. Suzanne Pearson, who retired from the Senate on December 31, 2001. While serving as President pro tempore of the Senate, I had the pleasure of overseeing the work of the Office of the Legislative Counsel and, in particular, of working with Suzanne in her position as Office Manager. I wish to join with Senator Byrd, and with all Senators, in expressing our deepest gratitude to Suzanne Pearson for her long years of service to the U.S. Senate. She has been part of the Office of the Legislative Counsel for almost 32 years, including the last 10 years as Office Manager; during that time she has provided valuable assistance to me and to my staff. I and my staff appreciated the great dedication and professionalism she displayed in her work for the Senate. I know that her departure will leave a void that is difficult to fill. In adopting this resolution, the Senate recognizes her years of commitment to the Senate. Madam President, I wish Suzanne Pearson well in her retirement.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will provide for the disposition of weapons usable plutonium at the Savannah River Site, South Carolina. This bill will ensure the State of South Carolina will have an enforceable agreement on the construction and operation of a mixed-oxide, MOX, fuel fabrication facility at the Savannah River Site. The bill also provides for clear pathway to remove any weapons-usable plutonium from our State if the MOX facility is delayed or fails to operate as planned. The Plutonium Disposition program is an important element of our National Security. Under agreements made by the United States and the Russian Federation, each Nation agreed to dispose of designated amounts of weapons-grade plutonium. This agreement is a significant step toward safeguarding nuclear materials and preventing their diversion to rogue states. In addition, it has been widely acknowledged that Russian criminal groups are attempting to steal weapons-usable plutonium from poorly secured sites for known terrorist organizations, and therefore most certainly this is a matter of extreme National Security. The MOX facility will be an important economic factor in my State. As a result of this bill, Department of Energy officials will also know that SRS, the largest industrial employer in my State, will be ready and eager to accept new missions and create jobs. Helping the Savannah River Site SRS, grow and remain the ``Crown Jewel'' among Department of Energy facilities has been one of my proudest achievements of public service as a Senator and Governor of my State. South Carolina and the Department of Energy have had an outstanding working relationship to bring jobs to SRS while helping to defend our National Security. I deeply regretted the recent dispute over the mixed oxide (MOX) fuel fabrication facility and the Federal lawsuit that was recently filed. I have called for reasoned and mature thinking to prevail in this matter. This legislation is intended to provide the assurances to both parties and restore the elements of trust and cooperation, while protecting the interests of the State and the health, safety and economy of its citizens. Interested parties must not fail to view this matter without taking all the factors into consideration. The health and security of South Carolinians must always be protected. current and future jobs in South Carolina must be protected. The National Security of the United States must be protected. The legislation I am introducing today will accomplish all of these objectives. This initiative is good government and I encourage its support by my colleagues. I yield the floor.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will provide for the disposition of weapons usable plutonium at the Savannah River Site, South Carolina. This bill will ensure the State of South Carolina will have an enforceable agreement on the construction and operation of a mixed-oxide, MOX, fuel fabrication facility at the Savannah River Site. The bill also provides for clear pathway to remove any weapons-usable plutonium from our State if the MOX facility is delayed or fails to operate as planned. The Plutonium Disposition program is an important element of our National Security. Under agreements made by the United States and the Russian Federation, each Nation agreed to dispose of designated amounts of weapons-grade plutonium. This agreement is a significant step toward safeguarding nuclear materials and preventing their diversion to rogue states. In addition, it has been widely acknowledged that Russian criminal groups are attempting to steal weapons-usable plutonium from poorly secured sites for known terrorist organizations, and therefore most certainly this is a matter of extreme National Security. The MOX facility will be an important economic factor in my State. As a result of this bill, Department of Energy officials will also know that SRS, the largest industrial employer in my State, will be ready and eager to accept new missions and create jobs. Helping the Savannah River Site SRS, grow and remain the ``Crown Jewel'' among Department of Energy facilities has been one of my proudest achievements of public service as a Senator and Governor of my State. South Carolina and the Department of Energy have had an outstanding working relationship to bring jobs to SRS while helping to defend our National Security. I deeply regretted the recent dispute over the mixed oxide (MOX) fuel fabrication facility and the Federal lawsuit that was recently filed. I have called for reasoned and mature thinking to prevail in this matter. This legislation is intended to provide the assurances to both parties and restore the elements of trust and cooperation, while protecting the interests of the State and the health, safety and economy of its citizens. Interested parties must not fail to view this matter without taking all the factors into consideration. The health and security of South Carolinians must always be protected. current and future jobs in South Carolina must be protected. The National Security of the United States must be protected. The legislation I am introducing today will accomplish all of these objectives. This initiative is good government and I encourage its support by my colleagues. I yield the floor.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I am pleased to join several of my distinguished colleagues in support of S. 2439, the Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2002, that will outlaw the reproductive cloning of human beings, and at the same time promote critical medical research. During my consideration of the new and emerging areas of regenerative medicine, including nuclear transplantation technologies, two basic principles have guided my thoughts. First, as someone who has taken a pro-life stance, I believe that Congress should pursue policies that encourage the development of life-saving treatments. Second, nuclear transplantation research, if performed under the strictest of safeguards, is both moral and ethical. Nuclear transplantation technologies hold enormous promise for the future of medicine. For example, this research may help those suffering from defective organs. Scientists may one day have the ability to use a patient's own body cells to grow tissues with identical genetic material, thereby eliminating the risk of rejection. Regenerative medicine also has the potential to provide treatments for diseases such as cancer, heart disease, Parkinson's, diabetes, ALS, multiple sclerosis, and many others. Experts estimate that over 100 million Americans suffer from diseases that are candidates for regenerative medicine research using nuclear transplantation. While some critics of this research claim that we cannot be sure of its benefits, we will certainly not know the answer unless we try. Scientific discoveries are never predictable, and we must not hamper the abilities of our sharpest minds to explore the universe, down to the tiniest cell. We do not know the full potential of this research. These scientific advances may help us gain insight into how undifferentiated stem cells begin to develop into the more than 200 specialized cells and tissues that make up the human body. There are untold benefits to be gained from knowledge of the earliest development of these cells. In addition to the advances that may be made in the treatment of common diseases, we may also learn more about human health, how disease develops, and other conditions ranging from birth defects to genetically-inherited illnesses. All of us know people who have suffered from incurable diseases. I believe that we must make every effort, within ethical bounds, to help those afflicted with life-threatening illness. While I respect those who disagree with me, I believe that support for regenerative medicine is the essence of the pro-life position. We must help those living in the shadow of sickness, whether they are cancer patients receiving chemotherapy treatments or diabetics facing the loss of vision or kidney failure. Nuclear transplantation research, if performed under strict ethical guidelines and with appropriate oversight, is an entirely appropriate and morally sound activity. For instance, during nuclear transplantation, an egg is never fertilized by a sperm. Rather, the genetic material from a non-reproductive human cell is placed into an egg cell. Additionally, the resulting embryo is never implanted into a woman's womb or an artificial womb. The result is that a human being can never be born from this carefully controlled research. I want to assure my colleagues and constituents that I am committed to ensuring the safety and morality of scientific research. I feel confident that nuclear transplantation technologies can be performed in a controlled and regulated environment which will prevent abuse. While the bill as introduced includes stringent ethical guidelines, I am open to amending the bill to ensure that the strongest protections are put in place. For example, women who donate eggs and those who donate body cells must only do so in a voluntary manner. Additionally, the development of the unfertilized embryo in the lab must be restricted. Therefore, the embryo will not grow past a certain time threshold. I will also gladly consider any other appropriate and reasonable guidelines to ensure the safety of nuclear transplantation technologies. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation that will ban human reproductive cloning but will promote the development of regenerative medicine. We must make reproductive cloning illegal and provide for stiff criminal penalties. This bill accomplishes these all-important goals. Also, this legislation allows invaluable scientific research to go forward under strict ethical standards, thereby establishing a policy that both respects human life and encourages the advancement of medicine. Regenerative medicine technologies such as nuclear transplantation hold out significant hope for those people who suffer from devastating and debilitating medical conditions. Cures for horrific diseases may one day be a reality. We should not allow these promising areas of research to go untapped, and we should pursue scientific breakthroughs that will improve the quality of life for millions of people. I am pleased to stand in support of regenerative medicine alongside former President Ford, former First Lady Nancy Reagan, the American Pediatric Association, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, and 40 American Nobel Prize winners.