J. Thurmond

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I commend our able majority leader on his statement and the position he has taken in this matter. I am sick and tired of the Federal Government trying to dictate to the States and threaten to withhold funds if the States don't do what the Federal Government wants. Let us take a stand here today to show that the States have their rights and will not be invaded by the Federal Government.

Mr. THURMOND. Will the able Senator yield?

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, pursuant to Section 303 of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. sec. 1383, a Supplementary Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was submitted by the Office of Compliance, U.S. Congress. The Supplementary Notice extends the comment period of a prior notice. Section 304(b) requires this Notice to be printed in the Congressional Record, therefore I ask unanimous consent that the notice be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the United States Army Reserve is celebrating its 90th anniversary this year, and for almost the past century, this force has repeatedly made important and significant contributions to the defense of the Nation, both in times of peace and war. The men and women who comprise the citizen-soldiers of the Army Reserve, and all our reserve forces, can take great pride in the tradition of service and excellence they have established from the wooded battlefields of World War II to the sands of the Persian Gulf. One organization that has worked tireless to promote not only the Reserve forces of all the services, but the security of the United States is the Reserve Officers Association. Located just across the street from the United States Capitol, this association has been one of the leading advocates for an effective and responsible national security policy for the past three-quarters of a century. Last year, the Reserve Officers Association celebrated their 75th birthday and one of its past National Presidents, Major General Donald S. Dawson (USAF Retired), who served as the Chairman of the Chairman of the Anniversary Committee, made an address that I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record. General Dawson personifies the type of individual who chooses to serve our Nation through the military and I think my colleagues would find his remarks of interest and inspiring.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services, I report favorably 23 nomination lists in the Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, and the Navy which were printed in full in the Records of November 6, 1997, January 29, February 11 and 12, 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. Mr. President, I wish to commend the able Senator from Louisiana, Mary Landrieu, for the excellent manner in which she rendered on this day, February 23, 1998, George Washington's Farewell Address to the people of the United States. Incidentally, Washington did not publicly deliver this address. It is dated September 17, 1796, and it first appeared 4 days later in the Philadelphia Daily American Advertiser and then in papers around the country.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, this morning, the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 3 p.m. by previous consent. At 3 p.m. the Senate will begin debate on the campaign reform bill. As previously announced, no rollcall votes will occur during today's session of the Senate. However, Members should be prepared for votes during Tuesday's session of the Senate. Also, by previous consent, on Wednesday, February 25, at 11:30 a.m., the Senate will proceed to the consideration of the veto message to accompany H.R. 2631, the military construction appropriations bill, with 2 hours of debate in order and a vote occurring on the veto message upon the expiration or yielding back of that time. However, our former colleague, Senator Ribicoff, passed away, and it is my understanding that a few of our colleagues intend to attend his funeral on Wednesday morning in New York. Therefore, I now anticipate the vote with respect to the veto message to occur at approximately 3 p.m. We will notify all Members as to the votes on Wednesday, February 25, after consultation with the minority leader. As Members are now aware, there are a number of important issues that we hope the Senate will be able to address prior to the Easter recess. Therefore, all Members' cooperation is appreciated on the scheduling of votes and floor action.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent, notwithstanding the agreement of October 3, 1997, that no amendments be in order prior to the motion to table the McCain amendment.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, pursuant to Section 303 of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. sec. 1383), a Notice of Adoption of Amendments was submitted by the Office of Compliance, U.S. Congress. This notice contains amendments to Procedural Rules of the Office of Compliance to cover the General Accounting Office and the Library of Congress under various sections of the Congressional Accountability Act. Section 304 requires this notice and the amendments to be printed in the Congressional Record, therefore I ask unanimous consent that the Notice and Amendments be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to address an issue of great international concern. Since February 1997, when Scottish scientists succeeded in cloning an adult sheep, the world has been consumed with the issue of cloning. There are great social and ethical implications of the potential application of this procedure to totally reproduce human beings. Obviously, there is no acceptable justification for replicating another human being, and the bill before the Senate, S. 1601, the Human Cloning Prohibition Act, would ensure that such a procedure would never take place in this country. However, I am concerned that this bill may be written so broadly that it will restrict future promising research which could lead to improved treatment or even a cure for many serious illnesses. The Juvenile Diabetes Foundation informs me that this bill would prohibit promising stem cell research that could make it possible to produce pancreatic beta cells that could then be transplanted into a person with diabetes. As a consequence, many of the horrible complications of this disease, including kidney failure, blindness, amputation, increased risk of heart disease and stroke, and premature death, could be eliminated. Likewise, I am informed by other representatives of the medical community that this bill could prohibit research into treatment of the following diseases and ailments: leukemia; sickle cell anemia; Alzheimers disease; Parkinson's disease; multiple sclerosis; spinal cord injuries; liver disease; severe burns; muscular dystrophy; arthritis; and heart disease. Mr. President, there have been no committee hearings on S. 1601 and, therefore, no opportunity for the medical community to fully explain the implications of this legislation. My daughter, Julie, suffers from diabetes, and I do not want her, or others like her, to be denied the potential life saving benefits of research that this bill could restrict. But without the appropriate committee hearings, we do not fully understand what these benefits may be. This is far too important an issue for us to rush this bill to the floor without committee hearings. While we can all agree that to replicate a human being is immoral, we need to investigate this issue more thoroughly so that we do not deny our citizens and our loved ones of any possible life saving research. For this reason, I will not support cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 1601, and I strongly recommend that this bill be sent to committee so that the appropriate hearings can be held. I yield the floor.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to the nomination of Frederica Massiah-Jackson for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. I opposed this nominee in Committee, and nothing has changed in the interim to make me any more likely to support her. I believe that the President is entitled to some deference in his choice of judges for the Federal Bench, and I try to give his nominees the benefit of the doubt. However, because of Judge Massiah-Jackson's judicial temperament and record of leniency toward criminal defendants, I cannot support her nomination. Judicial temperament is an essential quality for judges. They must be professional, civil, and fair. To earn esteem and honor, they must exhibit dignity and be respectful of those who appear before them. Unfortunately, Judge Massiah-Jackson has shown a lack of judicial temperament while serving on the Pennsylvania trial court. She has used profane language from the Bench, which I will not repeat here. There is simply no excuse for a judge to use profanity in court. Also, we have received numerous letters from bipartisan professionals to the effect that she is hostile and unfair toward prosecutors and police officers. The Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association, which unanimously voted to oppose her nomination, wrote that she has ``an anti-police, anti-prosecution bias'' and that her actions as a trial judge ``at times . . . have bordered on the outrageous.'' The Attorney General of Pennsylvania, Michael Fisher, has weighed in against her. The National Fraternal Order of Police wrote that she ``has made a career of dismissing out of hand testimony by police officers, treating them as second-class citizens.'' The Philadelphia FOP echoed this criticism, saying that her actions ``make it appear she is on a crusade against public safety.'' The Philadelphia District Attorney, Lynne Abraham, whose office prosecutes criminal cases within Philadelphia where Judge Massiah-Jackson has served as a judge, was resolute. She wrote that the ``nominee's record represents multiple instances of a deeply ingrained and pervasive bias against prosecutors and law enforcement officers, and by extension, an insensitivity to victims of crime. The nominee's judicial demeanor and courtroom conduct . . . undermine respect for the rule of law and . . . tend to bring the law into disrepute.'' She then compared this judge to others stating, ``This nominee's judicial service is replete with instances of demonstrated leniency toward criminals, an adversarial attitude towards police, and disrespect and a hostile attitude towards prosecutors unmatched by any other present or former jurist with whom I am familiar.'' An example of the judge's hostility toward police that has created much attention is an incident where she pointed out two undercover narcotics agents and told those in her courtroom to take a good look at the officers and, quote, ``watch yourselves.'' This story was published in a Pennsylvania newspaper, and I asked her about it in writing during the hearing process, which gave her plenty of time to reflect on the matter. She responded, ``I have read the 1988 article and it is inaccurate. I would not and did not make any such statement to the spectators.'' However, the two undercover agents that the article referred to later signed statements saying she had singled them out and referred to them in this manner. She has also made public comments about crime that warrant concern. Although she informed me in response to a written question that she is not opposed to imposing the death penalty, she was very critical of the death penalty in a 1994 speech. Quoting Justice Harry Blackman, she said, ``the death penalty experiment has failed.'' She added, ``It is not a deterrent to criminal behavior.'' Later in the speech she said, ``Locking folks up is a belated and expensive response to a social crisis.'' It is very unusual for us to receive opposition to a nominee for the Federal Court from prosecutors and professionals as we have here. I commend the prosecutors and police who have taken this bold stand. They have brought a great deal of attention to a nominee who is simply not fit to serve on the Federal court. The public opposition to this nominee from prosecutors and police, in addition to the information we had at the time she was considered in Committee, should be more than enough for Senators to oppose her. It should not even be necessary to consider cases and statistics that have been brought to our attention in the past few weeks. Let me close by referring again to the letter from the Fraternal Order of Police. I quote, ``To confirm Judge Messiah-Jackson would be an affront to every law enforcement officer and prosecutor in the Nation. . . . We shouldn't have to have the judges and the criminals against us.'' Mr. President, I agree. I will stand with prosecutors and police on this nomination. At this time, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of the letters that I quoted in my statement.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, Senators Warner and Levin are absent from the Senate this week so that they can accompany Secretary of Defense Cohen on his trip to the Persian Gulf. They are representing the Armed Services Committee on this important trip, and will report their findings to the Committee and to the Senate leadership. During his absence, Senator Warner has requested that I insert the following statement in the Record on his behalf. I am happy to do this for my colleague. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Warner's statement be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize former Navy and Marine Corps members who received the Distinguished Flying Cross in accordance with section 573 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998, which waived time limitations for award of this decoration for specified persons. These awards were recommended by the Secretary of the Navy based upon requests from Members of Congress. These procedures were established by section 526 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 to resolve a dilemma under which deserving individuals were denied the recognition they deserved solely due to the passage of time. I am proud to have established a procedure that enables these distinguished veterans to receive the honors they earned. We are very proud of their dedicated service to our Nation. At this time, I ask unanimous consent that a list of all who were awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise as an original cosponsor of a proposed constitutional amendment prohibiting the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. I have fought to achieve Constitutional protection for the flag ever since the Supreme Court first legitimized flag burning in the case of Texas v. Johnson in 1989. To date, we have not been successful in out efforts to pass a Constitutional amendment by the required two-thirds majority. However, we have come close, and, most importantly, we have refused to quit. Last year, the House passed the amendment with the necessary votes, and I am very hopeful that we will follow suit in the Senate this year. Some say that burning or defacing the American flag is not widespread enough or important enough for a constitutional amendment. I could not disagree more. Since the birth of the Republic, the flag has been our most recognizable and revered symbol of democracy. It represents our Nation, our national ideals, and out proud heritage. Men and women of our Armed Forces have put their lives on the line to defend the principles and ideals that the flag represents. Soldiers have risked and even lost their lives to prevent the flag from falling. To say that the flag is not important enough to protect is to say that the values that hold us together as a Nation are not worth defending. Flag burning may be rare, but even it is, it is not acceptable--I repeat, it is not acceptable. It is not tolerable. I hate to see anyone burn or deface the flag to make some statement. Why should society let even one person wrap themselves around some absolute interpretation of the First Amendment to protect indefensible speech? Have we focused so much on the rights of the individual that we have forgotten the rights of the people? It is clear that the American public strongly favors this amendment. Opinion polls register overwhelming support. Every state except one has passed resolutions calling for a Constitutional amendment to protect the flag. It is a feeling of great pride to know of the sincere national patriotism that this support represents. The House has already acted. It is now our turn in the Senate. We have a profound responsibility to pass this constitutional amendment as quickly as possible so that it can go to the States for ratification. I urge my colleagues in the strongest terms to join us in this great effort to restore protection for the American flag. The flag of the United States, the symbol of freedom and democracy, must always be protected, and forever wave over the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise as an original cosponsor of a proposed constitutional amendment prohibiting the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. I have fought to achieve Constitutional protection for the flag ever since the Supreme Court first legitimized flag burning in the case of Texas v. Johnson in 1989. To date, we have not been successful in out efforts to pass a Constitutional amendment by the required two-thirds majority. However, we have come close, and, most importantly, we have refused to quit. Last year, the House passed the amendment with the necessary votes, and I am very hopeful that we will follow suit in the Senate this year. Some say that burning or defacing the American flag is not widespread enough or important enough for a constitutional amendment. I could not disagree more. Since the birth of the Republic, the flag has been our most recognizable and revered symbol of democracy. It represents our Nation, our national ideals, and out proud heritage. Men and women of our Armed Forces have put their lives on the line to defend the principles and ideals that the flag represents. Soldiers have risked and even lost their lives to prevent the flag from falling. To say that the flag is not important enough to protect is to say that the values that hold us together as a Nation are not worth defending. Flag burning may be rare, but even it is, it is not acceptable--I repeat, it is not acceptable. It is not tolerable. I hate to see anyone burn or deface the flag to make some statement. Why should society let even one person wrap themselves around some absolute interpretation of the First Amendment to protect indefensible speech? Have we focused so much on the rights of the individual that we have forgotten the rights of the people? It is clear that the American public strongly favors this amendment. Opinion polls register overwhelming support. Every state except one has passed resolutions calling for a Constitutional amendment to protect the flag. It is a feeling of great pride to know of the sincere national patriotism that this support represents. The House has already acted. It is now our turn in the Senate. We have a profound responsibility to pass this constitutional amendment as quickly as possible so that it can go to the States for ratification. I urge my colleagues in the strongest terms to join us in this great effort to restore protection for the American flag. The flag of the United States, the symbol of freedom and democracy, must always be protected, and forever wave over the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Mr. THURMOND

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

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a man a number of us, especially those who are members of the Armed Services Committee, have come to know over the past several years, Captain John Lynch who retired from the United States Navy during the Christmas Recess. There are few careers more demanding or rewarding than those in our armed forces, and in, 1972, John Lynch joined the Navy. Despite Richard Nixon's overwhelming re-election to the Presidency, this was a tension charged era in our Nation, we were in the waning days of our involvement in Vietnam and most young people were seeking ways to avoid military service. Few people were actually entering the armed services on their own volition, but John was an exception, and his spirit of patriotism and selflessness would serve him well throughout his career. In 1974, a young John Lynch donned cap and gown and accepted his bachelor's degree in Industrial Education and earned a commission as an Ensign. Leaving the comfortable and familiar campus of The College of New Jersey, he headed south to the hot, humid weather of the Florida panhandle and the vocal, uncompromising, and unforgiving Marine Corps Drill Instructors who put the aviation candidates through their paces and initiated them into the life of the military. By the time then Ensign Lynch graduated from flight school, Vietnamization was fully in place and responsibility for prosecuting the war was squarely on the shoulders of the Republic of Vietnam. Though American military personnel were no longer involved in a ``shooting war'', the United States was certainly locked into a tense, dangerous, and sometimes deadly Cold War with communist nations. During this period in our history, the United States and, primarily, the former Soviet Union stared at each other over fortified borders, and tested each other's defenses and military capabilities. Certainly one key element in how this Cold War was prosecuted was anti-submarine warfare, where American and Soviet submariners shadowed and evaded each other and the ships and aircraft that tried to detect and monitor their activities. It was as a part of this nuclear weapons cat and mouse game that John Lynch cut his teeth as a young Naval officer and aviator, flying operations looking for Soviet submarines. As many will remember, the Cold War would heat up from time to time, and there was a period in the 1980's when events in the Middle East forced the United States to use force to protect our citizens, interests, and security. Inflammatory and hateful rhetoric espoused by radical leaders, coupled with things such as the infamous ``Line of Death'', the bombing of the Marine Barracks in Beirut, and a campaign of terror directed at the United States and her allies that brought American military assets to bear in the Mediterranean, and John Lynch was among those deployed to that region. As a matter of fact, as the Officer in Charge of the Navy's first dual SH-60B helicopter detachment aboard the U.S.S. Halyburton as it conducted operations off the coast of Libya, John logged nine combat flights in support of the fleet. Those experiences demonstrated the competence, composure, and courage of John Lynch, the essential qualities of any successful leader, whether he or she be in the military, the government, or the private sector. They certainly benefitted him, and those who served under him in HSL-42, during Operation Desert Shield/Storm. Of course, Captain Lynch's career was not all dangerous missions flown in the cramped cockpit of Navy helicopters, throughout his 24- years in the service, he held a number of different assignments that promoted Naval rotor wing aviation, including at IBM; Naval Air Station North Island, San Diego; Naval Aide and Flag Secretary at Naval Air Station Jacksonville; and on the staff of the Chief of Naval Operations for Surface Warfare. He earned a Master's Degree from the University of Southern California while he was stationed in San Diego. He also participated in the LEGIS Fellows Program, serving as a Military Legislative Assistant to my friend, United States Representative Tillie Fowler. It was during his almost three year tenure as Director of Senate Affairs in the Office of the Secretary of Defense that we came to know John Lynch. In that position, the Captain was responsible for being the liaison between the Department of Defense and all Senators and their staffers, though his primarily interaction was with the members and staff of the Armed Services Committee. A gregarious and competent man, Captain Lynch was an excellent representative of the Secretary of Defense who rendered an important service, helped facilitate positive relations between the Pentagon and the Senate, and made certain that the positions of the Secretary of Defense and the Executive Branch were well represented. He was unquestionably professional and accommodating and he set an excellent example for all those who worked for him in the Office of Senate Affairs, as well as for his successor. After more than 20 years in service to the Navy and the Nation, it must be difficult for Captain Lynch to begin a new career, but he can look back on his time as a Naval Officer and take great satisfaction and pride in a job well done. His efforts helped to assure that the United States and her citizens were well protected, and I know Captain Lynch must be proud that his eldest son, Shaun, has chosen to follow in his father's public spirited footsteps by attending the Naval Academy and serving the Nation. I wish John Lynch, his wife Linda, son Shaun, and daughters Laurne and Kelly health, happiness, and success in the years to come.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to address the comments made by James R. Schlesinger, the former Secretary of Defense, Secretary of Energy, and Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, in his appearance last week before the Committee on Armed Services. The purpose of the hearing was to review the Quadrennial Defense Review of the Department of Defense, and the report of the National Defense Panel, in order to determine what measures are necessary to ensure our national security establishment is able to meet the threats of today and tomorrow. The testimony provided by Secretary Schlesinger was very sobering in that he provided the Committee with a clear picture of the crisis we are facing due to the imbalance between our foreign policy commitments and the diminished capabilities of our Armed Forces. In his own words, ``By early in the next century, at the latest, we shall be obligated to spend far greater sums on procurement. Alternatively, we can watch the force structure itself age and erode--until it will no longer be capable of sustaining the ambitious foreign policy that we have embraced.'' Mr. President, it is unfortunate that the entire Senate was not able to attend last week's hearing and discuss the problems outlined by Secretary Schlesinger. I believe it is important, especially at a time when the U.S. military may once again be called upon to protect our interests in the Persian Gulf, for all of the members to fully understand the extent to which our military capability has diminished in recent years, and the impact this will have upon our ability to pursue an aggressive foreign policy. Therefore, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the statement provided by Secretary Schlesinger to the Committee on Armed Services be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, pursuant to Section 303 of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. sec. 1383), a Supplementary Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was submitted by the Office of Compliance, U.S. Congress. This Supplementary Notice requests further comment on proposed amendments to procedural rules previously adopted implementing various labor and employment and public access laws to covered employees within the Legislative Branch. Section 304(b) requires this Notice to be printed in the Congressional Record, therefore I ask unanimous consent that the notice be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to advise Members of the Senate why I have objected to the Senate consideration of H.R. 2513. This bill, which was sent by the House to the Senate in the closing days of this session, would provide tax relief for certain matters involving active financing income from foreign personal holding company income and sale of stock in agricultural processors to certain farmers' cooperatives. First of all, Mr. President, I have no objection to the provisions which provide tax relief in these matters. However, I do object to the manner in which the House has proposed that we pay for these tax reductions. The use of sales of defense stockpiles to finance these tax relief measures is, in my opinion, inappropriate and inconsistent with section 311 of the Budget Act. While I am removing my objection to the consideration of H.R. 2513, I want to make clear to Members in both the Senate and the House that I do not consider that a precedent is being established for using defense assets as offsets for non-defense-related expenditures. I want to make it clear also that I intend to object to any similar tax relief legislation which is paid for in such a manner in the future. As the majority leader moves to close out the remaining business so that the Senate can adjourn, I want to take this opportunity to commend him for his superb leadership and the outstanding manner in which he has managed the Senate's business as the majority leader. I look forward to continuing to work with him in the future.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I am saddened to report the passing of a longtime friend, a man of integrity and honor, and someone who was well respected throughout the United States, Dr. Bob Jones, Jr. Dr. Jones was the chancellor and chairman of the fundamentalist Christian Bob Jones University, which was founded by his father in 1927 and moved to South Carolina in 1947. Students who attend this institution learn the fundamentals of Christianity while gaining a valuable education that will prepare them for their future. The university's talented and devoted staff of educators make many contributions to the world through their service to the community and their dedication to teaching others the truths of the Bible. Graduates of Bob Jones University are employed throughout the Nation in many different fields, but each possesses the qualities and values of a good Christian upbringing, and are sound in both mind and body. In addition to his service at the university, Dr. Jones was a well respected preacher and Christian leader throughout the Nation. Addressing crowds at church services, conferences, and meetings around the world, he was often touted as an evangelical leader who gained an unequaled respect and admiration from those who had the privilege of hearing him speak. Words cannot possibly express the degree of his devotion to the Christian faith, his community, family, and friends. His death has left a large void that will serve to remind us of the great impact he had upon each of these. Dr. Jones was a dear friend of mine, and I feel a deep loss in his death, as do so many throughout our Nation. His family, which includes his wife, Fannie May Holmes Jones; his three children; 10 grandchildren; and his three great-grandchildren, all have my deepest sympathies. They have lost a wonderful husband, father, grandfather, and great-grandfather, and South Carolina has lost an irreplaceable son.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. I want to express my deep appreciation to the majority leader and the minority leader. In a few minutes, I will have a few words to say about them.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, as we come to the end of the session, I want to say that the Senate could not run without competent people. We have been fortunate to have an outstanding majority leader in Senator Lott, who is a man of integrity, ability, and dedication, and an outstanding man in the minority leader, too, Senator Daschle. Both of them have performed outstanding service to their country and this body. I predict that, someday, Senator Lott may become our President. I also want to thank our leadership, including Senators Nickles, Craig, Mack, Coverdell, and McConnell, all who have cooperated and worked together to bring about the results that we have obtained. Now, Mr. President, I want to compliment some other people, too, and I will read their names: Elizabeth Greene, David Schiappa, Greer Amburn, of the Republican floor staff; the Democratic floor staff, Lula Davis and Marty Paone; the cloakroom staff, Brad Holsclaw, Laura Martin, Tripp Baird, and Mike Smythers. I also want to thank the Secretary of the Senate, Gary Sisco; the Sergeant at Arms, Greg Casey; the Senate Chaplain, Lloyd J. Ogilvie; the clerks of the Senate; the Senate Parliamentarians, the Official Reporters of the Senate, and the Senate Pages, who have all contributed to make this a successful session. We are very proud to commend them for their outstanding work. At the close of the session, I want to say that a lot has been done here. In years to come, people can look back and say that the 105th session of Congress accomplished a great deal. It is because of these leaders here and their staffs who worked hard. We could not run this place without these competent staff members. I am very proud of all of them. Mr. President, in closing, I want to say that it has been a pleasure to work with all these people, the Senators and the staffs. As the holiday season approaches, I wish them all a happy Thanksgiving and a merry Christmas. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services, I report favorably one nomination list in the Navy which was printed in full in the Congressional Record of October 29, 1997, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar, that this nomination lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators:

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Nebraska, Senator Hagel.