J. Thurmond

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Workplace Integrity Act of 2002, a bill that would monitor and greatly restrict the time spent by Federal employees on union-related activities. Federal spending on union activities is spiraling out of control, and this legislation, if enacted into law, would send a message to the American people that Congress is committed to curbing wasteful practices in our government. I think that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle would agree that we have a duty to ensure that limited monies are used both reasonably and efficiently. One area of labor-related spending that should be closely examined is the use of official time. Official time is paid time when Federal employees represent union employees and bargaining units. Federal employees may use official time to take part in activities such as employee-initiated grievance procedures and union-initiated representational duties. Surprisingly, there are few limits on the use of official time. If costs associated with this practice are not contained, these expenditures will become exorbitant drains on the Federal treasury. Congress should make the fiscally responsible decision to impose sensible limitations on this practice. Although significant resources are spent on union activities in the Federal Government each year, current costs are unknown. Limited studies indicate that the costs are high. In 1998, the Office of Personnel Management issued a report that tallied the costs associated with union activity in the Federal Government. The report found that during the first six months of calendar year 1998, official time totaled 2,171,774 hours, and its cost had a dollar value of $48,110,284. An astounding 23,965 Federal employees used official time, and 946 employees spent an alarming 100 percent of their time performing union-related activities. The report also found that 912 employees spent between 75 percent and 100 percent of their work hours on official time, and 1,152 employees spent between 50 percent and 75 percent on official time. The Department of the Treasury alone spent over $9 million on official time during this six-month time period. Based on the amount spent in six months, it is not unreasonable to expect that Treasury spent over $18 million during the entire 1998 calendar year. This report demonstrates that large sums are being spent on union activity, and I feel strongly that Congress should insist on a regular accounting of these costs. Additionally, other studies indicate that union-related costs are not only high, but are increasing. In 1996, the General Accounting Office issued a report on the costs of labor-related activities at the Social Security Administration. The report found a steady growth in costs at the SSA during the 1990s. From calendar year 1990 to 1995, the amount of time spent on union activities at SSA increased from 254,000 hours to 413,000 hours, at a cost increase of over $6 million. In Fiscal Year 1995 alone, the cost attributed to official time was $12.6 million, the equivalent of the salaries and expenses of approximately 200 employees. More recently, the Commissioner of Social Security reported that the total expenses of labor activities in Fiscal Year 2000 was $13.5 million, an increase of $1.1 million over the Fiscal Year 1999 level. These increasing costs are not limited to the Social Security Administration. A 1996 hearing of the Civil Service Subcommittee of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee revealed that the use of official time at the Internal Revenue Service increased 27 percent from 1992 to 1996. At the U.S. Customs Service, the rising cost of union activity was more dramatic. The amount spent on official time increased from $470,000 in 1993 to more than $1 million in 1996, a jump of 119 percent. I am particularly concerned about these reports of rapidly expanding costs. Despite the high and increasing costs, we do not presently know the total amount spent by the Federal Government on official time. We can estimate based on incomplete data, but we do not regularly gather information that would enable us to know the true costs and spending trends. This is unacceptable. Furthermore, we do not even know the true costs at the Social Security Administration, the one agency where the use of official time has been thoroughly studied. The GAO report on union activity at the SSA found that the reporting system did not track effectively the number of union representatives charging time to union activities or the actual time spent. A subsequent report issued in 1998 by the SSA Inspector General also called into question the reliability of the data collected by SSA's reporting system. The Inspector General's report concluded that almost half of the SSA managers who were surveyed indicated that the system for supervising official time spent by employees on union activities was either somewhat ineffective or very ineffective. These findings demonstrate that Congress must do a better job of monitoring the costs associated with labor-related activities in the Federal government. My bill would accomplish two important objectives. First, this legislation would require the collection of data on the amount of money spent on official time in the entire Federal Government. By requiring the collection of data associated with official time, Congress will have the information necessary to control costs in the future. Second, my bill would help ensure that Federal funds are spent wisely and judiciously. This legislation would limit a Federal employee's use of official time to 25 percent of the employee's total hours worked. I believe that this limitation is entirely reasonable. It would allow Federal employees to spend up to a quarter of their time on union- related activities and would also protect American taxpayers from ever- increasing costs. During a period of fiscal discipline, we should seek to know the true costs of any activities supported by the American taxpayers. I encourage my colleagues to support my effort to place reasonable limitations on the taxpayer financing of union-related activities. By bringing the true costs to light and by seeking to restrain these escalating expenses, Congress will responsibly exercise its power of the purse. Furthermore, this bill would send a message to American taxpayers that their hard-earned dollars will not be spent in an uncontrolled and wasteful manner. To turn a blind eye to costs would be an abdication of our duty to the American people. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Workplace Integrity Act of 2002, a bill that would monitor and greatly restrict the time spent by Federal employees on union-related activities. Federal spending on union activities is spiraling out of control, and this legislation, if enacted into law, would send a message to the American people that Congress is committed to curbing wasteful practices in our government. I think that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle would agree that we have a duty to ensure that limited monies are used both reasonably and efficiently. One area of labor-related spending that should be closely examined is the use of official time. Official time is paid time when Federal employees represent union employees and bargaining units. Federal employees may use official time to take part in activities such as employee-initiated grievance procedures and union-initiated representational duties. Surprisingly, there are few limits on the use of official time. If costs associated with this practice are not contained, these expenditures will become exorbitant drains on the Federal treasury. Congress should make the fiscally responsible decision to impose sensible limitations on this practice. Although significant resources are spent on union activities in the Federal Government each year, current costs are unknown. Limited studies indicate that the costs are high. In 1998, the Office of Personnel Management issued a report that tallied the costs associated with union activity in the Federal Government. The report found that during the first six months of calendar year 1998, official time totaled 2,171,774 hours, and its cost had a dollar value of $48,110,284. An astounding 23,965 Federal employees used official time, and 946 employees spent an alarming 100 percent of their time performing union-related activities. The report also found that 912 employees spent between 75 percent and 100 percent of their work hours on official time, and 1,152 employees spent between 50 percent and 75 percent on official time. The Department of the Treasury alone spent over $9 million on official time during this six-month time period. Based on the amount spent in six months, it is not unreasonable to expect that Treasury spent over $18 million during the entire 1998 calendar year. This report demonstrates that large sums are being spent on union activity, and I feel strongly that Congress should insist on a regular accounting of these costs. Additionally, other studies indicate that union-related costs are not only high, but are increasing. In 1996, the General Accounting Office issued a report on the costs of labor-related activities at the Social Security Administration. The report found a steady growth in costs at the SSA during the 1990s. From calendar year 1990 to 1995, the amount of time spent on union activities at SSA increased from 254,000 hours to 413,000 hours, at a cost increase of over $6 million. In Fiscal Year 1995 alone, the cost attributed to official time was $12.6 million, the equivalent of the salaries and expenses of approximately 200 employees. More recently, the Commissioner of Social Security reported that the total expenses of labor activities in Fiscal Year 2000 was $13.5 million, an increase of $1.1 million over the Fiscal Year 1999 level. These increasing costs are not limited to the Social Security Administration. A 1996 hearing of the Civil Service Subcommittee of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee revealed that the use of official time at the Internal Revenue Service increased 27 percent from 1992 to 1996. At the U.S. Customs Service, the rising cost of union activity was more dramatic. The amount spent on official time increased from $470,000 in 1993 to more than $1 million in 1996, a jump of 119 percent. I am particularly concerned about these reports of rapidly expanding costs. Despite the high and increasing costs, we do not presently know the total amount spent by the Federal Government on official time. We can estimate based on incomplete data, but we do not regularly gather information that would enable us to know the true costs and spending trends. This is unacceptable. Furthermore, we do not even know the true costs at the Social Security Administration, the one agency where the use of official time has been thoroughly studied. The GAO report on union activity at the SSA found that the reporting system did not track effectively the number of union representatives charging time to union activities or the actual time spent. A subsequent report issued in 1998 by the SSA Inspector General also called into question the reliability of the data collected by SSA's reporting system. The Inspector General's report concluded that almost half of the SSA managers who were surveyed indicated that the system for supervising official time spent by employees on union activities was either somewhat ineffective or very ineffective. These findings demonstrate that Congress must do a better job of monitoring the costs associated with labor-related activities in the Federal government. My bill would accomplish two important objectives. First, this legislation would require the collection of data on the amount of money spent on official time in the entire Federal Government. By requiring the collection of data associated with official time, Congress will have the information necessary to control costs in the future. Second, my bill would help ensure that Federal funds are spent wisely and judiciously. This legislation would limit a Federal employee's use of official time to 25 percent of the employee's total hours worked. I believe that this limitation is entirely reasonable. It would allow Federal employees to spend up to a quarter of their time on union- related activities and would also protect American taxpayers from ever- increasing costs. During a period of fiscal discipline, we should seek to know the true costs of any activities supported by the American taxpayers. I encourage my colleagues to support my effort to place reasonable limitations on the taxpayer financing of union-related activities. By bringing the true costs to light and by seeking to restrain these escalating expenses, Congress will responsibly exercise its power of the purse. Furthermore, this bill would send a message to American taxpayers that their hard-earned dollars will not be spent in an uncontrolled and wasteful manner. To turn a blind eye to costs would be an abdication of our duty to the American people. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce thirty-eight bills which will suspend the duties imposed on certain chemicals that are important components for a wide array of commercial applications. Currently, these chemicals are imported for use in the United States because there are no known domestic producers or readily available substitutes. Therefore, suspending the duties on these chemicals would not adversely affect domestic industries. These bills would temporarily suspend the duty on the following: Reduced Vat Blue 43; Sulfur Black 1; Mono Octyl Malionate; Crotonic Acid; Fluorobenzene; Meta-Chlorobenzaldehyde; 2,6,Dichlorotoluene; 4-Bromo-2-Fluoroacetanilide; Propiophenone; Methoxy Acetic Acid; Aryl Phosphonite; Ethanediamide,--(2-Ethoxyphenyl)-N'-(4-Isodecylphenyl)-3,6,9- Trioxaundecanedioic Acid; Oxalic Anilide; NeoHeliopan MA (Menthyl Anthranilate); Alliant (Allyl Isosulfocyante); Frescolate (5-Methyl-2-(Methylethyl)cyclohexyl Alpha- hydroxypropanoate); Phenyl Propyl Alcohol (Benxyl Ethyl Alcohol); Benzyl Cinnamate (Benzyl Beta Phenylacrylate); Methyl Cinnamate (Methyl-3-Phenylpropenoate); Methyl Acetophenone-para (Melilot); Trimethyl Cyclo Hexanol (1-Methyl-3,3-Dimethylcyclohexanol-5); Acetanisole (Anisyl Methyl Ketone); Majantol (2,2-Dimethyl-3-(3-Methylphenyl)Proponal); Agrumex (O-T-Butyl Cyclohexanol); Globanone (Cyclohexadec-8-EN-1-One) (CHD); Benzyl Acetone (Methyl-Phenylethyl Ketone); Sodium Methylate Powder (NA Methylate Powder); NeoHeliopan Hydro (2-Phenylbenzimidazole-5-Sulfonic Acid); Allyl Cyclo Hexyl Propionate (Allyl Hexahydro Phenylpropionate); Thymol (Alpha-Cymophenol); Baysilone Fluid; N-Metyl Diisopropanolamine; Polydimethylsiloxane; 1-Acetyl-4-(3-Dodecyl-2,5-Dioxo-1-Pyrrolidinyl)-2,2,6,6-Tetramethyl- Piperidine; 1,3-Benzenedicarboxamide,N,N'-Bis(2,2,6,6-Tetramethyl-4-Piperidinyl)- P-Nitro Toluene-O-Sulfonic acid; and 3-Dodecyl-1-(2,2,6,6-Tetramethyl-4-Piperidinyl)-2,5-Pyrrolidinedione. These chemicals are used in a wide variety of manufacturing processes to produce agricultural chemicals, pharmaceuticals, fragrances, textile fibers, dyes, pigments, and other products. Suspending the duty on these chemicals will benefit the consumer by stabilizing the costs of manufacturing the end-use products. Further, these suspensions will allow domestic producers to maintain or improve their ability to compete internationally. Finally, the importers of these products create jobs and incomes for Americans workers. I hope the Senate will consider these measures expeditiously. I ask unanimous consent that the text of these bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce thirty-eight bills which will suspend the duties imposed on certain chemicals that are important components for a wide array of commercial applications. Currently, these chemicals are imported for use in the United States because there are no known domestic producers or readily available substitutes. Therefore, suspending the duties on these chemicals would not adversely affect domestic industries. These bills would temporarily suspend the duty on the following: Reduced Vat Blue 43; Sulfur Black 1; Mono Octyl Malionate; Crotonic Acid; Fluorobenzene; Meta-Chlorobenzaldehyde; 2,6,Dichlorotoluene; 4-Bromo-2-Fluoroacetanilide; Propiophenone; Methoxy Acetic Acid; Aryl Phosphonite; Ethanediamide,--(2-Ethoxyphenyl)-N'-(4-Isodecylphenyl)-3,6,9- Trioxaundecanedioic Acid; Oxalic Anilide; NeoHeliopan MA (Menthyl Anthranilate); Alliant (Allyl Isosulfocyante); Frescolate (5-Methyl-2-(Methylethyl)cyclohexyl Alpha- hydroxypropanoate); Phenyl Propyl Alcohol (Benxyl Ethyl Alcohol); Benzyl Cinnamate (Benzyl Beta Phenylacrylate); Methyl Cinnamate (Methyl-3-Phenylpropenoate); Methyl Acetophenone-para (Melilot); Trimethyl Cyclo Hexanol (1-Methyl-3,3-Dimethylcyclohexanol-5); Acetanisole (Anisyl Methyl Ketone); Majantol (2,2-Dimethyl-3-(3-Methylphenyl)Proponal); Agrumex (O-T-Butyl Cyclohexanol); Globanone (Cyclohexadec-8-EN-1-One) (CHD); Benzyl Acetone (Methyl-Phenylethyl Ketone); Sodium Methylate Powder (NA Methylate Powder); NeoHeliopan Hydro (2-Phenylbenzimidazole-5-Sulfonic Acid); Allyl Cyclo Hexyl Propionate (Allyl Hexahydro Phenylpropionate); Thymol (Alpha-Cymophenol); Baysilone Fluid; N-Metyl Diisopropanolamine; Polydimethylsiloxane; 1-Acetyl-4-(3-Dodecyl-2,5-Dioxo-1-Pyrrolidinyl)-2,2,6,6-Tetramethyl- Piperidine; 1,3-Benzenedicarboxamide,N,N'-Bis(2,2,6,6-Tetramethyl-4-Piperidinyl)- P-Nitro Toluene-O-Sulfonic acid; and 3-Dodecyl-1-(2,2,6,6-Tetramethyl-4-Piperidinyl)-2,5-Pyrrolidinedione. These chemicals are used in a wide variety of manufacturing processes to produce agricultural chemicals, pharmaceuticals, fragrances, textile fibers, dyes, pigments, and other products. Suspending the duty on these chemicals will benefit the consumer by stabilizing the costs of manufacturing the end-use products. Further, these suspensions will allow domestic producers to maintain or improve their ability to compete internationally. Finally, the importers of these products create jobs and incomes for Americans workers. I hope the Senate will consider these measures expeditiously. I ask unanimous consent that the text of these bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to submit a Senate resolution which designates August 16, 2002 as ``National Airborne Day.'' On June 25, 1940, the War Department authorized the Parachute Test Platoon to experiment with the potential use of airborne troops. The Parachute Test Platoon, which was composed of 48 volunteers, performed the first official army parachute jump on August 16, 1940. The success of the Platoon led to the formation of a large and successful airborne contingent that has served from World War Two until the present. I was privileged to serve with the 82nd Airborne Division, one of the first airborne divisions to be organized. In a two-year period during World War Two, the regiments of the 82nd served in Italy at Anzio, in France at Normandy (where I landed with them), and at the Battle of the Bulge. The 11th, 13th, 17th, and 101st Airborne Divisions and numerous other regimental and battalion size airborne units were also organized following the success of the Parachute Test Platoon. In the last sixty- two years, these airborne forces have performed in important military and peace-keeping operations all over the world, and it is only appropriate that we designate a day to salute the contributions they have made to this Nation. Through passage of ``National Airborne Day,'' the Senate will reaffirm our support for the members of the airborne community and also show our gratitude for their tireless commitment to our Nation's defense and ideals.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to recall the memory of my devoted cousin and loyal friend. It is with great sadness that I remember my former colleague here in the United States Senate, the late Herman Talmadge, who shared this floor with me for many years. He passed away yesterday at his home in Hampton, GA. Herman Eugene Talmadge was born in 1913 to Eugene and Mattie Thurmond Talmadge in McRae, GA. He graduated from the University of Georgia School of Law in 1936 and then went on to practice law in Atlanta with his father. He continued to practice law until he felt a patriotic duty to volunteer for World War II. He entered the United States Navy in 1941 as an ensign. He was discharged from the Navy as a lieutenant commander in 1945. Senator Talmadge was also the capable Governor of the fine State of Georgia from 1948 to 1955. As Governor, Senator Talmadge focused his efforts on the farmers and rural areas of Georgia. Senator Talmadge distinguished himself in the United States Senate. During his tenure, he served as chairman of the Agriculture Committee, vice chairman of the Finance Committee, and on the Watergate committee hearings. Senator Talmadge continued to support rural areas and the farming community in the United States Senate when he helped pass the Rural Development Act of 1972. This act promoted the development of jobs and infrastructure in rural areas. He gained much of his national recognition during the year long Watergate committee hearings. Senator Talmadge may have best been known for the outstanding services that he provided to the good people of Georgia. He tried to provide the best possible service to everyone that he possibly could. He never forgot those who voted for him, and he was always willing to help his constituents. It was a combination of this constituent support and his strong work ethic that made him so hard to beat in an election. Senator Talmadge was a public spirited, patriotic citizen. He will long be remembered for all his great works in the United States Senate, and for his unwavering commitment and support to the people of the Peach State. He was not only a statesman, but also a true southern gentleman, and he will undoubtedly be missed by a large circle of family and friends. My heartfelt thoughts and Prayers go out to the entire Talmadge Family. May God's richest blessings rest on them and sustain them in this time of sorrow and grief.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor this amendment and compliment Senator Craig for his leadership on this issue and nuclear power in general. This amendment authorizes the Department of Energy's Nuclear Power 2010 initiative, a multi-year program for the Department of Energy to partner with the private sector to explore both Federal and private sites that could host new nuclear plants; to demonstrate the efficiency of and timeliness of key Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing processes designed to make licensing new plants more efficient, effective and predictable; and to conduct research needed to make the safest and most efficient nuclear plant technologies available in the United States. I am a strong proponent of nuclear power because it is among the cleanest sources of energy in the world today. Additionally it is reliable, efficient and abundant. Presently, the United States gets approximately 20 percent of its power from nuclear plants. Those plants in operation currently cannot operate indefinitely. Accordingly, in order to maintain the energy production we receive from nuclear power today, the United States will need to build new nuclear facilities. Fortunately, advanced reactor technologies are now available that are safer, smaller and more capable. As we are all aware, however, bringing new civilian nuclear plants on-line is a lengthy process. Regretfully, considerations such as site selection concerns, licensing impediments, and legal challenges have curtailed new nuclear plants. In May of last year, I wrote to Vice President Cheney as head of the President's Energy Task Force. In my letter, I noted how pleased I was to learn that the Administration was committed to developing a comprehensive national energy strategy that would include a renewed consideration of nuclear power. I suggested to the Vice President, that the Administration consider co-locating advanced technology commercial nuclear power production facilities on existing Department of Energy reservations. Utilizing Department of Energy facilities would mitigate any number of problems associated with building new nuclear plants. To begin with, there is no need to secure new land. In addition to the fact that this is already Federal property, in general, DOE facilities are large isolated areas that are highly secure. Also, individuals living near these locations are usually supportive of nuclear initiatives. They know that having a nuclear facility nearby is not a safety issue. As such, we avoid the ``not in my backyard'' syndrome. Finally, building new nuclear reactors on existing DOE facilities reduces the amount of new infrastructure required as companies would be ``leveraging'' against what already exists at these locations. The Energy Task Force and Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham did not require much convincing. The Secretary called upon industry to determine interest in developing advanced technology commercial nuclear plants at DOE locations. I have been advised that a number of proposals were received from some of the top energy companies in the Nation. When Secretary Abraham unveiled the Nuclear Power 2010 initiative, he announced awards to two nuclear utilities to conduct initial studies of several sites that could eventually host new nuclear plants. In addition to several private sites, the Secretary identified the Department of Energy's Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory in Idaho, the Savannah River Site in my hometown of Aiken, SC, and the Portsmith site in Ohio as sites to be considered. These DOE sites were ideal locations to locate nuclear projects fifty years ago. With the right physical characteristics, experienced workforces and supportive local communities, they remain so today. I believe it makes perfect sense to use these existing assets as a platform upon which to expand our civilian nuclear power capabilities. This initiative is good government and I am pleased that it is included in this package.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I have offered an amendment, cosponsored by my colleagues from North and South Carolina and Virginia, that will provide temporary relief to flue-cured tobacco growers in our States. I express my appreciation to the chairman and ranking member for accepting our amendment into the manager's package. Flue-cured tobacco is produced under a system of acreage allotments and marketing quotas. This system involves both the amount of land on which the tobacco may be grown and the amount of tobacco harvested or the yield from that land. Hence, the allotment refers to acreage, while the quota refers to the right to market or sell the poundage produced on the allotted acreage. Usually to simplify discussion of this system, reference is only made to the term ``quota''. Originally quota was owned by the producers as a tangible asset that could be passed down through inheritance from the owner to his spouse, his children, his grandchildren, or other heirs. Over time as people left the farm, we now find quota owners who no longer have any connection with Flue-cured tobacco production other than that they derive income from the leasing of their quota to Flue-cured tobacco producers. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, there was a view that the competition for flue-cured tobacco leases was driving up the cost of production. As a result, in 1983 Congress passed Public Law 98-180. Section 205 of that act stated that flue-cured tobacco growers would not be permitted to lease their allotments and transfer their quotas for 1987 and subsequent crops. The rationale was that if tobacco growers could not lease tobacco quota and transfer it to their farms, then it was presumed that tobacco growers would buy the flue-cured tobacco quota from the quota owners. Conversely, if quota owners could not lease and transfer their quotas, they would be forced to sell them. For whatever reasons, this provision of law has never been enforced by the Secretary of Agriculture. Therefore, quota owners did not sell their quotas to producers. However, since growers could no longer lease and transfer quota, they began to rent the land to which the quota belongs. Through a United States Department of Agriculture, USDA, administrative procedure known as reconstitution, growers combined the quota owners' farms into their own. Now, the Secretary has determined that USDA will, commencing with the 2002 Flue-cured tobacco crop, began enforcing this 1983 law by a strict interpretation of the rules that define a farm and govern farm reconstitutions. This action by the Secretary is causing considerable confusion and concern among flue-cured tobacco producers and quota owners. Incomes and balance sheets are at risk. This current effort to enforce the 1983 law to force the sales of flue-cured tobacco quota is most ill times. Current conditions make quota too expensive for the tobacco producers to buy. There are two main reasons for this. First, quota owners are receiving ``tobacco quota payments'' as a result of the National Tobacco Grower Settlement Trust Agreement, also known as the Phase II settlement. Second, The President's Commission on Improving Economic Opportunity in Communities Dependent upon Tobacco Production While Protecting Public Health has recommended a tobacco quota buyout. Given the current and the potential income streams to tobacco quota owners over and above the quota's value to tobacco growers, few if any tobacco producers could now afford to buy flue-cured tobacco quota. Moreover, the ultimate objective of the recommendations of The President's Commission is to completely do away with the system of tobacco quotas. With the uncertainty surrounding the Federal tobacco program, it is very doubtful that any financial institution would even be willing to lend money to producers to purchasing quota. My amendment suspends the enforcement of this provision of law for one year, for the 2002 flue-cured tobacco crop. Additionally, it addresses a problem whereby certain local USDA offices are requiring flue-cured tobacco farm combinations to follow the rules governing reconstitutions of production flexibility contract farms rather than the specific rules that control reconstitutions of flue-cured tobacco farms. It also directs the Secretary of Agriculture to study the issue and report back to the Congress within 90 days of enactment of this bill. Finally, I would note that while flue-cured tobacco is also grown in Georgia, Florida, and Alabama, my amendment, as a result of a particular set of circumstances, will not have any effect on flue-cured tobacco production in those three States nor on any other type of tobacco production. We shall be doing our Carolina and Virginia flue- cured tobacco farmers and quota owners a great service by adopting this amendment in order to give the Secretary time to review the belated, unintended impact of this 1983 legislation and to allow time for a thoughtful, deliberate implementation or consideration of repeal of the provision.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference report to accompany H.R. 1, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. President Bush has provided the leadership for this landmark education reform bill. I also commend the conference members and Senate leadership on forging an agreement that revises and improves the role of the Federal Government in the education of our children. The education of the children and youth of our Nation is a cause I have served for many years. In fact, my first job, upon graduation from Clemson, was as a teacher and coach. Later, I served as the County Superintendent of Education in Edgefield County, SC. There have been many changes over the years within the educational system of our Nation in structure, policy, technology and methods. However, there are principles which remain constant. The fundamentals of successful teaching, caring teachers, prepared students, and involved parents, have not changed. This conference report builds on those fundamentals. This legislation reflects the principles set down by President Bush in his education reform proposal. While it does not include all that we might have wished, I believe that it will serve the students of the Nation well. The President asked us to link funding to scholastic achievement and accountability, expand parental options, maintain local control, and improve the flexibility of Federal educational programs. This conference report delivers on all of these reforms. First, I am very pleased with the accountability provisions of this legislation. I believe the testing and reporting provisions are the most promising reforms. School performance reports and statewide results will give parents and educators much-needed information about their students' progress. These provisions, along with the expanded school choice provisions, should provide our schools with sufficient incentives to make improvements. The streamlining of Department of Education programs will allow local schools to focus on educating children rather than filing paperwork. As a former Governor, I am especially pleased that the legislation will also enhance local control by allowing local school boards more discretion in how they spend their education funds. In addition, the legislation authorizes a number of specific programs which I supported as the Senate debated this bill and I am pleased to see these included in the conference report. The President's Early Reading First program will help boost reading readiness for children in high-poverty areas. The Troops-to-Teachers Program is an innovative approach to bring experienced individuals into the classroom and helps our former Servicemembers with their transition to civilian life. Finally, I strongly supported an amendment, the `'Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act.'' This provision will ensure that our patriotic youth groups will be allowed access to public schools. In South Carolina, while we are improving in our educational performance, we have a long way to go. This legislation, will greatly assist us in our goal to leave no South Carolina child behind. Again, I thank the President for his leadership on this issue. I am pleased to join in my support of this legislation which will help improve the education of the youth and children of our great Nation.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, I rise in support of the Conference Report to accompany S. 1438, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 and to congratulate Chairman Levin and Senator Warner on this agreement. Having served both as the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I am aware of the challenges they faced in reaching this compromise. It is a tribute to their leadership and strong support for our national security and our men and women in uniform that the Senate is considering this Conference Report. Typical of all conference reports, this legislation is a compromise between the House and Senate bills. It is not a perfect bill, however, in my judgment it is a bill that responds to the tragic events of September 11 and strengthens our national security. It will be critical to our effort to win the war against terrorism and meet the challenges of the ever increasing missile threat. To support these goals, the conference report provides more than $15 billion. Of equal importance to our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines is the fact that the legislation includes the largest pay increase for military personnel since 1982, increased housing allowance and substantial improvements to the military health care benefits. I am especially pleased that the agreement includes many programs to support our reserve components who are finally becoming equal partners to the active forces. The bill increases full time manning by more than 1,700. It provides approximately $1.0 billion for reserves facilities enhancement and enhances both medical and commissary benefits for the men and women who serve our Nation both as a citizen and as a soldier. As with any compromise, there are winners and losers. I am disappointed that legislation includes a provision that will severely limit the ability of the Federal Prison Industries to sell its products to the Department of Defense. This will have a significant impact on the prison system and its ability to provide programs to rehabilitate and occupy the prison population. I hope we will be able to reverse this setback with legislation that is pending in the Judiciary Committee. Finally, I want to thank Chairman Levin, Senator Warner, Chairman Stump and Representative Skelton for their strong support of Department of Energy programs. The conference report includes an increase of more than $700 million for key programs, including more than $200 million not requested in the budget to begin to recapitalize the nation's nuclear weapons complex infrastructure. As all those who have DoE facilities in their State know that much of the nuclear weapons complex infrastructure dates to the post-World War II era. It is critical that we begin to restore these facilities to ensure we maintain our nuclear capability. This morning the House agreed to this conference report by a vote of 382 to 40. I urge my Senate colleagues to demonstrate no less support for our men and women in uniform and the Nation's security.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to first offer my thanks to the servicemen and women serving our Nation in the War on Terror. Their courage, sacrifice, and professionalism assures us of victory over our terrorist enemies, and is a testament to America. As the first stage of this war ends, a number of promising developments have taken place. In Afghanistan many of our enemies have been routed. In Germany, Afghan political leaders have taken great steps to secure peace and stability for the future of their nation. As we ask the Afghan people to turn towards peace and democracy, it is our duty to help them. Otherwise we risk facing another similar crisis in the future. Tackling the job ahead in Afghanistan will require men and women of the highest caliber. They must be equal parts warrior and statesman. For it is these men and women who will help secure peace for this troubled land and build the foundation for the future of democracy in Afghanistan. I speak of course of the soldiers and Marines of the Civil Affairs community. As a former Civil Affairs commander, and Deputy Chief of the Office of Civil Affairs, I know first hand what a contribution these fine warriors can make. They have made a positive impact on nearly every continent of the globe. In fact, during the last five years alone, over 4,600 Civil Affairs personnel have utilized their expertise in securing the peace and rebuilding the Balkans. Civil Affairs soldiers are warriors of the finest sort. They train to fight and work for peace. Civil Affairs soldiers are experts in humanitarian operations and institution building. Consequently, I can think of no time when the role of Civil Affairs would be more crucial than it will be in Afghanistan. I would like to take this opportunity to call upon the Department of Defense to take advantage of the unique skills that these men and women possess. Furthermore, we owe it to these men and women to equip them as we do our finest soldiers and Marines in accordance with the gravity of their mission. If we do this I have no doubt that these soldiers will succeed in any mission that comes their way.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, Senator Byrd is a man of character, a man of ability, a man of dedication, and we are all proud of him. Thank you very much. (Applause.)

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, 60 years ago I was serving as a Circuit Judge for the State of South Carolina. It was an early Sunday afternoon when news reports began to stream in about the attack against the United States that took place at Pearl Harbor, HI. As I listened to news reports about the attack on our Pacific Fleet, I knew instantly, that the world we lived in was irreversibly changed. All across this great Nation, Americans reacted to the unprovoked attack on the United States with anger, and I shared those sentiments. We became galvanized as a Nation. Americans from all corners of the country rose to the call of duty. Long lines extended from every military recruiting office as men and women prepared to take up the challenge to the security of the United States and the American way of life. It was my privilege to join those who immediately volunteered to serve. I am proud of the service that I rendered as an Officer in the United States Army which included serving in the United States, Europe and the Pacific. The attack on Pearl Harbor was the beginning of America's direct military participation in World War II. For nearly 4 additional years, the Allied Powers fought the forces of fascism and tyranny around the globe. With the passage of time, and understanding the great strength of our armed forces, it may be difficult to remember the challenge our military faced despite our resolve and resources. We faced formidable and determined foes, but ultimately they were no match for the courage and bravery of our Allied Forces. On September 11 of this year, we again witnessed an attack on American soil. As Chairman Emeritus of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I am honored to be in a position to support our President and our brave men and women in uniform in the cause to rid the world of international terrorism. The terrorists who committed this act of cowardice thought they could destroy the American spirit, but as experience taught me 60 years ago, this will only make us stronger as a Nation. Furthermore, I see the same spirit of unity and determination that I saw then. They were wrong then, they were wrong now and we will prevail. Today we honor the memory of those who fought for freedom in that great conflict 60 years ago. As a veteran, I have a special appreciation for the service and sacrifice of those men and women who fought so hard to protect and preserve American ideals and freedoms. We recognize that Americans are again in harm's way, fighting to protect our freedom and our way of life. My appreciation extends to all those who continue to answer the call of our Nation.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Thank you very much. I want to thank all of you. I appreciate every one of you, especially you ladies. You're all good looking. God bless you. (Applause, Senators rising.)

Mr. THURMOND. I love all of you men, but you women even more.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today in remembrance of Mrs. Elisabeth T. Thurmond, my sister-in-law and a valued member of the community of North Augusta, SC, who passed away Friday, November 16, 2001, at the age of 90. Elisabeth Thurmond, who was married to my late brother Dr. J. William Thurmond, will be remembered as a caring and generous woman. She was known for volunteering much of her time to serve the people of North Augusta and she made significant contributions to her community in a host of areas. For example, she was a charter member of Fairview Presbyterian Church and served in a variety of roles within the church, including as a trustee and a Sunday school teacher. Furthermore, Mrs. Thurmond worked to help improve the educational system of North Augusta. She was very active in school PTAs and served as the chairwoman of the North Augusta Parent Teacher Association Council that helped to establish the Paul Knox Educational Endowment Fund. In addition, she was a member of countless boards and councils and often held important leadership positions such as a seat on the Board of Directors of the North Augusta Chamber of Commerce. Clearly Elisabeth Thurmond lived a life full of civic accomplishment, and she was honored for her service as the 1981 North Augusta Citizen of the Year. However, the impact of Mrs. Thurmond's good deeds were seen not only by the people of North Augusta but also across State lines. She was very active with the local chapter of the Girl Scouts of America for many years and, after serving as member of the Regional Board of Directors for the Girl Scouts of America, she was named a member of the national board of directors of the organization. In conclusion, Mrs. Elisabeth Thurmond was a woman of character and integrity. She lived a life of great accomplishment and made wonderful contributions to the city and people of North Augusta. Our State is a better place because of all her hard work, and the impact she made in the lives of others will be felt long after her passing. She was a true American and a fine South Carolinian, and she will certainly be missed by a wide circle of friends.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I rise to bring to the attention of the Senate a true national asset, the Service Members Opportunity Colleges, (SOC). The SOC is a consortium of over 1500 Colleges and Universities across the Nation that have taken on the privilege of educating our Nation's men and women in uniform. Founded in 1972 the SOC was created to ``provide educational opportunities to service members, who, because they frequently moved from place to place, had trouble completing college degrees.'' In fulfilling this primary role the SOC and their member institutions currently serve hundreds of thousands of service members. They work very hard to provide opportunities for our brave young men and women to educate themselves while serving our Nation. Consequently the SOC is helping prepare the future leaders of our military and our country. For this I salute them. However, in addition to their stated mission the SOC, and their director Dr. Steven Kime, have dedicated themselves to ensuring that our men and women in the Guard and Reserve are taken care of when our Nation calls upon them and they are forced to leave school. The SOC does this by using their extensive network to ensure that students called to service are either refunded their tuition or receive credits for later education. Through their hard work SOC has helped create a sense of duty among their member institutions who regularly prove their devotion to this Nation by providing help and assistance to their students called upon to serve. Consequently SOC has ensured that our brave young men and women called to active duty have one less worry on their already heavy shoulders. In these trying times it is this type of duty and leadership that proves our Nation and the American people are without equal. Again, I would like to offer my thanks and admiration to the Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges and their men and women working so hard to make life better for our men and women in uniform.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, I rise today in remembrance of Mr. Samuel L. Woodring, a dedicated member of the community of North Augusta, SC, who passed away Thursday, November 15, 2001, at the age of 75. Sam Woodring will be remembered as one of North Augusta's most visible and spirited citizens. Perhaps best known as the owner and publisher of The STAR newspaper, Mr. Woodring led the weekly newspaper for 45 years and was one of the city's most outspoken commentators. He worked tirelessly to inform the people of North Augusta and to remind the community's public officials that their ultimate responsibility was to the citizens who placed them in office. His work the The STAR newspaper earned him great respect within the journalism community of South Carolina and he won numerous awards from the South Carolina Press Association, including the prestigious Elijah Parish Lovejoy Award for Courage in Journalism. However, the significant contributions Mr. Woodring made during his lifetime are not limited to his role with The STAR newspaper. He also served the people of North Augusta as the president of the Chamber of Commerce, and he was a recipient of the Order of the Palmetto, South Carolina's highest civilian honor. In addition, he served his country with honor and courage in the United States Army during World War II. In conclusion, Sam Woodring was a man of character and integrity who will be greatly missed by a wide circle of friends. He lived a life of accomplishment and made wonderful contributions to the community of North Augusta. He was a true American and a fine South Carolinian, and my heartfelt thoughts and prayers remain with his family during their time of mourning.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, our Armed Forces have again been called upon to preserve our National Security. The Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff previously assured us that the military was ready for this latest endeavor. As demonstrated by the ongoing actions in Afghanistan, they were right on target. As the senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a retired Major General, I heartily concur that the world has never seen a finer fighting force. However, as President Bush cautioned in his September 20 address to Congress, ``Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen.'' International terrorism is an enemy different than any we have faced before. President Bush has made it clear that ridding the world of this evil is of the utmost importance. He stated ``terror, unanswered, can not only bring down buildings, it can threaten the stability of legitimate governments.'' As we continue to wage ``civilization's fight'' we must ensure our National Security structure is prepared for an unpredictable future. Providing for our Nation's security is the most important responsibility of the United States Congress. The Constitution instructs the Congress ``To raise and support Armies. . . .'' and ``To provide and maintain a Navy.'' Since it is possible that we may be facing a lengthy campaign which potentially includes casualties, Senators and Representatives must be prepared to take whatever actions are required to meet this sacred Constitutional directive. Although the Armed Forces have succeeded in meeting this year's recruiting goals, there are no guarantees that tomorrow's youth will volunteer to the degree required to maintain the end strength goals of our Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps. Like all of you, I pray that we are able to swiftly bring to justice those who perpetrated these heinous crimes of September 11. I hope this can be done without incurring further loss of American lives and that diplomacy and international law will succeed in eliminating the threat of terrorism in the future. Developments around the world following the attacks give us hope that some good may come from this tragedy. For example, in Ireland officials have reported important progress in their negotiations for arms decommissioning. Unfortunately, history illustrates that terrorism has existed for over two thousand years. Certain cowardly groups will inevitably resort to terror against innocent people to compensate for their weakness and attempt to achieve their objectives. Accordingly, the President has rightly turned to our men and women in uniform. Several years ago, I argued that; ``we need to take a hard look to see if it is time to reinstate compulsory national service.'' I believed then, as I do now, that the positive benefits to the Nation from compulsory service outweigh any of the conceivable drawbacks. However, the reality is that even today as we face the most serious threat to our Nation since the Second World War, a national draft of some sort is not being actively considered. The military is not eager to return to a conscript force, and others have not recognized the opportunity and value of asking Americans to provide public service as a responsibility of citizenship. Moreover, some have argued against the practicality of maintaining the Selective Service System at all, claiming that its application is now merely a part of the past. On the contrary, I believe that Selective Service is a national security insurance policy in place for the scenarios we are facing today or may potentially face in the future. If, as the President has said, defeating the evil of international terrorism will require a substantial National effort, the United States must be prepared. In this case, the Selective Service System will be needed as an integral element for assuring our Nation's Security. The recent attacks in New York and Washington, DC, and the subsequent anthrax cases have forever changed the way our leaders consider National Security. In response, we must take appropriate actions. I agree with and support President Bush's assertion that nothing is to be ruled out of consideration. Furthermore, I believe that operational readiness or response to a major crisis may require the resources of the Selective Service System. For this reason we must make absolutely certain that this organization is at the highest level of readiness and ability. Sadly, this is currently not the case. Here are the facts. In 1985, the budget for the Selective Service System was $27.8 million. Today, the budget is $24.4 million, which in constant dollars equals roughly $11 million. Today there are 150 fewer civilians and 300 fewer military personnel associated with the Selective Service to carry out its missions. Finally, in 1985, if called upon to respond to a crisis, the Selective Service was capable of delivering personnel in 13 days. Today, we would have to wait 193 days for the first person. Some believe that 193 days is an acceptable amount of time. They argue that the likelihood of a crisis of significant magnitude to require a draft is simply too remote. Unfortunately, such thinking is naive. Recently, the Senate Armed Service Committee held a hearing to examine the results of an exercise called ``Dark Winter.'' The exercise, which took place at Andrews Air Force Base in June of this year, simulated a possible United States reaction to the deliberate introduction of smallpox in three states during the winter of 2002. The exercise highlighted a number of potential problems. Foremost among those was that the medical system was quickly overwhelmed and that public health is now a major national security issue. We now know that bioterrorism is not merely a concept for a war game. The Anthrax cases have highlighted the need to have a rapid and substantial response to medical crisis. In 1987, Congress correctly tasked the Selective Service System to develop a system to draft health care personnel during a crisis. Driving Congressional concerns at that time were the unpredictability of future threats and the availability of weapons of mass destruction, specifically, biological, chemical or nuclear. However, no additional resources have been provided since then and this program remains incomplete. No database exists to quickly mobilize health care practitioners in a crisis. Furthermore, we do not have a validated centralized database of health care skills. Again, there are those who believe if there were a crisis of the ``Dark Winter'' type, the existing resources of the Federal government would suffice. This is absolutely not the case. This past February, the head of the Joint Task Force for Civil Support, Major General Bruce Lawlor, expressed concern about the existing military medical system responding to a homeland crisis. Specifically, he pointed out that the Army medical system has been downsized by as much as 40 percent and ``what remains is not organized for domestic support.'' Further, he cautioned that the current organization ``is not designed to deal with a large number of civilian casualties that could occur in case of a domestic terrorist event. Consequently, he recommended that the active duty military medical system be considered the ``last resort.'' I believe the Selective Service System is precisely the right tool to respond to such a crisis. I envision an extremely capable and flexible Selective Service System. A system that can, when called upon, deliver medical personnel for homeland defense in a matter of days and deliver these professionals where they are needed in order to save lives. A truly capable Selective Service System would be able to identify whatever specific skill was required in order to guarantee the security of our Nation and quickly deliver appropriate individuals to where they were needed. Such a system should require more than simply filling out one card at age 18. In order to keep records current and databases useful, one might be required to update information periodically. I am confident that all Americans would be pleased and honored to do this small part for their Country. Congress would also have to make some difficult decisions. First, women would also have to be considered eligible for the draft. One could not envision a draft of Doctors and Nurses without calling upon the many women who make up the majority of the health care profession. Also, Congressional language prohibits any allocation of resources or implementation of plans for a special skills draft such as I have just described. Finally, an enhanced Selective Service System would clearly require greater funding and manpower. I have previously asked my colleagues to debate this issue, and now is the time for action. I plan to introduce legislation which will strike those provisions of the law which prohibit the Selective Service System from implementing a special skills draft. Additionally, I have asked the General Accounting Office to conduct a study to determine the costs of a Selective Service System capable of performing the myriad of tasks I envision. Finally, In the next Session of this Congress, I will introduce legislation which will require the registration of all Americans for Selective Service at age 18. The 21st Century is upon us and we must recognize that all Americans share the responsibility to protect our homeland. I am confident that all Americans are eager to do their part.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for the nomination of Terry Wooten to be a judge on the District Court for the District of South Carolina. I was pleased to recommend him to President Bush for this esteemed position. Just hours ago, Judge Wooten was favorably reported to the floor by the Judiciary Committee in an 19-0 vote. The Committee's unanimous vote and the Senate's speed in considering him today is a testament to his qualifications, character, and ability. Judge Wooten has spent almost all of his professional life in public service. He has served ably and diligently as a U.S. Magistrate Judge since 1999. Prior to that, he worked as a federal prosecutor for seven years. In the U.S. Attorney's office, he served as the lead Task Force attorney for major drug and violent crime prosecutions. Morever, he was the Republican chief counsel on the Judiciary Committee while I was Ranking Member, and did an exceptional job in that capacity. It is unfortunate that some allegations were raised during the committee's consideration of his nomination. However, once the investigation of this matter was complete, it was clear that there was no merit to them whatsoever. During the Judiciary executive business meeting earlier today, Chairman Leahy and Senator Biden, who was chairman of the committee at the time Judge Wooten was a staff member, both spoke favorably of his nomination. I appreciated their remarks. I was also very pleased that all members of the committee supported his candidacy. Judge Wooten is a man of honesty and integrity, and this process has simply reaffirmed that fact. I am confident that he will make an excellent addition to the District Court.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for S. 1267, the Visa Entry Reform Act of 2001. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor and to have contributed to the drafting of this important immigration control measure. This bill will help America get back control of our borders. Illegal immigration has long been a serious problem in our country. Census data indicates that there are now about 7 or 8 million illegal aliens in the United States, and the problem is getting worse. This is at least double the number of illegals that were here in 1990. The terrorist attacks of September 11 have demonstrated how dangerous it can be for us to fail to know who is coming into our country. Of the 19 men who apparently hijacked the commercial airliners on September 11, the Director of Immigration and Naturalization Service last month testified that his agency had no record of how some of them came to the United States. The legislation would create one centralized database of all noncitizens. It would be updated as aliens entered and left the United States through a modern system of quickly swiping a card at border crossings. Also, the database would be integrated with law enforcement and intelligence information so that all relevant agencies could share and have access to critical data. Morever, all airlines, cruise ships, and cross-border bus lines would have to submit passenger manifests prior to departure so that foreigners could be pre-screened on the database before their arrival. This bill would help address the rampart problem of document fraud, especially for immigration documents. It would require that all Federal identification and immigration papers, including visas and social security cards, be fraud and tamper-resistant. Using modern technology, immigration documents would have to contain biometric data, such as photographs and fingerprints. Further, the legislation would impose greater controls on foreigners who are here on student visas. It is noteworthy that, according to media reports, one of the hijackers from September 11 came into this country on a student visa but did not attend classes. This bill would help prevent this problem by requiring schools to report quarterly to the INS on the student's classes and whether he or she had problems with law enforcement during that period. If a foreign student dropped out, or failed to register or attend classes, the school would be required to notify the INS immediately. Further, background checks would have to be conducted prior to visas being issued, and additional background checks could be done when visas were renewed. The increased government costs for the student reforms would be paid in part through increased application fees for foreign students. Anther important provision would prohibit any visas from being issued for students from terrorist countries. While this is a significant first step, I believe we need to go further in the future and prohibit any visas from being issued to terrorist nations, except for limited refugee and humanitarian reasons. One provision of the bill that was included at my request requires a General Accounting Office study on returning to annual registration of aliens. Annual registration is needed to determine whether temporary aliens are actually here for the reasons they were authorized to enter, such as attend school. This was a World War II-era program that was essentially abandoned about twenty years ago, although the Attorney General maintains the authority to require any classes or groups to register. I believe this reform could be very beneficial to our security. The terrorism threat we face today is no less serious than the more conventional wars we fought in the past. I would also like to note a related problem. Increasing penalties for illegal immigration has little meaning if the laws are not followed. In a hearing which I chaired in the last Congress in the Criminal Justice Oversight Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, we showed that many criminals, especially illegal aliens at the Southwest Border, are routinely being sentenced far below what the law requires. To control the huge number of cases on the dockets in many border states, many defendants are being sentenced far below the ranges established in the Sentencing Guidelines in exchange for guilty pleas. Often, guilty pleas are for charges much less serious than the government could provide in court. To address this problem, we need to increase judicial and related resources in these areas. We should increase the number of authorized judgeships at the Southwest Border, which has already been proposed, and the Senate should quickly consider judicial nominations from the President for existing vacancies in these areas. Also, these areas have inconsistent policies, and the Justice Department needs to work with these districts to create consistency. It is critical that we strictly enforce the immigration laws that are already on the books. We need to do more this year to address the growing threat of illegal immigration. This bill is an important part of that effort, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I appreciate the chairman and ranking member working with me to find funding for a crucial Agricultural Research Service (ARS) Station project. This project will further the research and commercial adaptation of swine waste management. It will be an offset facility located in North Carolina, but is associated with the Florence, SC, ARS Station. In order to fund the start-up costs and equipment rental associated with this project, the full cost to ARS is estimated to be $1 million. The nature of this project is urgent. I hope ARS will fund this program with available fiscal year 2002 funds.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the September 11 terrorist attack has brought to the forefront numerous flaws in how we control and manage immigration in this country. It is now clear that the control of our borders has become a matter of national security. Let me first state that I have no doubt that most aliens who enter this country are innocent, hard-working people who make important contributions to our society. America can continue our tradition of supporting reasonable legal immigration, but I am concerned that we are allowing illegal immigration to get out of control. According to the most recent census data, there are at least 7 and possibly as many as 8 million illegal aliens in the United States. The number has at least doubled just since 1990. This trend is very troubling and has to be reversed. We must do more to stop illegal aliens from entering our country, and we must do more to deport those who are already here illegally. Our previous efforts, such as the 1996 Immigration Act, have proven to be inadequate. This is not only a matter of upholding our laws, it is a matter of maintaining the safety and security of our country. We do not even know how some of the September 11 hijackers got into the country. This is not acceptable. We must do more to track and keep out those who wish to harm our country and terrorize our citizens. The Antiterrorism Act we are considering today contains some reforms in this area and is a step in the right direction. It expands the number of Border Patrol agents, INS inspectors, and Customs agents along the Northern Border. Also, it provides for greater data-sharing, including giving the INS easier access to the criminal history information contained in the NCIC database. Moreover, it grants the Attorney General greater authority to detain those who may be involved in terrorist activity, although we should continue to review this issue and grant the Attorney General greater power in the future. In addition to immigration, this bill contains other crucial reforms that will update our wiretapping laws and allow greater sharing of intelligence and law enforcement information. I strongly supported this bill during Judiciary Committee hearings, including in one hearing in the Constitution Subcommittee of which I am Ranking Member. I am pleased that we are finalizing this bill today. However, this bill is only a beginning. It is a move in the right direction, not an end in itself. Much more needs to be done to protect our nation from illegal immigration. I believe one important measure could be to return to annual registration for immigrants who are in the United States. Requiring immigrants to register each year would help the INS keep track of where immigrants are in the United States, and whether they have overstayed their visas. In addition, it would benefit aliens by helping them prove how long they have been in the United States. An alien registration system existed before 1981. However, the system became inactive at that time due to lack of funds and administrative difficulties. I think the time has come to reconsider this program. Recent technology, such as scanners, can help address some of the record-keeping problems that harmed the old system. There are many other reform possibilities. Currently, when an alien commits a crime in the United States and is ordered deported, some home countries refuse to take him back. This creates huge difficulties for us, especially when the alien has completed his prison sentence. I believe the United States should respond in kind by not granting visas to countries that have such a policy. This would encourage countries to live up to their responsibilities. Also, we need to look into expanding the use of identification cards for aliens, including more fingerprinting. The antiterrorism bill demonstrates that the Congress is committed to addressing the problems we face regarding immigration. I look forward to working with my colleagues to continue our important work in this area. It must remain a top priority. We should not rest until we have illegal immigration under control in this country.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a resolution that would demonstrate the support of Congress for the renewed public patriotism in our country. It would express the sense of the Congress that public schools should be free to post the phrase ``God Bless America'' without the misguided fear that it is illegal and violates the Constitution. In response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, the patriotism of the American people can be seen everywhere. The American flag is being flown all across our country, from homes and cars to schools and playing fields. Patriotic songs are being sung with a renewed enthusiasm at all public places. One such patriotic song is ``God Bless America,'' which was written during World War I and became part of American life. Members of Congress spontaneously sang it on the steps of the Capitol the night of the attacks, and it has been played countless times across the country in recent weeks. The outpouring of unity and love that our Nation has expressed is inspiring. It is truly a fitting response to the terrorists. After all, their goal was to tear us apart, but what they have actually done is bring us together. One small expression of unity came from Breen Elementary School in Rocklin, California, which posted the phrase ``God Bless America'' on a marquee in front of the school. Given the patriotism all across our country, this small expression of resolve would not seem to be newsworthy. After all, these words are part of the history and fabric of our country. These words demonstrate the spirit of America. Unfortunately, there are a few who do not agree, and do not support Breen Elementary's display of patriotism. The American Civil Liberties Union has demanded that the school remove the slogan, saying that the school is clearly violating the Constitution. It even referred to the display of ``God Bless America'' as ``hurtful'' and ``divisive.'' To say that ``God Bless America'' is ``hurtful'' and ``divisive'' is absolutely ridiculous. The phrase is also in no way unconstitutional. I have disagreed with the ACLU many times over the years, but their response here is even hard for me to believe. It simply wrong for the ACLU to try to bully this school into supporting its extreme interpretation of the Constitution. Fortunately, the school is not intimidated. Rocklin Unified School District Superintendent Kevin Brown has made it plain that the school is standing firm in its decision to keep ``God Bless America'' posted. It is a decision that is principled, appropriate, and entirely in keeping with the Constitution. We all should be proud of the school for taking this courageous stand. Simply put, the ACLU has no support in the law for its position. While there does not appear to be any Federal cases ruling on the phrase ``God Bless America,'' various challenges have been made to a similar slogan, ``In God We Trust.'' The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, arguably the most liberal federal appeals court, held in Aronow v. United States that the use of this phrase on currency and as the national motto 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 the school is located in California, 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, even 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 Breen Elementary's use of ``God Bless America.'' Both of these phrases show the important role that religion plays in America, but they are not an establishment of religion or endorsement of religious belief. It is also significant that even when the Supreme Court ruled that organized prayer in public schools was unconstitutional in Engel v. Vitale, it made it clear that the case did not apply to patriotic 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 Breen Elementary School. 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 ``an unbroken history of official acknowledgement by all three branches of government of the role of religion in American life.'' This is not something we should ignore or hide. I have never understood why some have desperately tried to remove any acknowledgment of religion from American life. Just the opposite should be the case. It is only fitting that we would turn to these expressions in times of great difficulty. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting the patriotism displayed in Rocklin, California. 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 embedded on our currency, our Constitution has allowed references to God. During this time of national tragedy and recovery, we should not allow extreme interpretations of the Constitution to dampen our patriotism and resolve. This is an important matter that deserves our attention during these difficult times. A resolution very similar to this one has been introduced in the House by my friend, Representative Henry Brown. We should support Breen Elementary School and others like it as they personify the spirit of America.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to express my concern over the slow pace of judicial confirmations in the Senate. The Bush administration deserves to be treated as fairly by the Democrat majority as the Republican majority treated the Clinton administration. Thus far, the facts show that the pace of confirmations is extremely slow and the number of vacancies is extremely high. The Senate has confirmed only 8 judges so far this year, compared to 60 who have been nominated. During the Clinton administration, the Senate confirmed an average of 47 judges per year. In the first year of the Clinton administration, the Senate confirmed 28 judges, which is about average when compared to the first year for Reagan and Bush I. In the final year of the Clinton administration, we confirmed 39. Given these numbers, it should not be surprising that the number of vacancies is much higher today than at the end of the Clinton administration. As of today, there are 109 vacancies for a vacancy rate of 12.7 percent, while at the end of the Clinton administration last year, there were only 67 vacancies for a 7.9 percent vacancy rate. The Senate confirmed almost the same number of judges for President Clinton as for President Reagan, 377 compared to 384. This is true even though Republicans controlled the Senate for six years of Clinton and six years of Reagan. In fact, while I was Chairman for the first six years of the Reagan administration, I made confirmations arguably my top priority. Yet, the numbers are comparable. The Democrat majority often notes that it has confirmed more circuit judges this year than the Senate did for the first year of the Clinton administration. While this is true, President Clinton nominated only five circuit judges in his first year in office, compared to 21 for President Bush so far this year. Also, in the first year of Clinton, the Democrats were in charge at the time. Last year, while Republicans were in control and it was an election year, the Senate still confirmed 8 circuit judges, double the number we have confirmed so far this year. Under any reasonable evaluation, the numbers show that we are far behind this year. However, there is still time to act this session, and make the numbers fair with former Presidents. In the first year of each of the past three administrations, all judges nominated before the end of the August recess were confirmed that year. The only exception is one judge during the first year of the Clinton administration who received a negative American Bar Association rating, and even he was confirmed the next year. President Bush nominated 44 judges before the end of August, and to be consistent we should confirm these judges before we adjourn this year. One pending circuit court nominee is Judge Dennis Shedd, who was among President Bush's first set of nominees sent to the Senate on May 9. He has been a very able district court judge for the past decade and was formerly the chief counsel and staff director of the Judiciary Committee. He has bipartisan support. Also, the position for which he has been nominated has been declared a judicial emergency by the Administrative Office of the Courts. In addition, the committee held a hearing in August on the nomination of Terry Wooten for the District Court in South Carolina. I sincerely hope both of these fine judicial candidates can be confirmed this year. In summary, I hope the Senate can act this year on many pending judicial nominees, and greatly reduce the extremely high vacancy rate that currently faces our Federal courts.