J. Thurmond

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, again, I wish to thank the able chairman.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I wish to thank the able chairman. Amendments Nos. 2191 and 2192

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendments numbered 2191 and 2192. In doing this, I do not in any way minimize the seriousness of the outlay problems that national defense faces in fiscal year 1999 and thereafter. I want to commend the chairman of the Budget Committee for working with the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and myself to reach an agreement on an amendment to help alleviate this problem. We appreciate the assistance of the chairman of the Budget Committee as well as his assurances that he will work with CBO, OMB and the Secretary of Defense to resolve this problem. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to address my colleagues on a subject which is of increasing concern to me. I have spent a great deal of time on the floor of the Senate during our consideration of the budget resolution for this fiscal year and the following 5 years. I have listened intently as the Senate has debated taxes, education, child care, Social Security, Medicare and other issues which Senators have raised with respect to this resolution. It has been glaringly evident to me, and I suspect to some of my colleagues, that there has been little or no mention of national security issues during this debate. No one has raised the issue of defense spending. Maybe its because defense doesn't rank very high these days in the polls which reflect the concerns of the American people; Or maybe it's because everyone assumes that the defense budget is adequate and there is no reason to debate it. I am concerned first of all because I believe there is clear shortfall between the ambitious foreign policy of this Administration and the resources we are willing to provide for national defense. The operational tempo of our military forces is at an all time high. American forces are deployed literally around the globe. The foreign policy of this Administration has raised the number of separate deployments to the highest in our history. Our servicemen and women spend more and more time away from their homes and families on more frequent and extended deployments. As a result, recruiting grows more difficult and retention is becoming an extremely serious problem-- especially for pilots. We are also beginning to see increasing indicators of readiness problems. Spare parts shortages, increased cannibalization, declining operational readiness rates, cross-decking of critical weapons, equipment and personnel foretell a potential emergence of readiness difficulties that could seriously cripple our military forces in the very near future. The Chiefs of the military services indicate that they are on the margin in readiness and modernization. The Chief of one of our military services has recently stated orally as well as in writing that his budget for fiscal year 1999 is, for the third year in a row, inadequate. While, at the present time, the American people may not be expressing concern about threats to our national security or the readiness of our armed forces, we in the Senate are not relieved of our responsibilities to ensure that we have capable, effective military forces ready to defend our nation's vital interests. It is our job in the Congress to examine the readiness and capability of our armed forces and ensure that we have provided adequate resources and guidance to the Secretary of Defense so that he can carry out his mission with respect to our national security. I believe, as I have stated so many times on this floor, that nothing that we do here in the Congress is more important than providing for our national security. I intend to continue to make this point whenever I believe that we in the Senate may not be paying enough attention to this most critical issue. Mr. President, the Congress has endeavored over the past several years to shore up our defense budgets with annual add-ons. However, reductions in the defense budgets over the last 3 years to pay for Bosnia have denigrated the effect of those congressional plus-ups. Almost half of the $21 billion we added to the defense budgets over the last 3 years which was intended to enhance readiness and modernization was spent instead for operations in Bosnia. With the increased optempo of our buildup in the Persian Gulf, the strain on our military forces and budgets is more and more evident. As many of you are aware, we face a potentially serious problem of $3.6 billion resulting from scoring differences between the Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget. The chairman of the Budget Committee, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and I were able to work out an amendment to help alleviate this problem. We appreciate the assistance of the chairman of the Budget Committee and trust that in his discussions with the Secretary of Defense, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Congressional Budget Office, he will resolve this problem. It is critical that this problem be resolved. Otherwise, the impact on the defense budget would be devastating to our military forces. The Armed Services Committee will begin work on our markup during the Easter recess period. We intend to have our bill on the floor before the Memorial Day recess. Under the budget agreement, the Congress will not be adding funds to the defense budget. I know that the majority of Senators would not support adding funds to the defense budget in violation of the budget agreement. Therefore, we will conduct our markup consistent with the budget agreement. However, I have stated in the past and I say again, I believe that we are not providing adequate funds for defense. It remains my firm belief that we should provide additional funds for our national security.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to introduce a bill to amend the Alcoholic Beverage Labeling Act of 1988. Current law requires all containers of alcoholic beverages to display the following warning on the label: GOVERNMENT WARNING: (1) According to the Surgeon General, women should not drink alcoholic beverages during pregnancy because of the risk of birth defects. (2) Consumption of alcoholic beverages impairs your ability to drive a car or operate machinery, and may cause health problems. For nine years this warning has made consumers aware of some of the potential dangers associated with the consumption of alcohol. While I am confident that this warning appropriately illustrates the hazards of drinking during pregnancy and drinking and driving, I am concerned that it does not adequately describe the negative health effects associated with drinking alcohol. There is no shortage of well-substantiated information about the detrimental health effects of drinking. Excessive consumption of alcohol can raise the risk of stroke, heart disease, high blood pressure, certain cancers, malnutrition, cirrhosis of the liver, inflammation of the pancreas, and damage to the brain and heart. Obviously, there are so many adverse consequences of excessive alcohol consumption that it would be impossible to include them all on the face of a label. The bill I am introducing today, however, will warn consumers of the dangers associated with moderate consumption of alcohol. I am concerned that citizens may not realize that even moderate consumption of alcohol can put their health at risk. A recent study conducted by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) indicates that there is an increased risk of breast cancer associated with moderate drinking. Specifically, there is a 40 percent increase in the risk of breast cancer associated with an average intake of one drink per day, and a doubling of the risk of breast cancer with an average consumption of three drinks per day. The NIAAA study also revealed that a moderate alcohol intake of about two drinks per day can lead to an increase in blood pressure. Mr. President, the use of alcoholic beverages, even in moderate amounts, can have very serious health consequences that might ultimately be fatal. The government has a legitimate and important role to play in helping to assure that Americans understand these dangers. The legislation I am introducing today will supplement the current warning on labels to inform consumers of the dangers of moderate alcohol consumption. Further, this legislation will require that the warning label indicate that consumption of alcohol may lead to alcoholism. Alcohol has an addictive effect much like illegal drugs, and it is important that consumers are aware of this fact. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this critical legislation and look forward to its speedy passage. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

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

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to introduce a bill to amend the Alcoholic Beverage Labeling Act of 1988. Current law requires all containers of alcoholic beverages to display the following warning on the label: GOVERNMENT WARNING: (1) According to the Surgeon General, women should not drink alcoholic beverages during pregnancy because of the risk of birth defects. (2) Consumption of alcoholic beverages impairs your ability to drive a car or operate machinery, and may cause health problems. For nine years this warning has made consumers aware of some of the potential dangers associated with the consumption of alcohol. While I am confident that this warning appropriately illustrates the hazards of drinking during pregnancy and drinking and driving, I am concerned that it does not adequately describe the negative health effects associated with drinking alcohol. There is no shortage of well-substantiated information about the detrimental health effects of drinking. Excessive consumption of alcohol can raise the risk of stroke, heart disease, high blood pressure, certain cancers, malnutrition, cirrhosis of the liver, inflammation of the pancreas, and damage to the brain and heart. Obviously, there are so many adverse consequences of excessive alcohol consumption that it would be impossible to include them all on the face of a label. The bill I am introducing today, however, will warn consumers of the dangers associated with moderate consumption of alcohol. I am concerned that citizens may not realize that even moderate consumption of alcohol can put their health at risk. A recent study conducted by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) indicates that there is an increased risk of breast cancer associated with moderate drinking. Specifically, there is a 40 percent increase in the risk of breast cancer associated with an average intake of one drink per day, and a doubling of the risk of breast cancer with an average consumption of three drinks per day. The NIAAA study also revealed that a moderate alcohol intake of about two drinks per day can lead to an increase in blood pressure. Mr. President, the use of alcoholic beverages, even in moderate amounts, can have very serious health consequences that might ultimately be fatal. The government has a legitimate and important role to play in helping to assure that Americans understand these dangers. The legislation I am introducing today will supplement the current warning on labels to inform consumers of the dangers of moderate alcohol consumption. Further, this legislation will require that the warning label indicate that consumption of alcohol may lead to alcoholism. Alcohol has an addictive effect much like illegal drugs, and it is important that consumers are aware of this fact. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this critical legislation and look forward to its speedy passage. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these two amendments be temporarily laid aside.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendments be dispensed with.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I will offer two amendments. Both of them clarify outlay levels for fiscal year 1999 and thereafter. One amendment is with respect to national defense, and the other is with respect to outlay levels for major functional categories in the budget. Amendments Nos. 2191 and 2192, En Bloc

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I send two amendments to the desk and ask for their immediate consideration.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to legislation that would completely decertify Mexico as being fully cooperative in the war against drugs. I certainly agree with the sponsors of this resolution that Mexico is not adequately fulfilling its role in fighting international narcotics trade: they have failed to take serious action against the Juarez, Tijuana, and Sonora Cartels which dominate the drug trade; there has been no substantial progress to prosecute the leaders of major narcotrafficking groups, even those indicted by U.S. prosecutors; the number of heroin, methamphetamine, and ephedrine seizures are down from the 1996 levels; in all of 1997 and thus far in 1998, not one Mexican national has been extradited and surrendered to U.S. custody on drug charges. In addition, corruption within their law enforcement community, government institutions, and criminal justice system is rampant. This is just not acceptable. However, Mr. President, if we decertify Mexico, the problem will not go away but will only be exacerbated. The progress that Mexico has made thus far, albeit modest, will come to a standstill. With the assistance of the Department of Defense (DoD), Mexico has countered extensive drug-related official corruption with unprecedented reform efforts, including identifying and punishing corrupt Mexican officials; increased their effectiveness against drug trafficking, significantly disrupting a number of organizations; completely overhauled their counterdrug law enforcement agency; and participated in interdiction and information sharing. It is of vital importance that the DoD continue to provide assistance to the Mexican military to combat drugs. If the Senate votes to disapprove the certification of Mexico, the progress that the DoD has made will be seriously undermined. As such, I ask my colleagues to join me in opposition to S.J. Res. 42. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. I wish to commend the able Senator from Alaska for the magnificent manner in which he handled this bill. It was a complex bill, and he did a wonderful job. I congratulate him.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce three bills which will temporarily suspend the duties on parts used to manufacture loudspeakers. Currently, these parts are imported into the United States. The three items which will receive temporary duty suspensions are certain electrical transformers, loudspeakers not mounted in their enclosures, and parts for loudspeakers. The tariffs on these items are scheduled for elimination in the Information Technology Agreement II that is currently being negotiated in the World Trade Organization. Mr. President, suspending the duty on these items will allow a South Carolina industry to be competitive in the world marketplace. I hope the Senate will consider these measures expeditiously. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce three bills which will temporarily suspend the duties on parts used to manufacture loudspeakers. Currently, these parts are imported into the United States. The three items which will receive temporary duty suspensions are certain electrical transformers, loudspeakers not mounted in their enclosures, and parts for loudspeakers. The tariffs on these items are scheduled for elimination in the Information Technology Agreement II that is currently being negotiated in the World Trade Organization. Mr. President, suspending the duty on these items will allow a South Carolina industry to be competitive in the world marketplace. I hope the Senate will consider these measures expeditiously. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to support this supplemental request, and urge my colleagues to speed its passage. I want to commend Senator Stevens, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and Senator Inouye, the ranking member, on this supplemental. It is needed, and the Senate should act on it quickly. The Chiefs of our Military Services have testified that without swift approval of this defense supplemental request, they are concerned there will be significant impacts to the readiness and quality of life of our armed forces. The Defense Department has already paid $9 billion for operations in Bosnia and the Persian Gulf over the past three years and is currently paying the bills for these unbudgeted operations this year, while attempting to maintain already constrained programs for readiness, modernization, and quality of life programs in this year's defense budget. I agree with Senator Stevens, chairman of the Appropriations Committee that the defense budget should not be offset to pay for these operations. I understand that the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici also agrees that the defense budget should not be offset to pay for these unbudgeted operations. The defense budget has been steadily reduced over the last fifteen years and is at its lowest point since 1956, while at the same time our military forces are being called on to respond to an unprecedented number of deployments. Contingency and ongoing operations are draining needed resources for current readiness and the future modernization of our military forces. The cost of these operations in fiscal year 1998 alone is expected to reach more than $4.3 billion. We must not allow the costs of these unbudgeted operations to adversely affect the future modernization, current readiness, or quality of life of our military forces. Mr. President, I know that there are Senators who do not support the open-end commitment of our troops in Bosnia, which the President has requested. I have some concerns about that commitment myself. However, I suggest to those Senators who are absolutely opposed to our continuing commitment in Bosnia to consider legislation limiting or terminating our role there--and insist on a vote on such legislation. This approach, it seems to me is far more appropriate than proposing that we continue to pay for Bosnia--and the Persian Gulf operations as well--from already scarce resources in the defense budget--which further weakens the readiness of our forces and delays or terminates critically needed modernization and quality of life programs. I urge my colleagues to support the quick passage of this much needed defense supplemental request and not require offsets from the defense budget. Continuing the practice of requiring offsets will undermine the capability of our armed forces, many of whom are forward deployed now protecting our national security interests. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services, I report favorably 6 nomination lists in the Air Force, Army, and Marine Corps which were printed in full in the Congressional Records of February 10 and 24, March 3 and 6, 1998, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar, that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, I rise today to introduce legislation to address a serious, ongoing problem between the Executive and Legislative branches of our government. I am pleased to do so on behalf of myself and our distinguished majority leader, Senator Lott. The issue is the advice and consent role of the Senate under the Constitution, and the failure of the Administration to properly respect this authority in Presidential appointments. Too often, when an official holding an advice and consent position leaves the Administration, the President or lesser officials will appoint someone to serve in the vacancy on an acting basis for a long period of time without submitting a nomination to the Senate. The Administration routinely disregards the advice and consent role of the Senate in this manner. The Framers of the Constitution surely would not be pleased. The Appointments Clause of Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution is one of the fundamental checks and balances included within our great system of government. As Justice Scalia stated for the Supreme Court last year, ``[T]he Appointments Clause . . . is more than a matter of etiquette or protocol; it is among the significant structural safeguards of the constitutional scheme.'' The Congress has long recognized the danger of the Executive Branch ignoring its role. The Vacancies Act was enacted to prevent this problem, and it has existed with few revisions since at least 1868. The Act sets forth limitations on acting appointments. It sets forth a logical procedure whereby the first assistant or another confirmed appointee takes over until a new nominee is confirmed. Importantly, it limits the time this acting person may serve to 120 days unless the President has submitted a nomination to the Senate. There are two problems with the Vacancies Act today. The first is that it is being ignored. The second is that there is no enforcement mechanism to prevent the Administration from ignoring it. Today, vacancies in advice and consent positions are a serious problem in this Administration, and many of the people who are serving in these positions in an acting capacity are doing so in violation of the Vacancies Act. Consider the Department of Justice. The President has just nominated someone to head the Criminal Division. That position has been vacant since August 31, 1995, which is for two and one-half years. Also, when the Solicitor General left in June 1996, Walter Dellinger was made Acting Solicitor General without any effort to seek Senate confirmation. He then served for an entire term of the Supreme Court before the President nominated the current Solicitor General. The issue that has pushed the Vacancies Act into the headlines in recent months is the President's designation of Bill Lann Lee to serve as chief of the Civil Rights Division in an acting capacity. After allowing the position to remain vacant for six months, which itself violated the Act, the President nominated Mr. Lee. The Judiciary Committee could not support sending his nomination to the Senate floor. However, rather than sending a new, consensus candidate for confirmation, the President blatantly circumvented the confirmation process by appointing Mr. Lee in an acting capacity. I believe it is essential that the Senate act to stop the ongoing abuse of its confirmation role. Today, I am introducing the Vacancies Clarification Act of 1998 to help preserve our role by addressing two primary problems with the Act today: its alleged coverage and its enforcement. The Administration has an explanation for ignoring the Vacancies Act. The Department of Justice says the Act does not apply to it because of the administrative authorizing statutes that reorganized the Department in the 1950s. In my view, this argument has no merit. These statutes make no mention of vacancies and were certainly never intended to cover what the Vacancies Act already clearly covered. The most obvious flaw in Justice's argument is that all Executive departments have similar authorizing statutes. Therefore, if Justice is not bound by the Act, the other departments are equally free to ignore it, as many of them do. To address this, I propose that the Vacancies Act provide that it is applicable to all advise and consent appointments, unless a different statute provides that the Act is not applicable to a particular position. The second problem is that the Vacancies Act has no enforcement mechanism. There is no way to force the Administration to comply except to retaliate against it or to sue in court. Thus, I propose that any person who serves in violation of the Vacancies Act may not be paid while they are in violation of the law. This would be a simple but effective way to bring the Administration into compliance. My bill accomplishes these objectives by rewriting the Vacancies Act. The current language is somewhat intricate and dated. After all, the Act has existed with few revisions since 1868. Thus, I have attempted to rewrite the statute as it currently exists but in language that makes its requirements and exceptions as clear as possible. Hopefully, this will close any loopholes that lawyers have created in the words of the Act in its current form. It is my hope that this bill can serve as a starting point for bipartisan discussions on reform in this area. It is possible that the Administration may raise legitimate concerns with some of the requirements in the current law, such as that the 120 day period to submit a nomination is not enough time. This is an issue that could be discussed in hearings. Indeed, I am very pleased that the Governmental Affairs Committee has scheduled a hearing on the Vacancies Act this week. It is important that the Senate study this matter and address the flaws in the current process. Madam President, this is a matter of great Constitutional significance. We cannot allow the Administration to continue to disregard the advise and consent role of the Senate. By revitalizing the Vacancies Act, we can require the Administration to respect the Senate's Constitutional duty. At this time, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be included in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, I rise today to introduce legislation to address a serious, ongoing problem between the Executive and Legislative branches of our government. I am pleased to do so on behalf of myself and our distinguished majority leader, Senator Lott. The issue is the advice and consent role of the Senate under the Constitution, and the failure of the Administration to properly respect this authority in Presidential appointments. Too often, when an official holding an advice and consent position leaves the Administration, the President or lesser officials will appoint someone to serve in the vacancy on an acting basis for a long period of time without submitting a nomination to the Senate. The Administration routinely disregards the advice and consent role of the Senate in this manner. The Framers of the Constitution surely would not be pleased. The Appointments Clause of Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution is one of the fundamental checks and balances included within our great system of government. As Justice Scalia stated for the Supreme Court last year, ``[T]he Appointments Clause . . . is more than a matter of etiquette or protocol; it is among the significant structural safeguards of the constitutional scheme.'' The Congress has long recognized the danger of the Executive Branch ignoring its role. The Vacancies Act was enacted to prevent this problem, and it has existed with few revisions since at least 1868. The Act sets forth limitations on acting appointments. It sets forth a logical procedure whereby the first assistant or another confirmed appointee takes over until a new nominee is confirmed. Importantly, it limits the time this acting person may serve to 120 days unless the President has submitted a nomination to the Senate. There are two problems with the Vacancies Act today. The first is that it is being ignored. The second is that there is no enforcement mechanism to prevent the Administration from ignoring it. Today, vacancies in advice and consent positions are a serious problem in this Administration, and many of the people who are serving in these positions in an acting capacity are doing so in violation of the Vacancies Act. Consider the Department of Justice. The President has just nominated someone to head the Criminal Division. That position has been vacant since August 31, 1995, which is for two and one-half years. Also, when the Solicitor General left in June 1996, Walter Dellinger was made Acting Solicitor General without any effort to seek Senate confirmation. He then served for an entire term of the Supreme Court before the President nominated the current Solicitor General. The issue that has pushed the Vacancies Act into the headlines in recent months is the President's designation of Bill Lann Lee to serve as chief of the Civil Rights Division in an acting capacity. After allowing the position to remain vacant for six months, which itself violated the Act, the President nominated Mr. Lee. The Judiciary Committee could not support sending his nomination to the Senate floor. However, rather than sending a new, consensus candidate for confirmation, the President blatantly circumvented the confirmation process by appointing Mr. Lee in an acting capacity. I believe it is essential that the Senate act to stop the ongoing abuse of its confirmation role. Today, I am introducing the Vacancies Clarification Act of 1998 to help preserve our role by addressing two primary problems with the Act today: its alleged coverage and its enforcement. The Administration has an explanation for ignoring the Vacancies Act. The Department of Justice says the Act does not apply to it because of the administrative authorizing statutes that reorganized the Department in the 1950s. In my view, this argument has no merit. These statutes make no mention of vacancies and were certainly never intended to cover what the Vacancies Act already clearly covered. The most obvious flaw in Justice's argument is that all Executive departments have similar authorizing statutes. Therefore, if Justice is not bound by the Act, the other departments are equally free to ignore it, as many of them do. To address this, I propose that the Vacancies Act provide that it is applicable to all advise and consent appointments, unless a different statute provides that the Act is not applicable to a particular position. The second problem is that the Vacancies Act has no enforcement mechanism. There is no way to force the Administration to comply except to retaliate against it or to sue in court. Thus, I propose that any person who serves in violation of the Vacancies Act may not be paid while they are in violation of the law. This would be a simple but effective way to bring the Administration into compliance. My bill accomplishes these objectives by rewriting the Vacancies Act. The current language is somewhat intricate and dated. After all, the Act has existed with few revisions since 1868. Thus, I have attempted to rewrite the statute as it currently exists but in language that makes its requirements and exceptions as clear as possible. Hopefully, this will close any loopholes that lawyers have created in the words of the Act in its current form. It is my hope that this bill can serve as a starting point for bipartisan discussions on reform in this area. It is possible that the Administration may raise legitimate concerns with some of the requirements in the current law, such as that the 120 day period to submit a nomination is not enough time. This is an issue that could be discussed in hearings. Indeed, I am very pleased that the Governmental Affairs Committee has scheduled a hearing on the Vacancies Act this week. It is important that the Senate study this matter and address the flaws in the current process. Madam President, this is a matter of great Constitutional significance. We cannot allow the Administration to continue to disregard the advise and consent role of the Senate. By revitalizing the Vacancies Act, we can require the Administration to respect the Senate's Constitutional duty. At this time, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be included in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THURMOND. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Thurmond pertaining to the introduction of S. 1764 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I commend the able Senator from Utah for the valuable information he just provided to the Senate. I am amazed at what has taken place. This information is so valuable that it could be used, and should be used, in further inquiries into this matter.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise to commend the Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Mr. Chafee, the ranking member, Mr. Baucus, and the Chairman of the Transportation Subcommittee, Mr. Warner, for their skill and their hard work in moving this important legislation through the Senate. Senator Chafee has been most courteous in his willingness to listen to the concerns of the donor states during the course of this debate. His efforts to assist us are sincerely appreciated. Mr. Warner introduced the original bill that would ensure that donor states are protected from the devastating rates of return on their allocations that some of us have seen in the past. His determination and his diligence in this have also been noticed and are appreciated. I will vote for this measure, but I do so reluctantly. The reason for my dissatisfaction is that under it, South Carolina remains a donor State and would receive only about 90% of its share of contributions back from the program. Many of my colleagues may wonder at the intensity with which we who represent so-called ``donor states'' approach this issue. South Carolina has sent, every year since the program began in 1956, more money to fund the highway needs of other states than have been sent back to us. The total loss, in the case of South Carolina, now stands at over $1 billion and will continue to rise. At first, this disparity was justifiable to build the Interstate Highway System across the nation, and our constituents accepted this willingly. There was always the expectation that when this good purpose was acheived, we would then be assisted with our own road needs. After all, we had to postpone tending to our own infrastructure while the Federal Government used the gasoline tax for priorities elsewhere. However, every six years, with each subsequent highway bill, new justifications are brought forth as to why the needs of other states are greater than ours. Those justifications range from air pollution and aged infrastructure in the Northeast to the completion of the Appalachian Highway System. South Carolina has some roads in the Appalachian Highway System, but we do not consider those roads to be any more or less a priority over needs of others in the rest of our State simply because of that status. We never seem to receive the consideration we deserve. All that we ask is that the system be fair. As it happens, not only is fairness in returning to States the same percent as they put into the fund the right thing to do, it is the most efficient system for financing our infrastructure. My colleagues may remember that in the ISTEA bill of 1991, we requested a study by the General Accounting Office on how we should distribute highway funds. The GAO issued that report in November 1995. Its major conclusion was that the amount of gas taxes paid locally is one of the most accurate indicators of where transportation is needed. This makes sense, of course. People should be able to expect the tax they pay to go to maintain the roads they are driving on. Unfortunately, this sensible proposal has been ignored and funds under this bill would be distributed for various political reasons and, apparently, for the main reason that this is the way we have always done it. I support this bill as a first step in finally achieving fairness. It is my hope that our colleagues in the House and our colleagues who will sit on the Conference Committee can achieve greater equity.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I support this amendment, and I want to commend the able managers for the manner in which they have handled this difficult situation.